2016-09-08 City Commission - Full Minutes-1467

City of Miami
City Hall
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
www.miamigov.com
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, September 8, 2016
9:00 AM
Regular Meeting
City Hall Commission Chambers
City Commission
Tomás Regalado, Mayor
Keon Hardemon, Chair
Ken Russell, Vice Chair
Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner District One
Frank Carollo, Commissioner District Three
Francis Suarez, Commissioner District Four
Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager
Victoria Méndez, City Attorney
Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk
City Commission Meeting Minutes September 8, 2016
CONTENTS
PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
AM - APPROVING MINUTES
MV - MAYORAL VETOES
CA - CONSENT AGENDA
PA - PERSONAL APPEARANCES
PH - PUBLIC HEARINGS
SR - SECOND READING ORDINANCES
FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES
RE - RESOLUTIONS
BC - BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
DI - DISCUSSION ITEMS
PART B
PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM(S)
MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
M - MAYOR'S ITEMS
D1 - DISTRICT 1 ITEMS
FUTURE LEGISLATION
9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Present: Commissioner Gort, Vice Chair Russell, Commissioner Carollo, Commissioner Suarez
and Chair Hardemon
On the 8th day of September 2016, the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, met at its
regular meeting place in City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, in regular
session. The Commission Meeting was called to order by Chair Hardemon at 9:02 a.m.,
recessed at 12:02 p.m., reconvened at 2:35 p.m., and adjourned at 8:28 p.m.
Note for the Record: Commissioner Carollo entered the Commission chambers at 9:07 a.m.,
City of Miami Page 2 Printed on 10/24/2016
Commissioner Gort entered the Commission chambers at 9:07 a.m.,Commissioner Suarez

entered the Commission chambers at 9:11a.m. and Vice Chair Russell entered the Commission
chambers at 9:21 a.m.
ALSO PRESENT:
Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager

Victoria Méndez, City Attorney
Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk
Chair Hardemon: Welcome to the September 8, 2016 meeting of the City of Miami City
Commission in these historic chambers. The members of the City Commission are Wifredo Gort,
Frank Carollo, Francis Suarez; Ken Russell, the Vice Chair; and myself, Keon Hardemon. Also
on the dais are Daniel J. Alfonso, our City Manager; Victoria Méndez, the City Attorney; and
Todd Hannon, our City Clerk. The meeting will be opened with a prayer, and then followed by
the pledge of allegiance. All rise, please.
Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered.
Chair Hardemon: May you all have a seat?
PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
PR.1 PRESENTATION
16-01245
Honoree Presenter Protocol Item
Switchboard Mayor Regalado Proclamation

of Miami
Michael S. Gordon, M.D. Mayor Regalado Proclamation
25 Olympic Athletes Mayor Regalado Certificate of

and Vice Chair Merit
Russell
Alison Thompson Mayor Regalado Salute

and Vice Chair
Russell
16-01245 Protocol Item.pdf
PRESENTED
1) Mayor Regalado and Commissioner Gort presented a proclamation and recognized the
Switchboard of Miami, who provides 24-hour seven days a week, emotional support services
through their telephone helpline.
2) Mayor Regalado and the City of Miami's Fire Department presented a proclamation honoring
Dr. Michael S. Gordon, whose dedication and leadership have influenced medical education
worldwide by providing practical solutions and contributions to medical education .
3) Mayor Regalado and Vice Chair Russell presented a Certificate of Merit to the Rio 2016
Olympic Games participants and paid them tribute for representing the United States of America
with honor and dignity and exemplified the ideals of good sportsmanship.

4) Mayor Regalado and Vice Chair Russell saluted and paid tribute to Alison Thompson for her
volunteer work during the tragic events of September 11, 2001; further honoring her efforts at
Ground Zero as a first responder for nine months after the attacks in additon to all other relief
activities she has undertaken in twenty years of humanitarian work.
Chair Hardemon: We will now make our presentations and proclamations. Mr. Mayor, you're
recognized.
Mayor Tomás Regalado: Mr. Chairman, if you allow me a few minutes, and they're trying to get
Commissioner Russell. He has some awards, some proclamations, and I was told that the
Switchboard of Miami will be a little late, and we have a recognition for the Olympians. It
turned out to be that several of the athletes that participated in the Olympic Games in Río have a
connection to Miami, and we hope to have one person present here to receive several
proclamations, and so I -- if you allow me, I'll just wait for Commissioner Russell and some of
the Commissioners.
Later...
Mayor Regalado: And Mr. Chairman, we are ready to proceed with protocol items.
Presentations and proclamations delivered.
Later...
Mayor Regalado: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: So I recognize the Mayor. Yes, sir.
Mayor Regalado: Thank you.
Presentation made.
APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS:
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, to APPROVE PASSED

by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Chair Hardemon: Commissioners, is there a motion to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes
of June 23, 2016?
Commissioner Suarez: So moved.
Vice Chair Russell: Second.
Chair Hardemon: They've been moved and seconded. All in favor, say "aye."
The Commission (Collectively): Aye.
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.
END OF APPROVING MINUTES
MAYORAL VETOES
NO MAYORAL VETOES

Chair Hardemon: Mr. Clerk, is there -- are there any mayoral vetoes?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Chair, there are no mayoral vetoes.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.
ORDER OF THE DAY
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Assistant City Attorney, while we're waiting, we might as well have you
read the procedures into the record.
Juan Perez (Assistant City Attorney): Thank you. Any person who is a lobbyist, including all
paid persons or firms retained by a principal to advocate for a particular decision by the City
Commission must register with the City Clerk and comply with the related City requirements for
lobbyists before appearing before the City Commission. A person may not lobby a City
Commission [sic], Board Member or staff member until registering. A copy of the Code section
about lobbyists is available in the City Clerk's Office or online at www.municode.com
<http://www.municode.com>. Any person making a presentation, formal request or petition to
the City Commission concerning real property must make the disclosure required by the City
Code in writing. A copy of the Code section is available in the City Clerk's Office or online at
www.municode.com <http://www.municode.com>. The material for each item on the agenda is
available during business hours at the City Clerk's Office and online 24 hours a day at
www.miamigov.com. Any person may be heard by the City Commission through the Chair for
not more than two minutes on any proposition before the City Commission, unless modified by
the Chair. If the proposition is being continued or rescheduled, the opportunity to be heard may
be at such later date before the City Commission takes action on such proposition. The
Chairman will advise the public when the public may have the opportunity to address the City
Commission during the public comment period. When addressing the City Commission, the
member of the public must first state his or her name, his or her address, and what item will be
spoken about. A copy of the agenda item title will be available in the City Clerk's Office and at
the podium for your ease of reference. Anyone wishing to appeal any decision made by the City
Commission for any matter considered at this meeting may need a verbatim record of the item.
The video of this meeting may be requested at the Office of Communications or viewed online at
www.miamigov.com. No cell phones or other noise-making devices are permitted in Commission
chambers; please silence those devices now. No clapping, applauding, heckling or verbal
outburst in support or opposition to a speaker on his or her remarks shall be permitted . Any
person making offensive remarks or who becomes unruly in the Commission chambers will be
barred from further attending Commission meetings, and may be subject to arrest. No signs or
placards shall be allowed in the Commission chambers. Any person with a disability requiring
assistance, auxiliary aids and services for this meeting may notify the City Clerk. The lunch
recess will begin at the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item being considered at noon .
The meeting will end at either the conclusion of deliberation of the agenda item being considered
at 10 p.m. or at the conclusion of the regularly scheduled agenda, whichever occurs first. Please
note, Commissioners have generally been briefed by the City staff and City Attorney on items on
the agenda today. At this time, the Administration will announce which items, if any, are being
withdrawn, deferred or substituted. Thank you.
Mayor Tomás Regalado: Thank you.
Later...
Chair Hardemon: And Mr. City Manager and Commissioners, are there any items that need to
be removed or pulled from the consent agenda to the regular agenda?
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Commissioner, there are -- on the consent agenda, there are
two items that we're going to have to separate so that we can hear them separately, and that's
CA.3 and CA.4. And I would also request that we defer to the first meeting in October DI.3.
Chair Hardemon: So you said CA.3 and CA.4, you want to --?
Mr. Alfonso: To separate from the consent agenda so they can be heard differently [sic]. There's
some amendments that need to be made to those two items.
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): And I believe CA.6, as well, needs to have an amendment.
Chair Hardemon: CA.6, as well; and then DI.4?
Mr. Alfonso: DI.3, I'd like to ask to defer the item to the first meeting in October.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair. Thank you. I'd like to defer -- request for deferral RE.6 to
the October 13 meeting.
Commissioner Gort: Could you repeat it again, please?
Mr. Alfonso: Yes, Commissioner.
Chair Hardemon: To the October 13, you said?
Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes.
Commissioner Gort: I want him to repeat it again; do it over again.
Chair Hardemon: You want him to repeat the numbers.
Mr. Alfonso: So the City Administration would like to defer item DI.3 to the first meeting in
October. I've heard the -- Commissioner Suarez say RE.6 --
Commissioner Suarez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Alfonso: -- to defer also to the first meeting in October. And from the consent agenda, we
need to separate CA.1 and CA.2, to be heard separately, and CA (Consent Agenda) -- I'm sorry
-- CA.3, 4 and 6.
Vice Chair Russell: Not 1 and 2.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. It's been properly moved and seconded to account for the removal to
the regular agenda; and also, the continuances and deferrals. Is there any unreadiness?
Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
Chair Hardemon: That motion passes.
Later...
Chair Hardemon: So apparently now, we're going to move on to our public hearing section, so
right now we're going to open up the public hearing for the agenda items that are on today 's

agenda, not included in the Planning & Zoning items. So if you are a member of the public and
you want to be heard today, please approach the lectern at this time, because this is the -- your
reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, if I may?
Commissioner Suarez: I just want to clarify, because there are people here that are on RE
(resolution) items. This does not include RE items, correct?
Chair Hardemon: No, this does include RE items. It does not include PZ (Planning & Zoning)
items.
Commissioner Suarez: Oh, okay. So this is going to include all PZ items --
Chair Hardemon: No, this won't include PZ items.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm sorry. -- all PZ items --
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): The regular agenda, I believe.
Chair Hardemon: The regular agenda items.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. Can I? All PH (public hearing) items, the SR (second reading)
items, the FR (first reading) items and the RE items.
Chair Hardemon: Correct.
Commissioner Suarez: And if anyone has anything on board and committees; any discussion on
that.
Chair Hardemon: Well, typically, no one will.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, yeah, okay; just want to make sure that everybody understands
that.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, and just for clarity, that doesn't mean that if there's
additional questions, once we start deliberating that we could ask --
Chair Hardemon: No. The dais always has the ability to ask any question that they deem has
sufficient information to give them to make a decision.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you.
Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Ladies and gentlemen, please remember to --
Chair Hardemon: -- say your first name, your last name and which item you're referring to.
Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: I'd like to recognize Sergeant Soler, who's retired, but he's here serving us

today. He's in the background somewhere.
Chair Hardemon: Sir, you are recognized. Brother Muhammad, go ahead.
Grady Muhammad: We in public hearing item?
Chair Hardemon: No, no, no, you -- speak on -- your name --
Mr. Muhammad: I'm speaking about -- Grady Muhammad, public hearing item number 1,
CDBG (Community Development Block Grant), with the funding. I thought that we --
Chair Hardemon: No, no.
Mr. Muhammad: Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: What I'm explaining to you is that if you have a comment -- I know you're
always very prepared, so if you have a comment, this -- the way we're doing this now, this is the
public comments section. And so if you have a public comment for any of the items that are on
the agenda, announce your name, your address, and also which items you want to make a
comment about.
Mr. Muhammad: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: So if you have a comment that you want to make --
Mr. Muhammad: Items 1 through 3.
Chair Hardemon: -- then you make a comment on that.
Mr. Muhammad: PH.1 through 3, yes.
Chair Hardemon: So you make your comments now on those items.
Mr. Muhammad: Okay. In a nutshell, Mr. Chair, with the funding for Community Development
Block Grants, we have two things. We have the problem where we're giving the funds, but the
monitoring and the lack of follow up, specifically with -- in this case, you have two properties:
750, 754, 721, 741, 56th Street and 70th Street. The City gave -- Commissioner Gort, you
remember those -- 10 units -- six units, they gave to the Liberty City Trust. Unfortunately, those
properties are now no longer owned by the Liberty City Trust. They're owned, unfortunately, by
two former board members of the Liberty City Trust through a limited liability corporation . The
members of the public that has paid $85 last year -- Mr. Ben Simmons in this case, specifically --
waited last year, paid $85 to get the apartment, because it was for elderly and seniors. The
current owner violated all laws and hired a management company, moved other people. The
City has not vetted one person that has moved into those apartments, 750, 754 Northwest 70th
Street, and you had people that the City was literally trying to approve to get into that apartment ,
but the current owner moved everybody in. And more importantly, the current owner is a former
board member of the Liberty City Trust, and him and -- the two former board members, Christ
O'Conner and Eric Thompson -- owns the property directly through the Liberty -- 70th Street
LLC (Limited Liability Company), which is a for-profit limited liability. But they was supposed
to been owned by the Liberty City Trust, and they was supposed to create economic development
for the Trust to help Liberty City residents. I don't know how two former board members now
owns these properties, personally. I want an investigation through the City auditors, because the
people who applied are not there. They paid their monies. They're not there. Other people who
-- he hired a management company; just bought it, moved in new people, and the City hasn't
vetted anybody. Thank you.

Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Members from Administration, I know that there's
been some comment about those particular properties in the past, so we want to make sure that
we do a true investigation about what's actually happening with the passing of the properties
from the Trust to this organization that you're speaking of.
Mr. Muhammad: Yes. And --
Mr. Muhammad: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, sir.
Elvis Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street. Commissioners, I'm speaking this morning in
support of the good people of Coconut Grove. They're trying to protect their neighborhood from
lot-splitting and improper re-platting. I'd like to draw your attention to Miami 21, Appendix "A,"
Section 3.2, the intent. Quote: "Properties shall not be platted, re-platted or configured in any
way that destroys a median green space, landscape easement or road configuration that
contributes to the character of the subdivision within the NCD-3 area." And then from Miami 21,
Article 1, definitions: "Green space: An open space outdoors, at grade, unroofed, landscaped,
and free of impervious surfaces." Law is not always clearly written, but in this case, it doesn't get
any clearer. That is the black letter of your law. Please uphold the law. These fine people are
going to testify to all the infractions that have been taking place. Please do the right thing and
protect one of Miami's most precious treasures, Coconut Grove. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. And ladies and gentlemen, also, you can use both
lecterns, so -- because what happens is I usually go right and then left, and then right and left.
So I don't want you to feel like you're being skipped. So if you're in the back of the line, you may
want to -- you know how they do in the grocery store? Everyone in line.
Commissioner Gort: If you want to be the first.
Chair Hardemon: But you're recognized, ma'am.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair, I'd like to recognize that Elvis Cruz left with 45 seconds to spare
on his clock.
Chair Hardemon: He did, he did.
Vice Chair Russell: And he's never done so.
Chair Hardemon: He did.
Commissioner Gort: Must be the first time.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, ma'am.
Johanna Brown: Hi. Good morning. My name is Johanna Brown, and I'm an abutting neighbor
of Battersea Woods, and I would request just two extra minutes of time, so I can finish my -- it's,
you know, a prepared speech again, so I won't -- I know I did that last time, but I feel like I'm
across the street and I --
Chair Hardemon: Go ahead, go ahead.

Ms. Brown: -- okay, thank you. So I am the mother of four young children and an abutting
neighbor and I've given a detailed account of -- based on many hours of research I've done on
this project and I request it to be included in the record and I'm going to reference the document,
but it would take too long to go through the whole thing. And with limited time -- anyway, I'd
like to begin by updating you on the current outcomes we've had with the developer since the last
Commission meeting on July 29. After numerous meetings with the developers last Friday, they
did say they would be willing to address changes in the façades, entrances and landscapes of
each building, so they would look less similar to one another. And I sincerely appreciate the
time and effort they have put into our meetings and potential compromise. However, one month
has not been enough time to resolve this issue, as we have not had an opportunity to see updated
renderings, et cetera. Further, if a compromise is reached, we need to be certain that these
updates will be enforced and applied. And, of course, we still have a density issue, and the
developers have stated that removing one of the five buildings was a deal breaker in this sense.
So I've spent countless of hours trying to sort through this whole mess and I 've met numerous
times with the developers, who I empathize with and who have been forthright and acted in good
faith to try and find common ground in rectifying this situation, as well as follows directions to
the "T"from the City. But there are still many questions the City needs to answer. We do not have
enough information from the developers yet, and it seems the City needs to do the right thing
with regards to enforcing the Code and the process behind it correctly. And at the moment, I
cannot in good conscience support an approval of this plat, and I respectfully -- today I'm going
to ask for one more deferral on this, and here are a few of my additional questions and concerns
I have: Why wasn't the warrant process followed? The intent of the NCD-3 is clear, as Elvis
Cruz just stated. It is intended to protect the low density residential dominant tree canopy
characteristics of Coconut Grove and prevent the intrusion of additional density. It's the
Administration's duty when interpreting the Code and resolving ambiguities to preserve the
intent of the law. In this instance, there's legal wrangling over the definition of "lots"and "building
sites,"that serve to circumvent an essential requirement of the law, but this should have gone
through a warrant process. Battersea Woods is a building site, because it fits the definition,
according to NCD-3 of the Miami 21 Code 3.6.C, which you'll find highlighted on page 2 of my
document. "A building site shall not"-- "shall be defined as one or more lots or portions of lots that
are aggregated to form a single-family residential site." The definition of "a lot"in Miami 21,
Section 1.2 is: "A lot is any individual lot, tract or parcel of land intended as a single building
unit, site or unit having an assigned number or numbers, letter or letters, or any other name
which it may be identified for development purposes. A lot may also be any combination of lots,
tracts, parcels of land"-- "parcels or other areas of land established by acceptable legal joinder ,
delineated by a closed boundary, assigned a number, letter, or other name for which it may be
identified as a single unit for development purposes." All of these lots on Battersea Woods, both
the un-platted and the two platted portions have legal joinders, delineated boundaries, folio
numbers, and legal descriptions. And as such, we think that Battersea Woods is a building site
and a lot, according to these definitions. And because there was a single-family home on the lot
since 1910, it should not be subdivided without a warrant, according to the Appendix "A,"3.6.G.1.
No building sites in existence prior to September 24, 2005, shall be diminished in size, except by
warrant. The interpretations made by the City Attorney flies in the face of the intent of the Code,
and the interpretation and subsequent recommendation of the City Attorney appears to deny due
process to the people with vested interest in this decision. The NCD-3 Code was derived from an
old portion of the Miami 11000, SD-18 Code that was part -- that had lot size restrictions and lot
width restrictions, as well, meant to strengthen the Code in the face of encroaching density. In
fact, SD-18 is referenced in their T-plat letter --
Chair Hardemon: Ma'am, can you --
Ms. Brown: -- on September 11.
Chair Hardemon: -- come to a conclusion, Ms. Brown?

Ms. Brown: Sorry. Yeah. And I'd just like to go on record as to -- I'm not sure why that was
referenced in the letter and I've called Garcia a couple times to try and figure that out, and I'm
just curious on that particular --
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Thank you very much, ma'am. Sir, you're recognized. You're
recognized.
Anthony Witherspoon, Sr.: Good morning, Chairman and distinguished Commission and
members. My name is Anthony Witherspoon, Sr. I am the executive director of the Coconut
Grove Sports Hall of Fame, and executive director of Leadership Prep Foundation, Inc. I'm here
this morning to comment on the acquisition of the trolley station located in Coconut Grove to
house the Coconut Grove Sports Hall of Fame Museum and the creation of the Coconut Grove
Center for Youth Leadership Development and Community Enhancement. The mission of the
Coconut Grove Sports Hall of Fame is to recognize outstanding student athletes, former and
present, and coaches and community leaders who have exemplified exceptional sports
accomplishments while attending George Washington Carver Sr. High, which is now obviously
closed; Ollie and Polly Mays High; and Coral Gables Senior High, from 1940 to the present.
Many of these former inductees are high school All Americans, college All Americans, former
pro athletes; and several are former Olympians, who grew up and was raised right here in
Coconut Grove. Lastly, additional special programs that would house the trolley will include a
collaboration with the Miami Host Committee with Ms. Corky Dozier to create a sports media
literacy program that would train students in the field of sports media and filming ; presently in
discussion with the Coconut Grove Commander of Police in Chief Morales to create extension of
the Police Athletic League Youth Sports Training Program within the trolley; and lastly, program
-- this particular program would create a more positive engagement between teens and the local
policemen in the community. Lastly, it would provide an array of afterschool programs that will
combine real life application curriculum with vital male and female appropriate leadership skills
development, designed especially for teens in the age category of 14 to 18 years old. Discovery
and development of our youth is now, and I would like to lend an ear to the Committee if there's
any questions.
Chair Hardemon: Sir, you were speaking on --
Vice Chair Russell: The trolley garage.
Chair Hardemon: -- the trolley.
Mr. Witherspoon: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: So that's RE (resolution) -- I can't remember the number the -- of the trolley.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): RE.5, sir.
Chair Hardemon: RE.5. So I just want to be clear for the record. And for everyone else,
remember, your name, your address, and what item here you're speaking about, so that the Clerk
has an opportunity to find that item.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair.
Mr. Witherspoon: That was RE.5.
Vice Chair Russell: I'd just like to make a comment, please.

Chair Hardemon: Okay, sure.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Witherspoon, thank you for coming. And if we are successful in
purchasing the garage -- I hope someday we don't call it a trolley garage; that it has a new
name. Once we take possession of the property, the first thing that we would like to do is have a
community meeting in the building; a charrette, if you will, that will be well organized, to get
input from the community on what they would like to see this building become.
Mr. Witherspoon: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Ma'am, you're recognized.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you much.
Larissa Ozols: Good morning, Commissioner, Chairman. I'd like to -- we're doing a joint
presentation on PH.4, so I respectfully request if the next three people beside myself can go as a
unified group, because there's one PowerPoint presentation.
Chair Hardemon: All right. No problem.
Ms. Ozols: Okay. Thank you very much.
Chair Hardemon: You just announce your names for the record.
Ms. Ozols: Yes. My name is Larissa Ozols, 4191 Braganza Avenue. And to start, just push.
Okay, now. Okay.
Ms. Méndez: Miss, could you get closer to the microphone, please?
Ms. Ozols: Yes. The --
Ms. Méndez: Thank you.
Ms. Ozols: -- and speak louder. My name is Larissa Ozols. We've got a joint presentation today
on the platting of Battersea Woods. Last Commission meeting, every -- the Chairman and the
Commissioners tasked us with collaboration efforts with the developer. And we did that, and we
came to consensus on things like the façade and landscape. We also came to consensus that the
Miami 21 Code NCD-3 is sufficiently vague and allows for variation of intent of NCD-3. This is
detrimental to the community, the developers, and homeowners. The key thing here is that
NCD-3 talks about low density trees, the unique character and architecture of the South Grove
and North Grove, and West Grove. There's also -- we're hair-splitting about lots and plats and
boundaries and what is a lot, and what -- What we need is a precedent for future development.
And the Battersea re-plat, if it does result today, is going to be a major increase in density, a
major change in character of the Grove, and it's also going to put stress on existing
infrastructure -- roads, water, drainage, distribution, sewage, and parking. We just can't have it.
And the other key observations when we met with the developer is we saw that they -- the
developers were doing what they were advised to do. There's a lack of consensus with the City
regarding the warrant process, like Johanna said, and it's (UNINTELLIGIBLE). What we need
is a future development process that's fair and equitable for appealing, both developers and
individual homeowners. What's not fair is the City Attorney is allowed to be the sole
decision-maker that sets a precedent for the sake of consistency? The legality of Battersea
re-plat needs to be reviewed by outside third-party sources. It can't be done. Don't make this
decision today. And it's not just Battersea. Glen is going to show you some systemic Code
permitting violations that fly in the face of NCD-3, and in favor for maximum square footage.
Thank you.

Chair Hardemon: You're welcome.
Ms. Ozols: Just push.
Chair Hardemon: And remember to announce your name for the record.
Ms. Ozols: Announce your name.
Glen Patron: My name is Glen Patron. I guess I'm having trouble talking today. 4050 Ventura
Avenue, and I'm to speak about the Battersea re-plat. As you can see by the presentation, it's
obvious Battersea Woods' issue is a symptom of a much greater problem. There are other cases
-- for example -- if I can put this right -- down -- I need help, sorry.
Ms. Ozols: Okay.
Mr. Patron: I'm sorry. Harding Oak Grove has four folios and four separate owners. It was
one single piece of property. And according to NCD-3, it should not have been divided, anyway;
same cookie-cutter design. Ian Court, there's a pool that -- in the front and the wall around it
encroaches on the sidewalk. The Green Space Code has totally been ignored. Was there any
warrant or waiver project -- process? None. You're going to have to help me here. I'm not
doing so well.
Ms. Ozols: Go ahead.
Mr. Patron: Okay.
Ms. Ozols: That's your slide.
Mr. Patron: Okay. But the -- I may not have the right picture here, but the one that -- most
important to me is across the street on Ventura Avenue, 4039 and 4049. I -- this -- these two
structures were built, and there are variance -- considerable variances in the Code, including
lot-splitting. I spent five months trying to contact Planning & Zoning to see if the waiver and
warrant process was followed; emails, letters, phone calls, absolutely nothing, "nada"; no reply,
whatsoever. I'd really like to emphasize that the waiver and warrant process was included in
these regulations, not so that developers that live elsewhere could come into our neighborhood
and destroy it by building any kind of structure that would make more money for them. This
process is so that the residents could have a say about what happens in their community . These
illegal structures are about to be put on the market. I'd like to ask you, Commissioners, what are
you going to do about it? Who'll replace the beautiful trees that have been torn up? And when
will I get an answer to my inquiries? I await your answer. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Sir, for you. Have you finished your presentation?
Mr. Patron: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: You sure? Okay.
Margaret Flonfield: Thank you, Mr. Chairman --
Chair Hardemon: Spent a lot of time away from the dais to get this for you.
Ms. Flonfield: -- and the Commissioners. I'm Margaret Flonfield, 3613 Loquat Avenue, here for
PH.4. The intention of the Code is for preservation, and we're asking that you don't dilute the
unique character of this area. It's the unique character of Coconut Grove that fetches top dollar

for these very properties. Preservation is good for the developers, it's good for the City, it
increases tax roll, tourism and acclaim, and it's good for the homeowner. The current approach,
as shown in the examples that were just shown is short-sighted. If we keep it up, we will lose the
very things that make us want to build here. But I've got the good news slides. The world
watches Coconut Grove. These are all quotes taken from very -- you know, famous websites --
Miamiandthebeaches.com: "What really separates Coconut Grove from most of Miami is how
walkable it is. It feels as if you're constantly under a canopy of trees." From
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- sorry. From (UNINTELLIGIBLE): "If you're into horticulture, you'll be
impressed by the Garden-of-Eden-like foliage that seems to grow everywhere." Trip Advisor:
"Walkable neighborhoods, tree-lined streets. Wikipedia, the font of all information, defines
Coconut Grove by "its tree-lined streets, as pictured to the right." Visitflorida.com: "Coconut
Grove is the most inviting corner of South Florida." So we are talking about a beautiful canopy ,
heritage trees, not minimalistic shrubs that try to pass as green space. The intent of the Code is
preservation. Building is progress; we understand that. But when you pillage a lot, when you
take down every single tree on that lot, and then you build a house, plat line to plat line, when
your aim is high density in a historically low density neighborhood, and when you take away
everything that makes the Grove the Grove -- You lose the trees, you lose the Grove; it's that
simple. And once they're gone, they're gone forever. I ask you as a representative to protect our
home, to protect the Grove, the culture and history and environmental value of the Grove that it
offers us. Don't pillage, but preserve. Thank you.
John Dolson: My name is John Dolson. I'm going to wrap this one up for the joint presentation.
I'm a geologist. I live at 4205 Lennox Drive. I'm a geologist. I'm not a land use planner or a
lawyer. And geologists think long term. I'm going to get you to remember this is a long-term
decision. These houses will be here for the next 50 to a hundred years. Our profession, the
geological one, is laughingly referred to by ourselves as the triumph of terminology over
common sense. I see parallels in the obscure clauses and legal wrangling that has allowed the
intent of the NCD-3 Code to be replaced with debates like, "It depends on what you mean by 'a
lot.' Is it a building site or a parcel? Was it platted or un-platted?'" If it was platted in Coral
Gables and then annexed into Coconut Grove, is it not platted or un-platted? For over a
hundred years, a house set on that property. It had a folio number, boundaries, fencing, and
tenants paid taxes. They certainly considered it their lot or their building site. The intent of the
Code is to preserve not just the Grove's unique character and canopy, but the density. Limiting
lot-splitting achieves that goal, helping the environment, and not over-stressing infrastructure.
Common sense suggests that when you're going to tackle a lot this big with this much
subdivision, that should automatically have triggered a warrant so the public had some input .
Had that happened, the developer wouldn't be in this fix, we wouldn't be in this fix, the City
wouldn't be in this fix, and we wouldn't have spent three years getting to a point of contention.
Frankly, I would hate to work for the City and try to wade through the complex coding and rules .
I suspect that's one reason it's so hard to get a timely response for questions. I think sometimes
the answers just aren't clear. We can't afford to go down a convoluted path again. One thing we
are asking for is an independent legal review of the decision to bypass the warrant process .
Beyond that, we are in total agreement with the developers that we need to close loopholes,
simplify the process, and honor the intent of the NCD-3. Many other cases are pending. It's time
to fix things, and appropriate resources should be devoted to the task of working in a partnership
with neighbors, City and developers to continue to make this a coveted place to live. Thank you.
Olga Granda-Scott: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Olga Granda-Scott; address is

3444 Main Highway. I work -- I'm the executive director of the Coconut Grove Playhouse
Foundation, and I'm here to encourage you to vote in favor of the acquisition of the trolley
station, RE.5. This is -- there is an opportunity here to create a space that builds community
instead of tearing it down or ripping it apart; a space for gathering, civic engagement, and
celebrations of culture and history. As an arts-based non-profit foundation working to restore

the cultural corridor which once was the Coconut Grove community, our research shows that
there are over 1,200 children who live in the Historic Village West community, and over 65,000
children who live within 15 minutes of the property; a reflection of its potential impact to the
future of not only the district, but the entire City if this facility were to be activated as a center for
arts training and education. As part of our work with experts and community input, we have
developed a possible floor plan for the building, which could have it operational by next year.
Emphasizing the importance of public meetings to consider the neighborhood's additional input,
we want to encourage this Commission to expedite the process to activate the facility as soon as
possible, not extending the years which it has been vacant, a liability instead of an asset to the
community. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. You're recognized, sir.
John Snyder: Hi. This is -- my name is John Snyder. I'm a retired college professor. I taught
forensic accounting. I'd like to talk to PH.4. I've submitted some additional material for the
record, including 68 petitions, bringing the total number of petition signers to 197. Also, the
analysis that I emailed to you last -- actually, I guess it was Monday. I want to just point out that
the property at issue here comprises Lots 18 and 19 in Coconut Grove Manor, and an un-platted
portion in Coconut Grove. But parts of the Lots 18 and 19 in Coconut Grove Manor are also in
Coconut Grove. Here I have the warranty deed from August 1, 2013, that shows that these lots,
which are contiguous, were owned by the same person. Here I have a warranty deed dated
August 2. It only specifies as a legal description Lots 18 and 19 in Coconut Grove Manor. This
is what was used to obtain the building permits for Lots 18 and 19. And finally, I have the
warranty deed
from the 20th of October, 2015, just recently. This was required by the Plat and Street
Committee, because the second warranty deed was incomplete. It did not show all the property
that was owned by one person. The Plat and Street Committee concluded that these people
needed to have a warrant in order to develop this property and divide the property. They got an
opinion from the City Attorney's Office, saying that such a warrant was not needed. I believe
that the City Attorney's Office made an error. In Paragraph 2 of their opinion, they say that --
they give the definition of a building site. And the third paragraph is in error, because it says
that it is an un-platted lot. There were two platted lots, contiguous with an un-platted lot.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Snyder: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: Ma'am, you're recognized.
Dorcas Wilcox: Mr. Chairman, may we speak as one?
Chair Hardemon: Sure.
Ms. Wilcox: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Dorcas -- Dr. Dorcas Wilcox. I'm the CEO
(Chief Executive Officer) at Miami Bridge Youth and Family Services. And this is Mr. Steve
Hope, deputy CEO, Miami Bridge. Our address is 2810 Northwest South River Drive, and we're
here regarding item number 8, PH.8, for Miami Bridge.
Steve Hope: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners, Mr. Mayor, City Manager. On behalf
of the Miami Bridge, we want to extend our deepest thanks and appreciation for the support that
the Commission and the City has provided to the Miami Bridge. For those of you who don't
know who the Miami Bridge is, we're the only 24/7 temporary youth shelters with kids between
the ages of 10 and 17; kids that are homeless, are victim of human trafficking, abuse. We are one
of the first place you find these kids coming to in the time of crisis. The funding today is going to
assist in helping Miami Bridge meet a lot of its operational cost and we are very supportive and

thank you for that. Before I leave, I just want to give you a short story. My CEO tends to tell me
I'm a storyteller, but I think stories tend to help illustrate what we do. What we try to do within
the timeline that the kid comes to the Miami Bridge is to give them love, attention and support. A
13-year-old girl, about a year ago said to Dr. Wilcox, this is the first time that she had the
opportunity to really be a child, while living at the Bridge. For that, we try to basically address
those needs on a daily basis. Thanks again for your support.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. You're recognized, ma'am.
Deborah Dolson: My name is Debbie Dolson. My address is 4205 Lennox Drive, in Coconut
Grove, and I would like to make a statement about PH.4. My family has lived in the same house
in the South Grove for 47 years; almost a half a century. There are likely many people in this
room who've lived here even longer. During the past 47 years, many things have changed in the
Grove. CocoWalk and Mayfair now stand where Blue Water Marine and the Grove Camera Shop
used to be. Jaguars replaced Kress' Five and Ten and Burt's Market is now Lucy's. Ransom
Everglades has purchased Henry Fields' estate, La Brisa. These developments and others in the
Grove have largely maintained our tree canopy and unique neighborhood character. The
NCD-3 Code is now in place to protect Coconut Grove's density, green space, tree canopy,
unique property sizes and shapes, architectural variety, history, historic structures, and special
character. In the cases presented today before me, the warrant process has not been enforced,
and has resulted in confusion, dissatisfaction, and misunderstandings among the very residents
and developers it was designed to protect. The City must follow its own Code without exception.
The irregularities in question surrounding Battersea Woods should undergo an independent legal
review. A precedent of exceptions cannot be established. The good news is that we, as
neighbors, support the intent of the NCD-3 Code, and look forward to improving its clarity and
implementation, without exceptions. This is the only way that 47 years from now, the people who
live in my house will continue to live in a Coconut Grove with a future that has been able to
maintain the current unique canopy and distinctive character that make our neighborhood
exceptional. Please defer the decision to plat Battersea Woods until the questions and
irregularities of the process are resolved. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. You're recognized, ma'am.
Meg Daly: Good morning, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. My name is Meg Daly. I'm founder
of Friends of the Underline, and we're speaking about item RE.9. Thank you, Commissioner
Suarez, for sponsoring this resolution to direct Park impact fees from development within a
thousand feet of the Underline to construction of the future linear park and trail within the City
of Miami. The Underline is a bold vision. This potential funding demonstrates the City of
Miami's commitment to building a city that has world-class amenities, transportation options,
and a connected engaged community; a city that's committed to improving the quality of life for
residents, be a destination for tourists, and attract much needed young talent. The Underline
will create over 60 acres of new open space in the City of Miami and almost 10 acres of green
space in the Brickell area alone. It will promote a healthy, active lifestyle with an outdoor gym,
dog parks, nature play areas, and engaging areas for people and art. The Underline will also
improve public safety. As one of the most dangerous places to walk and bike in the United
States, this safe haven will show our commitment to adding quality infrastructure for people on
bike and on foot. Last, like other great parks, the Underline will be an economic driver,
increasing property values and tax receipts. It will also encourage transit-oriented development,
so people can live, work, and play without a car. We've received accolades from major
publications, like Travel and Leisure, Fast Company, and the New York Post. Over 200
businesses, residents and neighborhood associations sent letters encouraging you to support this
resolution. The people speaking today took time off from work to tell you how important this
project is to them. Why? Because we're not just building a trail or a park. We're transforming
our city. Thank you.

Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. Sir, you're recognized.
Gerald Marston: Thank you very much. My name is Gerald Marston. I live at 3857 Main
Highway, in Coconut Grove; been a Grove resident for over 25 years. I'm a registered
landscape architect in the State of Florida. I am a past member of the Historic and
Environmental Preservation Board, and currently a member of the City of Miami Urban --
whatever -- Development Review Board --
Commissioner Gort: Urban Review Board.
Mr. Marston: -- UDRB. I take just a short minute. I'd given up a good deal of my time this
morning to come and to support the notion of enforcing the Code, not allowing breaking up of
parcels, and ask the Commission to really consider the Planning Department and having the
Planning Department be responsive to the Code which is current. Thank you.
Carmen Manrara Cartaya: Good morning. My name is Carmen Manrara Cartaya, and I'm
here on item R.09 for Resolution 16-00637. I'm an attorney from the Law Firm of Hogan,
Lovells, and I'm here to support the Underline. We represent Friends of the Underline and have
worked many hours pro bono in support of this great endeavor. I am a staunch supporter of the
Underline purpose, its cause, and the impact that it's going to have to the community. The
resolution follows a similar framework as the resolution that was passed by the City of Miami
last year, on September 10, 2015, Resolution R-15-0397. We have reviewed the resolution in
consultation with the City of Miami and Commissioner Francis Suarez. We support its contents,
and believe that it's going to be an important part of the development and the construction on the
Underline. In particular, five miles of the Underline pass through and impact directly the City of
Miami, and approximately 60 acres of new open space will be provided to the City of Miami with
the development and construction of the Underline. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. Sir, you're recognized.
Justin Klecha: Justin Klecha, 6092 Northeast Miami Court. I'm the director of campaigns for
SAVE (Safeguarding American Values for Everyone), South Florida's largest and
longest-standing LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights organization, and I'm here
today in support of item FR.1, which is the banning of the unsound and harmful practice of
conversion therapy on minors in the attempt to change their sexual orientation or gender
identity. We're here today because of the inaction in Tallahassee, so we've had to turn to
municipalities, like Miami Beach and the City of Miami, where Commissioner Suarez took up the
charge to protect LGBT youth from this harmful practice. So I urge the Commission today to
join Commissioner Suarez and ban his hurtful practice, and send a message to the LGBT youth
of the City of Miami that they are wanted here, they are welcome here, and that the Commission
wants them to grow up and be healthy, well-rounded citizens. Thank you so much.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. You're recognized, sir.
Alex Larmier: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, Mr. Manager, Alex Larmier, 1337 Southwest 15th
Street, Shenandoah, just here in support of RE.9, regarding the direct -- directing Park impact
fees towards the Underline. To me, it makes the most sense, and it's a logical source of funding.
The businesses, residents and developers are -- the most going to benefit are the ones that lie
within a thousand feet of the project. This is not going to increase the fees; it's just how they're
allocated. And just to point out, this is not just a bike path, it's not just a park, it's not
somewhere to walk your dog. It's really an integrated mobility corridor. It's a destination and
it's a transit solution, and I think it's necessary to help Miami progress into the 21st Century.
Thank you.

Melissa Tapanes Llahues: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Melissa

Tapanes Llahues. I'm here today as a business owner and property owner in Districts 2 and 4, to
speak in support of RE.9. I'm a staunch supporter of the Underline, and partake in the Friends
of the Underline as far as seeing ways to incentivize development along the Underline, and
create a more sustainable community. I'd like to thank Commissioner Suarez for sponsoring this
ordinance, and I urge your support. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Sir, you're recognized.
Ken Krasnow: Good morning, Commissioners, City Manager. My name is Ken Krasnow. I'm
the executive managing director and area leader for Colliers International Global Real Estate
Firm here in Miami, 801 Brickell Avenue. But I'm also here as a board member, supporting RE.9
for the Underline. As you know, the Underline runs from the Miami River all the way through to
Dadeland South. It impacts every district in the City of Miami. Importantly, there are no land
acquisition costs. The Friends of the Underline have raised a substantial amount of money to
start building in the Brickell area in 2017. The hallmarks of this project are speed,
collaboration, and return on investment; conservative estimate that there's going to be over $3
billion of planned development along the corridor. We are fully in support of this resolution.
The total price tag for the Underline is over $120 million, and half of the 10-mile Underline is
located here in the City of Miami and in the urban core. So we appreciate Commissioner Suarez
and the City of Miami, and the support of all the Commissioners for this resolution. Thank you.
Ralph Rosado: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Ralph Rosado,
3472 Southwest 22nd Terrace. I'm here today on behalf of Friends of the Underline. I'm a board
member. I know that you all are very well aware of the fact that the Underline runs through
Districts 2, 3 and 4, but what I want to make sure that is highlighted, as well, is that this has
citywide significance. There's a series of additional segments, including the Miami River
Greenway, Ludlam Trail. There are pathways connecting to Miami Beach. There are a series of
segments that are either potential or proposed that really take this from beyond being just
something that's specific to a couple districts to making something of citywide significance. That
overall part is called the Miami Loop, which connects hundreds of thousands of people in the
City and beyond, and it's something that I've been calling "The people's park,"because it's really
something that connects our entire community. It's valuable to the entire City of Miami, and our
neighbors, as well. So I hope you support it for that reason. This is a phenomenal project that is
actually not just specific, you know, unique and special here, but also world class in nature. So
thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Ma'am, you're recognized.
Tanya Bhatt: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Mr. Manager. My name is Tanya
Bhatt, and I'm actually an interloper from 830 Raymond Street, Miami Beach. By way of
introduction, I'm also here to support Commissioner Suarez' resolution to fund the Underline --
help fund the Underline. I'm an avid runner and cyclist, and as you know, Miami in general is a
very dangerous place to have such hobbies. And so, as I've been driving past the
(UNINTELLIGIBLE) for the last five years from Miami Beach down to Coconut Grove every day,
I've been looking longingly at that path, and I was thrilled to learn of Meg Daly's vision to bring
that path to life, with all of your help and with a lot of great support around the County . I really
encourage you all to support Commissioner Suarez' resolution. I think it's a tremendous
resolution, not just for the funding of the Underline, but also, it's a win/win resolution for the
City. With its connections to every district in the City of Miami, as well as the developing
facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and transit users, the Underline will be the burgeoning --
excuse me -- will be the hallmark of our burgeoning global, forward-looking city. The Underline

has already garnered a tremendous amount of national and international press , which is what
Miami is all about, is having people around the world look at us to development, to look to us for
sustainability, and to look to us for transit solutions for increased dense -- increasingly dense
cities. There are no land acquisition costs, and the Friends of the Underline have already raised
the funds to start building in 2017 in the Brickell area. This redirection of funds is an ultimate
win/win, and I encourage you all to support this resolution. Thank you.
Williams Armbrister: Good morning, wonderful people, and that's each and every one in these
chambers. My name is Williams Armbrister, 3260 Thomas Avenue, here in Miami, Coconut
Grove. I'm in direct opposition to you diverting funds from our parks to purchase that trolley
building if that's what it's for. If you use, though, that $3 million in -- for -- that's allocated for
parks and upgrade the parks, Virrick Park and Armbrister Park, you can provide all the space
that's needed, that the Coconut Grove Playhouse wants to use it, and we got other organizations
who wants to use it. And what we really need in Coconut Grove is housing. Because of this
trolley building, we lost three residences, we lost one restaurant, a vacant lot and an empty
building. So what we need is homeownership opportunities that are accessible for low- and
moderate-income households. If you spent more time in providing and researching the things
that we are in need of, opposed to what is desired of you to do, you would be the mature
leadership that we need here in the City of Miami. So I'm asking that you reconsider purchasing
that building with our taxpayers' dollars, and let the taxpayers' dollars work for the residents in
the City of Miami. Thank you very much.
Peter Turner: My name is Peter Turner. I live at 6301 Caballero Boulevard in Coral Gables.
Mr. Chairman, City Commissioners, Mr. City Manager, I'm in favor of RE.9 for the Underline. I
volunteer on occasion for the Underline. I live very close to part of the path that's going to be
going through the City. I grew up in New York, in New York City, where parks are very
important. Obviously, Central Park is one of the items that has made New York what it is. And
I'm also very familiar with TOD, which is Transit-Oriented Development. I've been to a few
conferences, and there are a lot of studies that talk about how it increases livability, the value of
the homes, and make a better place for people to live. I think creating the Underline with
activity 24 hours a day, because people are on different schedules, with lighting and safety would
bring a broad base of activity to downtown and other areas that maybe never had it . I mean, in
Coral Gables, the Underline section, for example, is dark, and there's nothing after dark. No
one's in there and there's -- it's basically unused land. And it's a vital resource, and I think it
would be a shame if we couldn't take some of this money to help fund the Underline. I think once
it gets built in Brickell, it's going to reach critical mass and start to spread, and I think it would
be a very good thing. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Sir.
Miguel Soliman: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Miguel Soliman.
I'm a resident of 1436 Southwest 6th Street. I'm also -- that's District 3. I'm also a business
owner in District 4, and I'm here to speak on three items -- I'll speak briefly -- the first one being
proposed by Commissioner Francis Suarez, RE.11, resolution waiving the City of Miami's Police
Department and Fire Rescue Department's cost for an exposition to be held September 18 at
Bayfront Park, and that is to honor the victims of -- and responders -- of the attack of September
11, the terrorist attack. And I feel we must never forget what happened on that tragic day, and
we must always move forward to honor those victims and those first responders, and I'm in
complete support of that resolution. The second item I wanted to speak with -- speak of --
proposed by Commissioner Ken Russel, RE.12, is a resolution from the City of Miami
Commission urging the United States Congress, Senate, Florida Legislator [sic], Miami-Dade

County to take immediate action allocating emergency funds to combat and prevent the spread of
Zika, this virus that is affecting the City of Miami tremendously right now, and hurting us in
many ways, economically and physically. I'm in complete support of that resolution. The third
item, RE.16, proposed by Commissioner Frank Carollo, a resolution directing the City Manager
to draft an ordinance to create optimal public benefits in return for transfer development rights
for the citizens of the City of Miami in large-scale development projects. I think it's very
important that, as a citizen, we get the maximum benefit we can from these large-scale
development projects, and that we provide our City Manager with a tool to do so. I'm in
complete support of that resolution. I thank you very much for the time in allowing me to speak
here. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. You're recognized, sir.
Sanjay Devarakonda: Hello. My name is Sanjay Devarakonda. I live at 951 Brickell Avenue in
Miami. I'm here representing MP International, a local developer in Coral Gables that is doing
work in conjunction with the Underline. And we have funds that will be going towards
improving the Underline, but it's also important that our impact fees go towards the overall
Underline, as well, so that it creates a complete sense of place. We're a company that focuses on
live, work, and play, and that's what the Underline represents, and it's something that the City of
Miami especially needs so that it can come to unite the whole City. Thank you.
Dennis Leaton: Hello. My name is Dennis Leaton, 1828 South Bayshore Lane. I'm here to talk
about the trolley building, RE.5. I'm against them, as the previous man before. The funds could
be used in other locations to enhance. You'll be losing 60 -- about $60,000 a year on revenue
that could be used somewhere else, as well. And has anybody even asked the local people what
they want in that particular building? Thank you. And by the way, I have tried to contact you a
couple times.
Richard Sherman: Good morning. My name is Richard Sherman, and I live at 2501 Tigertail
Avenue, here in Coconut Grove. I'm here representing the Underline as both a resident and a
volunteer. Before I tell you anything, it's an awesome, awesome organization to work for. Any
time I present what we're doing to friends, and even family, we're able to get them in as
volunteers. I don't think -- maybe somebody else might speak against it, but I don't think you' re
going to hear any opponents as far as speakers today. And I have addressed this chamber many
times, and I have to -- sometimes have to fight my way to get in here, because I'm dealing with an
issue that's somewhat controversial or maybe that needs a little thought process. But it's a
wonderful organization to be involved in. It's an economic growth for our city. I have a very
dear friend of mine who opened up a design studio in New York City, and the only place that he
can go for a -- to purchase this area, because of the space he needed, was an area called
Chelsea, back by the river, back where nobody ever went to. He now sits on the most -- one of
the highest areas of economic development in New York City. When I go to New York to visit
friends, every time I go there, people are saying, "Let's meet at the High Line, let's meet at the
High Line." As we all walk to the High Line, we eat in restaurants by there, we shop in stores by
there. It's an amazing thing. His business has now grown from two employees to 23 employees.
And the warehouse that he had there has now had to be moved to Queens so that he can float
that space to his retail, which is a very high tax (UNINTELLIGIBLE). And other than that, I
think you've heard from my colleagues what else is going on. I do want to take a moment to
speak about another issue, please. As a resident of Coconut Grove, what's happening to the
preservation of trees in Coconut Grove is apprehensible. Our homeowners association will
quickly -- run quicker to the sound of a chainsaw than to a false alarm that's going off. What's
happening really needs to be addressed. And it's happening so fast that I can't tell you what we

go through are residents. I've literally had to take one of my vehicles and park it in front of a
centurion oak tree to make sure that a builder on a Sunday didn't come down to take that tree
down, knowing that he might get a $10,000 fine and might have to go to mitigation, but he'll be
able to build two more bedrooms where that tree was and get another hundred thousand dollars
for his home. So the fines really don't mean much of a difference to them. So on behalf of the
Underline, I'm -- it's an awesome experience. On the trees and the preservations, please, we
need to take care of this. It has to do with the Underline, because it has to do with our
community. Thanks for bringing it up.
John Aleman: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Commissioner of Miami Beach, John
Elizabeth Aleman. Thank you for welcoming me this morning into your chamber. I'm here to
speak on item FR.1, which is the ban on conversion therapy. Representative David Richardson,
the Southern Poverty Law Center and SAVE have been working very closely together for some
time to try to pass statewide legislation banning against these practices, and I truly commend
District 4 Commissioner Francis Suarez for bringing this ordinance today for you -- for your
consideration. For those that may not know, "conversion therapy"means any counseling, practice
or treatment performed with the goal of changing a person's sexual orientation or gender
identity. This practice has proven not only to be ineffective, but also extremely harmful to
children. Conversion therapy has been denounced by the American Psychiatric Association,
which warns that the potential risks are great, and include depression, anxiety, and
self-destructive behavior. As a mother of two pre-teen sons who are just beginning to self-reflect
and form their identities, it pains me to think of other children in different circumstances who
might be driven to shame and self-loathing by these types of practices. Earlier this summer,
having learned that there are six therapists in the State of Florida practicing conversion therapy
today, and one of those being in Miami Beach, I was compelled to sponsor a legislative ban on
conversion therapy, such as what you're considered today, sponsored by Commissioner Suarez. I
was grateful for the unanimous support from my fellow Miami Beach Commissioners, and I urge
you to please join Commissioner Suarez in banning conversion therapy in the City of Miami . By
passing this ordinance, you make a clear statement that the City of Miami values diversity, and is
inclusive to all. You protect vulnerable young people from harmful treatment. You send an
important message to youth and families in urgent need of good information , and you demand
that all people in Miami be treated with respect and dignity. And moreover, of course, you will
set a precedent for cities across the nation to do the same. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, Commissioner.
Adele Myers: Hello. My name is Adele Myers, and I live at 4360 Lennox Drive. I'd like to read
an excerpt for you from an article from the Huffington Post from May 2015 that is referencing
PH.4 and potentially PH.5. The title is, "Miami, a Blank Canvas for Design. The world's premier
architects are clamoring to work in neighborhoods across our community. New buildings are
winning international awards, and in what may be strongest evidence yet, the Pritzker Prize,
architect's top honor, will be awarded in Miami Beach this week for the first time." That was May
14, 2015. Eight former Pritzker prize winners are behind ongoing or recently completed projects
in and around Miami. Their projects are helping to transform neighborhoods from downtown
and Coconut Grove to Miami Beach. We are, by all accounts, a sandbox for the world's best
architects. These developments share common threads: Reverence for their surrounding
low-density development that acknowledges bigger isn't always better; and inventive designs,
created by some of the world's top architects. With Miami now in the crosshairs of the design
world, residential developers have an opportunity to work with and improve our community
through responsible development that enhances value for residents and neighbors alike . This
stems from the belief that real estate development is a privilege, not a right, and that we can
work together with our community to come up with a unique aesthetic that works for our
community. I want to thank you so much for your time, and I am proud to call Coconut Grove

my home. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Sir, could you --?
Steve Wernick: Sure. Steve Wernick; address at 2501 Swanson Avenue, in Coconut Grove. I'm
here on behalf of my wife, Emily and myself and my young family, to speak in support of RE.9,
which is allocating a portion of Park impact fees towards the Underline. In my opinion, the
Underline is the most dynamic and potentially transformational capital improvement project that
we have on the horizon in the City of Miami. This resolution, sponsored by Commissioner
Suarez, would send a message loud and clear that this Commission in the City of Miami is
committed to our future and our quality of life, and that goes for residents, business owners, our
visitors, and our children. My wife and I welcomed a baby boy three weeks ago. One of the
issues that Miami and South Florida in general has is, because of various factors, losing a lot of
young people to other metropolitan areas; some of our best and brightest. Many of the friends
that I grew up with did not come back to South Florida. To me, the Underline is a project that
changes that; that starts getting us to a point -- bringing Miami to a point that is unlimited in its
potential. We have so many great things going, and this project connects the City of Miami, it
connects different districts, it connects both sides of U.S. 1, which has always been a big issue.
I've walked it. It's tough. And the methodology is sound. This is a portion of Park impact fees,
not -- you know, and it's within a certain distant that is proximate to the line. It's a great return
on investment potential. And so I'll submit my letter of support on behalf of my new son, Owen.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Did you speak already?
Vice Chair Russell: He's got 45 seconds left.
Chair Hardemon: You want to give him 45 --?
Mr. Cruz: I do have a credit.
Chair Hardemon: -- I'll give him 45 seconds.
Mr. Cruz: This is actually -- Commissioner Suarez has asked me to present this at this time, if I
may, Commissioner?
Chair Hardemon: Okay.
Mr. Cruz: Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street, regarding RE.10, the coconut palm resolution.
Thank you, Commissioner Suarez, for sponsoring this resolution in support of a much loved tree.
First, let me clear up some misinformation you were given on the day I first came before you. A
City staffer said that coconut palms do not belong in the public right-of-way, because the
Miami-Dade County Street Tree Master Plan said that coconuts belong on a beach or a park.
That's simply not true. The Miami-Dade County Street Tree Master Plan doesn't say that. In
fact, the document does not even mention the word "coconut"at all. But other City staffers said
that the City was no longer allowing coconut palms to be planted in rights-of-way or in parks,
but as I showed you, they have, indeed, been planted as part of City projects on North River
Drive and 27th Avenue; and right next door from here, at Miami City Hall, at the new Dinner
Key Marina Dock Master Building. A City staffer said other cities in the area had banned the
coconut, but I have not found one. I spoke with Coral Gables City Attorney Craig Leen that day,
and he verified that Coral Gables has not banned street planting of the coconut . Notice that the
coconut palm is on the Coral Gables City seal. This past Sunday, I took some pictures on Miami
Beach. That's Joes Stone Crab Restaurant on the left side of the frame, to orient you. I counted
53 newly-planted coconut palms on South Pointe Drive, Ocean Drive, and Ocean Court. So
Miami Beach has apparently not banned it, either, which is great, because the coconut palm is
the official seal of the City of Miami Beach and Miami-Dade County and North Miami Beach

and Miami Gardens and South Miami and Surfside and Palmetto Bay, and Sunny Isles Beach.
Now, regarding falling coconuts had other cities concerned until I contacted some expert
witnesses. They were here at City Hall this morning, as you see in the photograph, but they had
to get back to work. Mr. Narciso Alvarez and his crew will pick coconuts free. They do it safely,
using a long pole you see on the right side of their truck. The use no ladders and they use no
climbing spikes. It's a win/win/win situation. Gentlemen, please ensure yourselves an exalted
place in Miami's history by passing this resolution to support the coconut palm and royal palm
on Miami streets. Please keep the "coconut"in Coconut Grove, and in Miami. Thank you.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Elvis.
Ms. Méndez: Mr. Cruz, just so you know, if Narciso and his crew were to take coconut palms,
there might be a waiver of procurement needed there for the future.
Mr. Cruz: You got their phone number; it's public record.
Chair Hardemon: Ma'am, you're recognized.
Lourdes Sanchez-Broton: Good morning. Lourdes Sanchez-Broton, 3356 Bird Avenue. I'd like
to thank Mr. Chairman, the Board, and the Mayor for allowing me the opportunity to speak in
front of you guys today. I am the director for the Miami Tunnel at the Towers. I'm also a
firefighter for Miami-Dade Fire Rescue. I'm here in -- to speak to you about the Miami Tunnel at
the Towers today and requesting respectively all of the support of all you Commissioners on the
Board today, as well as the City Mayor and the City Manager. Just to give you a briefing of the
Stephen Siller Tunnel to Tower, who Stephen Siller was, Stephen Siller was one of the 343
firemen that passed away during the 911 terrorist attack. His story -- it is page 8. His father
passed away. Eight months later, his mother passed away. He was one out of seven sons to this
couple. His brothers were raised -- were left to raise him. Stephen grew up, became an FDNY
(Fire Department of the City of New York) fireman, had five children, and the morning of
September 11, he was coming off of duty at his Squad 1 in Brooklyn; going to meet three of his
brothers to play golf. When he was inside the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, his scanner went off that
warned the first tower was being hit. With the chaos, he was stuck in gridlock traffic, ran back
into Brooklyn to his firehouse, grabbed his 75 pound of gears, ran back through the tunnel to the
World Trade Centers. That's when the towers collapsed on him and the rest of the 342 firemen.
The Foundation contacted me to bring this amazing event down here to Miami, which benefits
our most catastrophically injured veterans and our first responders together with our program
that's called Building for America's Bravest. What Building for America's Bravest does is we
build these specifically smart, custom-designed homes for veterans so they could live the most
normal life possible with their family, as well as we help our first responders. Four weeks ago,
we had a ribbon cut ceremony in Brooklyn for the two NYPD (New York Police Department)
widows from the Officers Ramos and Liu that were slain. The Foundation raised over a million
dollars, were able to pay off the mortgages for both widows, and did over a hundred thousand
dollars of renovations, each home. The money that was left over was divided to both widows and
given so they could help raise their children that were left behind. With that being said, the
Foundation is rated a four star on the Cherry Navigator, and 92.3 percent of every dollar raised
goes straight to the services and funds. As you could see, this is amazing. So for the Miami to
Tunnel Towers, what I have done, I have been successful enough to also add an Expo. An Expo
was going to consist of ever six fire department, every police agency and military here -- branch
here in South Florida to come together on September 18 at Bayfront Park, starting at 2 p.m., to
show a diverse representation of all our capabilities to the South Florida community , as we're
inviting them to come join us on the 15th-year anniversary, to continue honoring every man and
woman in uniform. Right now, we have built over 45 homes, and the Foundation has a goal to
build 200 homes. I have no limit. I don't want to see a 200 goal. I want to continue building
these homes for our veterans and continue helping our first responders. There is 42 cities that
are subsections to the Foundation right now. Miami has been the last one to be included, as this

will be our inaugural year. This is going to be a yearly event, and it's going to just continue to
grow. For the slogan that I've come up with Miami, it's "Together, Serving and Protecting,"as I
have been successful to get the support from every entity here in South Florida. I don't see
badge, I don't see uniform. And what I preach to all these guys at all these meetings is,
regardless of the badge or uniform we wear, we are all family, because we all took that same
oath on the very first day: To serve and protect our nation and our community. So I stand before
you, the Board of the City of Miami requesting respectfully the support for this event.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. You're recognized.
Brenda Betancourt: Good morning. I hope you all have a great summer vacation. Brenda
Betancourt, 1436 Southwest 6th Street. I'm today a little concerned about this new way of doing
this public hearing. I believe that a lot of people doesn't understand it yet, including myself, so
you have to come here and two -- have two minutes in speaking whatever it is that you have to
speak in the agenda. I think that is putting the public in less time to express them self. I'm
talking about SR.2. My concern is that if the boards are -- have been updated, the bylaws, and it
have been followed. A lot of the boards doesn't even have a bylaws or have never even use them.
So I would like to see if SR.2 that you are going to be speaking about, if you guys can actually
make sure that those who are actually working in those committees, in charge of those
committees, that actually, they update the bylaws and people actually follow them. And make
sure that they provide everybody the same opportunity to participate in those boards. My next
item will be SR.6, about the building codes. I am part of the Code Enforcement Committee, and
it's sometime hard to be able to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) together. The board has to deliberate and
just give what they think is the best, but we don't have a guideness [sic] of if you owed a million
dollars fine with the City of Miami, you going to pay $3,750 and nothing else. So I would like
for the board to consider giving us a training to understand exactly what Code Enforcement
Committee are, and not as a personal opinion, but as what is the right thing to do when you are
in one of those boards, who are very important for keeping our properties and our City clean.
And the last one is RE.12, which is the resolution about Zika. I think we all should be concerned
about how we report as a resident of the City of Miami. Calling 311 not always is the best way to
go. And I'm still trying to figure out what is the City of Miami's doing for us as a resident to
report our neighbors or a property who has been neglect and have a potential Zika problems that
we see. How do we as a residents, as a business owners be able to report to you, to the City of
Miami, to protect our residents and our children? Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. Ma'am, you're recognized.
Renita Holmes: Madam Renita Holmes, executive director, founder of Wave, of Women in Public
Housing, Education, Finance and Development; initially WAVE, Women's Association Alliance
Addressing Injustice and Violent Epedemia. And it is -- also, as an entrepreneur, our homes
subcontractor, bringing you some of the issues that follow up basically what the previous
speaker was -- in regards to how women participate. In regards to PH.1, there is still this
missing guideline and this disparate gap in the inclusion of African American and inner city
women of disabilities and LGBT status. When a perception is 9/10ths, and this is the Board,
which is our second item of concern, Boards and Committees, BC.12, it's always empty, has no
name. And so when a person needs insight and representation, inclusion and dealing with not --
discrimination or perhaps just a gap system of who speaks for you, and who's to know, and five
sheets of paper besides that, just says the same thing. Maybe we need to talk about the inclusion
of the lowest of income, women in public housing who are LGBT, with disabilities. The report
that comes from WOW (Wave of Women) are extreme. I'm here in frustration; never really
against you, because it says that we are the first. And when we talk about affordable housing or
issues or we're adjacent to commercial properties, which leads me to talk about PH.1, I like the
way -- and I'd like to congratulate you, Commissioner Suarez, on your direct application of
anti-poverty. It's -- you're taking your initiative and not just the Federal guidelines, and
applying towards programs that work. In regards to RE.12, it's that Planning & Zoning, that's

that inclusion, that's that representation or the right to self-representation, which LGBT black
women are denied, and I speak personally as an entrepreneur, because I think sometimes we
don't understand the frustrations. To have 90 percent of an agenda and consider it to be
reasonable to -- for my intelligence to deal with these items and this funding directed to me, it's
not as accommodating as I'd like to be, and so that's important to get back to, BC.1 being filled.
I'm just connecting the dots. So lastly, when we have representation, for example, of Zika, and
adjacent or right across the street is a colony or a decolonized, gentrified, ongoing gentrified
population of women, particularly those driven by women with disability and LGBT, and I have
to go through this, no one who can perceive, respect, or be inclusive of where I'm coming from.
And I am being sprayed with a chemical, which I have been taught by the City of Miami through
grants to identify, and the only speaker I have is the average white guy out of Wynwood, and
everybody else's plan, then I'm not discriminating. I'm feeling a bit left out. And so I close on
RE.13, with Mana, which I addressed at the last hearing and was directed in a roundabout way ,
which I feel is a common practice with women of extremely low income or disability or gay or
LGBT. Perhaps we need to be more represented. And when I look at that the Mana Project is a
project that has a lot of Caucasian, if not white, if not middle income, if not other folks outside,
talking about the income and the Zika and my health and my economy, then I wonder if we're
still dealing with issues of discrimination and exclusion and -- or perhaps just a gap. We need to
talk more about inclusion, because we know personalities are not what this is all about. This is
about principle. And the main principle is the law of inclusion, and the right to fair housing,
economic opportunity, the right to safety and health, on behalf of Wave of Women, located in
Overtown, and providing services throughout to Miami-Dade County. It's been 37 years. I just
wanted my black woman voice included. I don't want to get screwed, so my sexuality shouldn't
make a difference, but I really would like to be represented in a most autonomous and inclusive
way. You know, we don't have many poor, poor African American inner city women that know
how to do environmental, that know policy, that know agenda. And I've dedicated my life and
ministry. I'd like you to ask the question: Why would all of this hard work, all of this tolerance,
we still have these absence of representation, the lack of self-representation and such a cold way
of dealing with it? Mr. City Manager, through the Chair, I'd like to thank you for being open,
but we still have to have those discussions with Mana and all those other task force and counsel
who may not understand the Fair Housing Equal Opportunity Act and the rights of very low
income entitled group to that.
Chair Hardemon: Madam --
Ms. Holmes: Thank you so kindly for having a great meeting on the budget, but the budget
should reflect extremely low income, not those of us who have for the skin of our color, or color
of our skin --
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, Madam Holmes.
Ms. Holmes: -- or skin of our teeth.
Ms. Holmes: Thank you for the equity, and may God continue to bless you and your conscience.
Chair Hardemon: Yes, sir, you're recognized.
Jihad Rashid: Good morning. My name is Jihad Rashid. I serve as president of the Coconut
Grove Village West Homeowners and Tenants Association, and I'm here to speak on item E.5
[sic], I believe. That's the prospective acquisition by the City of Miami of the facility known as
the trolley garage. My concern is borne out of the well intentions by the City, but not fully well
thought out, and it's a little bit hasty to buy this center for the purposes of having a community
center, and ostensibly, to help the underserved youth in the west part of Coconut Grove. And we

have two facilities that are very underutilized. If you pass Virrick Park on any day, or
Armbrister Park, you find no one participating in those facilities that resemble the residents of
the immediate area. We are not taking advantage of that. And of the things -- of the constituent
needs that our communities have long suffered from, it's not lack of recreation and programmatic
initiatives. It is things that relate to economic development. To spend $3.4 million or $3 million
on this facility, and then you would have to spend millions of dollars to retrofit the place , and
then you would have to find monies to program the place, I would think that we need to take a
little bit more time to flush this proposition out, to get the private sector involved in this so that
we can possibly bring a technology center here. We need to change the paradigm in our
communities to show some modeling of economic development, entrepreneurship, and, of course,
technology. If we're going to invest in the future and we're going to invest in our youth, then it
has to be technology. There are prospective black tech entrepreneurs that would love to take
advantage of that center, some noted folks that have the backing of the Knight Foundation and
other private entities. I think we need to do a little bit more homework; that we need to defer this
further; that we should also, again, I would reiterate that we should bring in the private sector.
We need a middle person, particularly a not-for-profit, that should be fostered into the ownership
of that, that would save a lot of taxes. And we should have a decided focus on the
entrepreneurial aspects of that facility, and its proximation [sic] to transit -- transportation;
notably, the Metro Station there. So please, let's have some more outreach in the community.
Let's talk with the established community development organizations, as, of course, the other
residents. But let's talk about dollars and cents and the parts of the community that are apt and
poised to bring to bear the type of programming and resources that could make this successful ,
could make it a win/win not only serving the residents of the immediate area, but a beacon to a
diverse patronage in that facility. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. You're recognized, ma'am.
Renita Samuels-Dixon: Good morning. Renita Ross-Samuels-Dixon, 3506 Vilano Road,

resident of Coconut Grove since my birth. My grandparents moved here in the 1920s. So I have
a vested interest in Coconut Grove. Back in July, July 31 --
Chair Hardemon: What item are you speaking on?
Ms. Samuels-Dixon: Pardon me?
Chair Hardemon: What item are you speaking on?
Ms. Samuels-Dixon: RE.5.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, thank you.
Ms. Samuels-Dixon: Back in July of -- June -- July 31 of 2014, a group of us wrote a letter, a
letter of recommendation as for the proposed use of the trolley center at 3320 Southwest 37th
Avenue, and it was to use the building as the Coconut Grove Black and Bahamian-African
American Heritage Museum, which we never did receive any response from. However, knowing
the background of what Coconut Grove has provided to the City of Miami in reference to its
incorporation and in reference to building Miami, Bahamians and African Americans could be
better honored by having that building turned into a museum. Yes, it would cost quite a bit of --
substantial money, but we actually had a committee in place to discuss doing just that. We
reached out to Florida Memorial University; we reached out to the Bahamian Consulate, and
both sent representatives to our community meetings. As a matter of fact, some of the same
person that have spoken here today were involved with the committee. So moving forward, we
would like for you to purchase the building, but we would like for it to be used to house a
museum, showcasing the history of Bahamians and African Americans in the City of Miami, who
helped to build our community. What better place and location to have such a site. Thank you.

Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. Seeing no other person here for public
comment, I'm going to close the public comment section at this time. Thank you, everyone for
participating in our public comment section. Members of the Commission, we have 15 minutes
before lunch. We can either try to handle some items. I wouldn't suggest -- I know -- handling
items that would take a long time, but some items, and then come back at 2 o'clock from lunch.
So we can recess now and come back at 2 o'clock, or you can try to handle a few items and then
come back at 2 o'clock lunch; it's up to you.
Commissioner Carollo: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Vice Chair Russell: I'd say we work through what we can. A lot of the people that have spoken
are here for some of the earlier items within our agenda, so if we can get to them, and if we have
to break in between, we can table them.
Chair Hardemon: I don't know -- I have to -- a very important engagement that I need to get to
at 12, really, so I'm going to leave, but you can give it a college try.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, sir.
CONSENT AGENDA
CA.1 RESOLUTION
16-01070
Department of Public A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Works ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ACCEPT SEVENTEEN (17) RIGHT-OF-WAY DEEDS AND TWO (2) QUIT
CLAIM RIGHT-OF-WAY DEEDS OF DEDICATION, AS DESCRIBED IN
EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, FOR HIGHWAY
PURPOSES; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE RECORDATION OF
SAID DEEDS IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO KEEP COPIES OF
SAID DEEDS.
16-01070 Summary Form.pdf
16-01070 Legislation.pdf
16-01070 Exhibit A.pdf
This Matter was ADOPTED on the Consent Agenda.
Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Hardemon

Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Suarez
R-16-0397
CA.2 RESOLUTION
16-01112
Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BID
Procurement RECEIVED JUNE 7, 2016, PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BID NO. 607388,
FROM STARLAP TROPHIES LLC D/B/A MICHELSON'S TROPHIES, THE
SOLE RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, FOR THE PURCHASE
OF TROPHIES AND PLAQUES CITYWIDE, ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS, FOR
AN INITIAL CONTRACT PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS, WITH THE OPTION

TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL ONE (1) YEAR PERIODS;
ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS FROM
THE END USER DEPARTMENTS, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF
FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED;
AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL SUPPLIERS TO BE ADDED TO THE
CONTRACT AS DEEMED IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF MIAMI;
FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND
EXECUTE ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS AND
MODIFICATIONS TO SAID CONTRACT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE
CITY ATTORNEY, AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR SAID PURPOSE.
16-01112 Memo - Manager's Approval.pdf
16-01112 Bid Tabulation.pdf
16-01112 Survey.pdf
16-01112 Corporate Detail.pdf
16-01112 Bid Response.pdf
16-01112 Invitation for Bid.pdf

R-16-0398
CA.3 RESOLUTION
16-00989
Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING GRANT
Fire-Rescue FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF $80,000.00, CONSISTING OF A GRANT
AWARDED FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ("EMS"), ENTITLED: "EMS
MATCHING GRANT AWARD - M4275", WITH THE CITY OF MIAMI'S ("CITY")
REQUIRED MATCHING FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$26,667.00, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $106,667.00, FOR THE PERIOD
BEGINNING MAY 27, 2016 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017; ALLOCATING THE
CITY'S MATCHING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT NO.
11000.184010.899000.0000.00000; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ACCEPT SAID GRANT AWARD AND TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, IN
ORDER TO ACCEPT, IMPLEMENT AND COMPLY WITH SAID GRANT.
16-00989 Fund Title.pdf
16-00989 Approval Letter.pdf
16-00989 Grant Application.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be

ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote.

R-16-0400
Chair Hardemon: We'll call CA.3 at this time.
Joseph Zahralban: Chairman, Commissioners, Joseph Zahralban, Deputy Fire Chief,

Department of Fire Rescue. CA.3 is a resolution accepting a grant from the State of Florida
Department of Health in the amount of $80,000, requiring a City-sponsored match, not to exceed
$26,667, for the purpose of purchasing five hydraulic stretchers, in support of our endeavor to
update and innovate the service that we provide to our citizens, while minimizing the potential
injury to our employees. I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Commissioner Gort: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved.
Commissioner Carollo: Second.
Chair Hardemon: And seconded. Mr. City Manager.
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Yes. The reason why we had pulled this item is because the
number on the -- of stretchers on the item was incorrectly stated as 12, and it's supposed to be
20.
Mr. Zahralban: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) five.
Mr. Alfonso: It's only five?
Mr. Zahralban: Yes, sir.
Mr. Alfonso: Okay; five, not 12.
Mr. Zahralban: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. That is a modification to the resolution. Is that modification accepted
by the mover and the seconder?
Commissioner Gort: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: Seeing that it is, is there any further discussion about the item? Hearing
none, all in favor, say "aye."
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): As amended.
Mr. Zahralban: Thanks.
CA.4 RESOLUTION
16-00985
Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Attorney ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SETTLE ALL
CLAIMS ARISING FROM THE CASE OF JAMES EDWARD HOEFLING, JR.
VS. CITY OF MIAMI, RICARDO ROQUE, AND JOSE GONZALEZ, CASE NO.
11-22358-CIV-LENARD/GOODMAN, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$195,000.00, WITHOUT ADMISSION OF LIABILITY, PURSUANT TO THE
TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAME, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, AND ALL NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY;
ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT NO.
50001.301001.545010.0000.00000.
16-00985 Memo - Office of the City Attorney.pdf
16-00985 Memo - Budget Sign-Off.pdf
16-00985 Exhibit SUB.pdf

Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Hardemon
Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Russell and Suarez
R-16-0401
Chair Hardemon: CA.4.
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): For CA.4, this is a settlement for the Hoefling case. We're
substituting it to add the agreement. The agreement wasn't handed to you previously, but this
will settle the case regarding Hoefling.
Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion to accept?
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved.
Chair Hardemon: And seconded. Any further discussion on the item? Hearing none, all in
favor, say "aye."
CA.5 RESOLUTION
16-01056
Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
Attorney CITY OF MIAMI'S OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ACT AS PRO BONO
OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES' AND SANITATION
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT TRUST IN ALL PHASES OF LITIGATION AND
APPEAL IN THE MATTER CONCERNING UNITED PARCEL SERVICE'S
FAILURE TO DELIVER AN EXTERNAL HARD DRIVE AS CONTRACTED TO
DO SO ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 19, 2015.



R-16-0399
Adopted the Consent Agenda
Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, including all the preceding
items marked as having been adopted on the Consent Agenda. The motion carried by the
following vote:
CA.6 RESOLUTION
16-01117
Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
Attorney EXPENDITURE OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS FOR THE
ENGAGEMENT OF OSCAR E. MARRERO, ESQ., AS CONFLICT COUNSEL,
FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF LIEUTENANT JAVIER ORTIZ IN THE CASE
OF FRANCOIS ALEXANDRE VS. CITY OF MIAMI, ET AL., PENDING IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA, CASE NO.: 16-CIV-23064; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE
ACCOUNT NO. 50001.301001.545010.0000.00000.
Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be

Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Carollo and Hardemon
Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Russell and Suarez
R-16-0402
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): CA.6, this is conflict counsel; that we're requesting outside
counsel, and we have to amend the reference to Code section from 40-242(f)(1) to 40-244(f)(1).
Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion with the amendment?
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved by Commissioner Gort; seconded by the Chairman.
Any further discussion?
Commissioner Carollo: Just what -- what's the amendment, Madam City Attorney?
Ms. Méndez: Just the Code section, Commissioner. 40-242, to change it to 40-244.

Chair Hardemon: Any further unreadiness? Seeing none, all in favor, say "aye."
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Right now we're going to be hearing the consent agenda items: Items
CA.1, CA.2, and CA.5. Is there a motion to accept?
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved. Is there a second?
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved and seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in
favor, say "aye."
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. CA.1, CA.2, CA.5.
PERSONAL APPEARANCES
PA.1 DISCUSSION ITEM

16-01196
PERSONAL APPEARANCE FROM WAYNE PATHMAN OF THE SEA LEVEL
RISE COMMITTEE AND STEVEN WERNICK OF THE WATERFRONT
ADVISORY BOARD REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF A COMMISSION
DIRECTIVE ISSUED THROUGH RESOLUTION 16-0230.
16-01196 Letter - Wayne M. Pathman.pdf

16-01196 Motion - Waterfront Advisory Bd.pdf
16-01196 Pre-Legislation.pdf
16-01196-Submittal-Jane Gilbert and Reinaldo Borges-Sea Level Rise Committee Presentation Report.pdf
DISCUSSED
Chair Hardemon: We're moving on now to our PA.1, personal appearance by Mr. Wayne
Pathman and Steven Wernick.
Commissioner Carollo: Seen Mr. Pathman
Chair Hardemon: I saw him earlier. Morning, sir. You have seven minutes.
Steve Wernick: Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the City Commission. I'm here with Mr.
Pathman, as well, from the Sea Level Rise Committee. You all, as a Commission, recom -- or
directed our board, the Waterfront Advisory Board, to look at the University of Miami's Climate
Change Report, and take a few months to review that and get informed on issues related to sea
level rise and the breadth and depth of the issues surrounding climate change, and to get back to
the City Commission with recommendations on potential policy changes or things that could be

done to address some of the issues that are raised. Being the summer and with the amount of
information that is out there, the University of Miami's Climate Change Report is not a
traditional report. It's a website that contains all of the research and findings and the academic
papers and topics that are being addressed by academics at the University of Miami, but there's
also researchers and professors all over South Florida and across the country looking at these
issues. These are, obviously, major issues, and South Florida is ground zero in terms of potential
risk of flooding, and short-term as well as the long term. And these are some major, major
issues. So what we realized in starting to look at this is that it requires a little bit more time . I
know at my board, we have a meeting scheduled September 13, where faculty from the University
of Miami will be presenting to us. I also believe we'll have some presentations from different
staff and other -- possibly other agencies in the community; maybe people from the County, who
are working on these issues, so there's issues of intergovernmental connectivity. And hopefully,
we'll be in a position to make some helpful recommendations back to the City Commission.
Chair Hardemon: How much time would you like?
Mr. Wernick: I think -- and obviously, one of the things I maybe should mention is there might
be an opportunity for the Sea Level Committee and the Waterfront Advisory Board to meet at a
joint session, where we can have some of the same information being presented so that there's --
you know, we kind of get the most mileage out of the discussion. I think if we had 60 days -- I
know we're going to have a very substantive discussion September 13. I don't know if we'll have
a -- if we don't have a quorum, I don't know that we could pass a motion, but if not September,
then October, we hopefully could be in a position to put together a set of recommendations back
to the City Commission.
Wayne Pathman: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. City
Manager and City Attorney; and good morning, Mr. Mayor. My name is Wayne Pathman. I've
had the pleasure of serving as the chairman of the City of Miami Sea Level Rise Committee for
the last eight months. And before I discuss the actual topic today of the University of Miami
study, I have two members of our committee that'll be making a short presentation. I'd just like
to take the opportunity to talk a little bit about the Sea Level Rise Committee, because it's our
first opportunity to actually appear before you since we were created by the resolution back in
February of last year. The committee has, throughout the last eight or nine months, passed a
number of resolutions. It has had a number of speakers come before us to talk about the issues
that the City is facing dealing with sea level rise. We hope to present to you at some time either
later this month or another Commission meeting those resolutions that we've passed. Some of
them I have talked to many of you about, and we feel that it's important for you to hear what we
have done, what we've accomplished, and incorporate some of that in your discussion; as well as
what we have been trying to do in meeting with the City Manager's Office, the Planning
Department, Public Works; and incorporating, also, some of the resolutions that we've passed,
and having joint sessions or workshops with them to create a better resiliency and adaptation
program for the future. The committee has spent countless hours -- all of us are volunteers --
dealing with this issue, which is a grave issue for the entire community. We don't look at it as a
doom and gloom situation. We look at it as an opportunity to create a new economic opportunity
for the City, and build a more resilient and adaptive future for the City of Miami. So we would
like the opportunity in the future to be able to come before you and give you a full presentation of
the things that this committee has done. I think later today, you may be taking up a request to
convert from a resolution that was passed back in February to an ordinance, to give our
committee a little bit more power, if you will. We're requesting actually to have a budget, some
funding. What you have in the ordinance that was not actually what we voted on as far as the
funding, but that's what you're going to be reviewing today, and when we come back, we'll tell
you about why we're asking for additional money on top of that. Some of the important things
that the committee has suggested is, you know, mapping. The City does have some mapping that
already exists, but the idea was to look at the City in a broad perspective and try to understand
where are the areas that are going to be hit the hardest from either flooding or sea level rise in

the near future. And there's a lot of technology out there and experts that we would hope the City
would look at, as other cities have, in our community to start better planning and laying out the
concerns that this Commission should have, and where you should begin in dealing with issues
for adaptation and resiliency. Some of the other things that we've looked at are issues related to
insurance. I know one of the things that we strongly believe from the committee is that the
insurance industry is changing every day as it affects flood insurance, and that will be the first
impact this community feels, long before the water is in the streets. You will see insurance rise,
which will affect banking and will affect taxation, so that's another area that we have explored,
and would like to make a presentation on. And finally, we look forward to a more cohesive
working relationship with not only the Commission, the Manager's Office, but the various
departments that comprise the City. This committee is dealing with an issue that affects every
department within the City, and so we have suggested, and we've had people from various
departments come to our meetings, where we can create future workshops, including working
with the advisory board in the future on this issue concerning the University of Miami study .
Today, I have, you know, with me two of the members of the City of Miami Sea Level Rise
Committee: Jane Gilbert, who was instrumental in helping the City be a part of the Rockefeller
grant that was recently received by the City; and I also have Reinaldo Borges, a renowned
architect who has been dealing with sea level rise issues in many of his designs and buildings
throughout the community. And also with us -- he won't be speaking today -- is Pete Gomez, who
also serves on the committee and is your Assistant Fire Chief. I'd like to introduce Jane Gilbert
at this time, and have her make a short presentation with Reinaldo about the University of Miami
study. We have already taken up in our committee some adaptation ideas about the study, where
we think it should go and what the study actually means, and who should be involved in it. We
have a more -- broader perspective other than the University of Miami, and that's what we're
going to present today. And as far as working with the advisory board, I believe that we are
currently working on trying to schedule a joint meeting. We had one, but we didn't have enough
people over the summer that would give us enough people to attend the meeting, and hopefully,
that will happen within the next 30 days. Thank you very much. Jane.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Commissioners, is there a motion to approve the
extension of time that -- the counselor's request?
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved --
Chair Hardemon: -- and seconded. Any further discussion from the dais?
Vice Chair Russell: Is it the same for both? They're both expecting --
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized.
Commissioner Suarez: I think we're -- we have a later item on the agenda, which is --
Chair Hardemon: That will address --?
Commissioner Suarez: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). But the continue -- the extension of time, at least --
Commissioner Suarez: Okay.

Chair Hardemon: -- granting --
Commissioner Gort: Yeah.
Chair Hardemon: -- the counselor's request.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: How long?
Chair Hardemon: He said 60 days.
Mr. Wernick. Yeah. And the one thing I would add is if the Commission wants to give us some
additional direction to go back to our boards with -- I mean, we have some general direction
right now. If there is some more specific direction on what type of recommendations, how
detailed the recommendation should be, I think -- I see our advisory board -- you know, there's
two different boards looking at this. They have some more technical expertise, and are very
specifically focused on sea level rise. Our board looks at the waterfront as a whole, so this is a
component of what we're doing. So I would think that our recommendations from our board
would be more general in nature, and that's why I think the amount of time might be appropriate.
It may be that the Sea Level Rise Committee might want additional time if they are going to be
going into some more technical recommendations or more --
Mr. Pathman: And we had a short presentation today of what we're going to recommend from
the committee to the Commission about the study and what position the City should take. So
we're a little bit maybe more advanced than what the Water Advisory Board is, because it fell
more into, I guess, our lap than theirs. So we are prepared today to give you a short
presentation.
Vice Chair Russell: I'll second the motion for the request.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Any further discussion on the
request?
Commissioner Carollo: And Mr. Chairman, could you just clarify what's the --
Chair Hardemon: The motion on the floor is an extension of time for the Waterfront Advisory
Board so they can continue working. The extension of time is for an additional 60 days past
what we initially granted them.
Commissioner Carollo: No problem.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion?
Vice Chair Russell: Brief discussion, Mr. Chair.
Vice Chair Russell: I want to thank you gentlemen very much for coming. Don't worry, it's only
the fate of the City resting on your shoulders. Sea level rise and resiliency are huge issues for us,
and we are adversely unprepared, even though we are the front line of this issue. And so, as I
said on the day I was sworn in, I want to strengthen the boards so that they really have a voice,
really have teeth, and really have an influence on this Commission. None of us up here are sea
level rise experts, and so the panels that have been -- the boards that have been assembled,

you're really the brain trust that we're counting on to bring forward potential budget
recommendations, legislation recommendations, Planning & Zoning recommendations, but when
I visited the Sea Level Rise Committee, I even realize the limitations on the abilities of one board
of volunteers. And so I've met with the president of UM (University of Miami), as well as the
president of FIU (Florida International University), specifically on this subject, and they are
basically giving us access to their entire arsenal of students and faculty to come up with these
solutions. And so you, as boards, also have access to them and their teams, and their research.
They'll create a curriculum to help solve these issues for our city. And we, as legislators, will
enact the things that you bring forward. So that is the mission. It's everything. And really, also,
to concentrate not just on the waterfront, but the entire City's resiliency plan; not just with regard
to water, per se, but resiliency. And when it does come to water, those who know recognize that
with the porous limestone and oolite that we have, sea level rise doesn't just affect a seawall.
The water will rise at all low parts of the City, and even areas are now flooding when it doesn't
even rain, and that'll affect many parts of the City; many who are not equipped financially to
deal with it. We have issues of insurance to deal with on a larger scale, issues of development, so
it's a huge task ahead of you. I commend you all for doing this. I look forward to you guys in 60
days at the Waterfront Advisory Board, and welcome your presentation now, Mr. Pathman.
Mr. Pathman: If I could just comment, Commissioner, that we have had the pleasure of the
University of Miami and FIU come before the Sea Level Rise Committee, so we're already
working with them, but at this time, let me introduce Jane Gilbert.
Chair Hardemon: Before we do all of that, there's a motion on the floor. Could I have a vote on
that motion? All in favor, say "aye."
Chair Hardemon: That motion passes. You have the continuation of time, and if you can
introduce the next speaker (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
Mr. Pathman: Okay. Jane Gilbert and Reinaldo Borges.
Jane Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Miami Commission. My name's Jane Gilbert, resident of
Miami, consultant to the Miami Foundation on Sea Level Rise and Community Resilience, and
member of the City of Miami Sea Level Rise Committee. Thank you for inviting us to review the
UM Climate Change Report and to report back on our findings. The committee all looked at the
report -- or website, to your point -- and actually had also presentations from key UM faculty,
including Ben Kirtman from Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, as well as
Sonia Chow from the School of Architecture. And our committee discussed what we found from
them, as well as presentations from other university experts, and requested that Reinaldo Borges
and I summarize that discussion in a set of findings, so that's what we' re going to present to you
today. So the website provides a glimpse into the depth and breadth of what UM has to offer
related to climate change, and I'm going to ask Reinaldo to speak on that, and then I'll come
back.
Reinaldo Borges: Thank you, Jane. Good morning, Commissioners. For the record again,
Reinaldo Borges. I'm here representing the voice of an architect, as well, because I figured in
this conversation, which is so transformative to our community, there are so many voices and so
much intelligence going forth. I'm chairing the Sea Level Rise Committee at the American
Institute of Architects, so it's important that the architects get into this conversation, and I
welcome the opportunity to share with you some of the thoughts from the UM Report. As you
know, the University of Miami specifically has about five different departments that are looking
at this, and it is documented in their report. We won't go into detail today on it, but from the
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, integrating ideas and concepts in those
schools with the School of Architecture; working closely with the dean of the School of

Architecture, as well. I was there last night in a fantastic event where they focused on the design
thinking and the creative aspect of sea level rise, and the fact that we need to take bold visionary
action now, and not wait for later. They have a Center on Ecosystems and Sciences and Policies
that are also involved; the Center for Computational Sciences. All in all, as Commissioner
Russell noted, both presidents of both universities are very committed to be very integrated into
the thinking for the entirety of the community. I represent the profession. It's important that the
profession also gets involved with the academic component of the institutions. There's a lot of
knowledge to be shared, and it's fantastic that you've actually asked us to bring a more detailed
report back to you on how we, with our committee, could integrate all this learning and all this
knowledge that is ongoing in both institutions, and also at FIU and University of Florida in
Gainesville, trying to bring the knowledge and the learning of all these institutions so that we
could really be more cohesive in the way that we take action to protect our cities and make sure
that we protect our economies and the way that we continue to flourish as a world-class
community. I'll bring Jane back to talk to you a little bit about FIU. Thank you.
Ms. Gilberto: Thanks, Reinaldo. So similarly, FIU is another anchor institution in our
community where, to your point, Commissioner Russell, the -- from the leadership down, they
have organized all their departments, schools and resources to serve as a solution center around
sea level rise. And so they have -- also have many resotarius [sic] tools, ideas that could help
support the City decision-making. For example, the School of Architecture has developed
models and plans to help us visualize how we might redesign our neighborhoods . The School of
Communications developed an app (application) called "Eyes on the Rise"that helps residents see
how their neighborhoods and properties might be affected with different levels of sea level rise.
The School of Environment Arts in Society has done testing on Biscayne Bay to see what the
impacts of different new infrastructure -- pumping infrastructure has had on water quality in the
bay. The Sea Level Solution Center has made hundreds of presentations to help educate
residents, cities, businesses throughout Miami-Dade County about the challenges of sea level
rise and some opportunities and solutions. So both universities have made it a priority to serve
as these interdisciplinary solution centers for our local governments. So it is the
recommendation of the Sea Level Rise Committee that the City of Miami form -- actively form
partnerships with both FIU and University of Miami, and also welcome other regional, national
and international expertise willing to partner with the City on developing solutions. It shouldn't
be just them, but they are our anchor institutions, so that should be a concerted effort. The City
of Miami has the potential to serve as a model for urban coastal resilience internationally . So
we recommend three specific actions by the City of Miami to advance these partnerships: First,
that the department leads of the City meet with university leaders in the applicable expertise area
to explore avenues of partnerships, specifically in the areas of mapping, communications, I.T.
(information technology), storm water management plans, land use and building codes, and to
include both the City grants writing departments, as well as the university advancement, in order
to pursue opportunities for funding these partnerships further. Secondly, the City of Miami
should increase the number of paid college internships offered to local college students across
the departments, but focused on our City's response to sea level rise and climate change. This
provides an opportunity to really build our future workforce to solve these problems. Last, that
the City join Miami-Dade County and City of Miami Beach in the Greater Miami and the
Beach's partnership to an application to a group called Metro Labs Network. This was
developed out of Carnegie Mellon University and is funded by McArthur Foundation, and it is a
network of regional city partnerships with universities across the United States really helping
cities partner effectively with their universities so the universities are sort of the research
development/deployment partners for the cities; sort of an R&D (research and development) for
the City. And then for the university, the university gets a -- it's a laboratory. It's a living
laboratory in which to learn and develop solutions, and monitor the impacts of those solutions.
So -- and those really aren't just around sea level rise. The potential for it could be around aging
infrastructure, inequality in income, health, mobility, as well as environmental sustainability and
resiliency. So those are our three recommendations that -- the last one would be pursued in
partnership with the Greater Miami and the Beach's resilience partnerships, since it is a more

encompassing look at resilience. And so that summarizes our findings. As you see on the report
we submitted, it is a draft report. We very much welcome your input; want to make sure this is
the direction you were looking for when you recommended us to take a look at the UM Climate
Change Report, and welcome your feedback, and then we'd be happy to finalize the report.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you. You're recognized, Commissioner.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you. I'm glad you mentioned about the regional and national,
because it's very important we bring all our resources together, and I think that's the partnership
that we have to create; work as a team. Thank you.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Yes, you're recognized.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate not only the work that you
have done, but actually coming before us and presenting your findings. I mean, in all fairness,
all three of them make perfect sense, and I'm willing to move forward at any time this
Commission wishes to pass a resolution with that. Mr. Pathman, welcome also, and thank you
for the work that you have done. Mr. Pathman and I actually spoke about sea level rise, I would
say, many, many months ago, maybe years ago. And I was happy to nominate and for him to
accept to be part of the Sea Level Rise Committee. I know -- and actually, he touched upon a
point that I think is very important, which is insurance rates. And as many of you know, you
know, the National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System is one that, when you
incorporate, does reduce the insurance rates in different communities. However, however, they
require for the municipalities -- the government to have a storm water master plan. And I keep
saying, currently, the City's is outdated. Not only that, when it was done back in 2011 in phase
one, sea level rise was never taken into consideration. So I have a resolution to make sure that
the City updates that; and not only that, we take sea level rise into consideration, because that's
where we have the engineers, and that's where, you know, maybe we'll have a little discussion
when the item comes, because I know you're requesting $50,000 for what -- it says it's primarily
be made for the engagement of expert consultants to provide analyses, reports,
recommendations, and other resources to implement programs to help the City.” Listen, I don't
have a problem with recommendations, but I think we need to start with the very basics, which is,
you know, this storm water master plan; the updating of it, and actually take into consideration
sea level rise. And these are our experts, these are the engineers, these are the ones that -- you
know? So I think that's where -- you know, and as a matter of fact, I think as of now, we still
haven't allocated the monies for that updating of the storm water, so I think I would want to
focus first on that, which is a need. And not only that; it goes back to what you were saying, Mr.
Pathman, insurance rates, you know. So I think that's where we need to focus with regards to
those $50,000. However, as far as continuing the great work that you do, I absolutely agree.
And the three findings that you mentioned, I think it's a no-brainer and -- you know.
Commissioner Carollo: I will be willing to move on it whenever this Commission would choose;
even now. I don't know if it's proper to actually move on those three findings. I mean, I know it's
not --
Vice Chair Russell: That's fine, go for it.
Chair Hardemon: You mean --

Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. I will make a motion, then, to accept the three findings that were
mentioned.
Chair Hardemon: -- the three recommendations that were mentioned.
Commissioner Carollo: The three recommendations.
Chair Hardemon: Is there a second?
Commissioner Suarez: Second.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded that we accept the three
recommendations that's been made by this body (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Any discussion about this
motion that's on the floor? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, say "aye."
Chair Hardemon: That motion passes. You're recognized, sir.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Commissioner Carollo, what -- for
what you're bringing today on the agenda. I am absolutely in support of it, and I know that's not
a cheap ask, either.
Commissioner Carollo: No.
Vice Chair Russell: To study our storm water drain system is absolutely crucial. I'll be in
support of that. Of course, I'll also be in support of, you know, giving some strength to the
committee so they can do their work. Of course, through your work, as well, Jane, we've got
basically this award of the Hundred Resilient Cities, which is giving us budget, as well, to hire
our resiliency officer. So I wanted to ask, Mr. Manager, where we are on the hiring of this
resiliency officer, what you're looking for in this person, and maybe even ask the Sea Level Rise
Committee what their recommendation is on what this resiliency officer's position should look
like, because I feel that you will be working very closely with them throughout this process.
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): We had interviews last week. As a matter of fact, two
members of the committee were on the interview panel. They've made recommendations. The
decisions will be made next week.
Vice Chair Russell: That's excellent. And I look forward to that. I understand we're also hiring
two people to work under them, specifically in -- or are you shifting them from elsewhere? -- that
will be specifically working on emergency response and grant writing; is that correct?
Mr. Alfonso: Well, we will assign other resources as needed from other departments.
Vice Chair Russell: Right. And so our budget process began this month, and I expressed a need
for more manpower within that department, including, perhaps, somebody in Planning &
Zoning, specializing in what would be needed to be changed to our Planning & Zoning and our
process. Various departments I mentioned, but I'm going to actually leave that to this board, as
well, to work with that resiliency officer when they come in to see what sort of team they need to
liaise throughout the departments of the City to make sure all departments are ready. And you
will have my support in the midyear to allocate those funds.
Mr. Pathman: Thank you, Commissioner. I had the pleasure of serving on that panel, and I

could tell you that the Manager did an excellent job. The six candidates were all qualified, and
I'm sure that whoever is selected, the City will end up with a very good resiliency officer or
Manager. We would like the opportunity, if the Commission would consider, to allow us to come
back as our full committee and make a presentation to you, either this month or next month.
There are a lot of things that we have digested over the last nine months. I can't summarize it all
in 10 minutes, like I did earlier, but there are some very important things that I think you want to
hear, some suggestions, some things that we've already done in meeting with various department
heads within the City. So we would really like the opportunity to make a full presentation with a
few of the people that -- who serve on the board. As far as the University of Miami report, we
have digested this material, so we -- for all intents and purposes, Sea Level Rise Committee is
done with this issue, and I'm glad you adopted it. And now, what we'd like to do is that we would
like to now move forward -- obviously, we'll consult with the Water Advisory Board -- but move
forward on implementing what you just voted on as a committee and report back to you.
Chair Hardemon: And Commissioners, I would recommend that we do maybe a sunshine

meeting where just members of the public can come instead of having it a full --
Commissioner Gort: Special meeting for it.
Chair Hardemon: -- meeting.
Chair Hardemon: So we could just make contact with the offices and we can set up a meeting.
Mr. Pathman: Okay. We would really appreciate that, because we've been trying to come before
you and let you know when you created this committee what we're doing, and what we've done.
So thank you very much for your time today; really appreciate it.
Commissioner Gort: Thank you.
Mr. Pathman: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: I'm about to call on the Mayor, because he had an item that he had not fully
completed making a presentation on.
(PA.1) RESOLUTION
16-01196a
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION GRANTING A SIXTY
(60) DAY EXTENSION OF THE COMMISSION DIRECTIVE ISSUED
THROUGH RESOLUTION 16-0230 TO THE MIAMI SEA LEVEL RISE
COMMITTEE AND THE WATERFRONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, that this matter be
ADOPTED PASSED by the following vote.
R-16-0435
(PA.1) RESOLUTION
16-01196b

A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MIAMI SEA LEVEL RISE COMMITTEE TO
HAVE CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT LIAISONS MEET WITH LOCAL
UNIVERSITY LEADERSHIP TO FORM PARTNERSHIPS TO ADDRESS,
INTER ALIA, LAND USE, MAPPING, AND BUILDING CODE ISSUES; TO
INCREASE PAID COLLEGE INTERNSHIPS FOCUSED ON SEA LEVEL
RISE AND CLIMATE CHANGE; AND TO JOIN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH TO PARTNER WITH METROLAB NETWORK
TO FORM REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN CITIES AND
UNIVERSITIES.
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, that this matter be
R-16-0436
END OF PERSONAL APPEARANCES
PUBLIC HEARING
PH.1 RESOLUTION
16-01062
Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Community and ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE ALLOCATION OF PROGRAM
Economic INCOME FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
Development GENERATED FROM DECEMBER 3, 2015 TO JUNE 30, 2016, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $315,267.07, TO THE CATEGORIES SPECIFIED IN
ATTACHMENT "A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED; AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE.
16-01062 Notice to the Public.pdf
16-01062 Attachment A.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be

Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Carollo and Suarez
Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Hardemon
R-16-0426
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PH.1, please see "Order of
the Day."
Vice Chair Russell: All right. So as the Chairman breaks, I will take over as Chairman at this
time, and we'll move to the PH (Public Hearings) portion of the agenda, and let's start with
PH.1, please.
Alfredo Duran (Deputy Director): Good morning. Alfredo Duran, Department of Community
and Economic Development. PH.1 is a resolution which is authorizing us to allocate program

income from Community Development Block Grant funds generated from December 3, 2015 to
June 30, 2016, in the amount of $315,267.07, and allocating it to the items displayed in the
attachment.
Commissioner Gort: Second.
Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved and seconded. We've already had public comment for all
sections. Any comments from the dais? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
Vice Chair Russell: Motion passes.
PH.2 RESOLUTION
16-01063
Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
Community and ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONAL STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
Economic PARTNERSHIP ("SHIP") FUNDS IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $22,429.00,
Development FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016, FOR THE STRATEGIES UNDER THE
CURRENT SHIP LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN; AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM
Motion by Commissioner Gort, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be

R-16-0427
the Day."
Vice Chair Russell: PH.2.
Alfredo Duran (Deputy Director, Community and Economic Development): PH.2 is a resolution
accepting an additional $22,429 in State Housing Initiative Partnership Program for fiscal years
2015 and '16. These are funds that we accepted in September of 2015, and after the collections
from the State had been made, there was additional collections, and this is a portion that they're
giving to us; accepting these additional $22,000.
Commissioner Gort: These funds are to be utilized as the restoration?
Mr. Duran: I'm sorry?
Commissioner Gort: These funds, how are they going to be utilized?
Mr. Duran: These funds are primarily utilized by the department -- by the City for rehabilitation

of --
Commissioner Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Duran: -- single-family homes and first-time home buyer activities.
Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved and second. Any discussion from the dais? Hearing none,
all in favor, say "aye."
Vice Chair Russell: Any opposed? Motion passes.
Mr. Duran: Thank you.
PH.3 RESOLUTION
16-01064
Department of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AUTHORIZING THE
Community and ACCEPTANCE OF STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP ("SHIP")
Economic FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NO LESS THAN $1,758,650.00, FOR FISCAL YEAR
Development 2016-2017, FOR THE STRATEGIES UNDER THE CURRENT SHIP LOCAL
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO
THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR SAID PURPOSE.

R-16-0428
Note for the record: For public hearing comments referencing item PH.3, please see "Order of
the Day."
Alfredo Duran (Deputy Director, Community and Economic Development): PH.3 is the
acceptance of State Housing Initiative Partnership Programs in the total amount of $1,758,650
for fiscal years 2016 and '17. This is the SHIP (State Housing Initiative Partnership Program)
Program, the same one as before, for next year's allocation, accepting these funds from the State.
Commissioner Suarez: Move it.
Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion from the dais? Hearing

PH.4 RESOLUTION
16-00821
Works ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "BATTERSEA
WOODS", A REPLAT AND A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF MIAMI OF THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN "ATTACHMENT 1", SUBJECT TO
SATISFACTION OF ALL CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE PLAT AND
STREET COMMITTEE AS SET FORTH IN "EXHIBIT A", ATTACHED AND
INCORPORATED, AND THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 55-8
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, AND
ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAT; AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE
PLAT; PROVIDING FOR THE RECORDATION OF THE PLAT IN THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
16-00821 Attachment 1.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-John Snyder-Letter with Petitions.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-John Snyder-Presentation regarding Battersea Woods.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Paul Figg-Presentation to City Commission.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Commissioner Russell-Miami21-Appendix A-Neighborhood Conservation Districts.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-John Snyder-Petitions, Analysis and Remarks Packet.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Larissa Ozols-Platting of Battersea Woods Joint Presentation.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Johannah Brown-Presentation Report.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Deborah Dolson-Statement regarding Battersea Woods.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-John Dolson-Triumph of Terminology over Common Sense.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Commissioner Ken Russell-Emails RE Battersea Woods.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Commissioner Ken Russell-Miami21 Article 7-Procedures and Noncomformities.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Commissioner Ken Russell-Email to City Attorney Victoria Mendez.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Commissioner Ken Russell-Email for IT Search for research purposes.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Commissioner Ken Russell-Letter to Commissioners RE Battersea Woods and Victoria Mend
16-00821-Submittal-Commissioner Ken Russell-Back-up Documents RE Battersea Woods and Victoria Mendez.p
16-00821-Submittal-Debbie Dolson-Information Packet.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Renita Samuels-Dixon-Miami21 Zoning Code Types.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Cindy Snyder-Letters and Petitions.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Anne Cote-Populations Schedule and Photos RE Battersea Woods.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Larissa Ozols-Property Appraisers Office Information and Miami21 Code Sections.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-John Snyder-Letter and Corrective Warranty Deed.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Glenn Patron-Comments.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Adele Myers-Letter and Email.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-Renita Samuels-Dixon-MDC Property Appraisers Info-3506 Solana Road.pdf
16-00821-Submittal-John Dolson-Letter.pdf
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be
DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote.


Note for the Record: Item PH.4 was deferred to the September 22, 2016 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting.
the Day."
Vice Chair Russell: PH.4, Battersea Woods. I have a feeling this one will, perhaps, stretch in
past lunch, but let's see what we can do.
Eduardo Santamaria (Director, Public Works): Good morning, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Ed
Santamaria, director of Public Works. PH.4 is a resolution accepting the final plat of Battersea
Woods, located along the south side of Battersea Road and along the northwesterly side of
Ingraham Highway.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much. Before I make a motion, I'd like to discuss this for a
minute, and I'd like to start by thanking the neighbors for getting as deeply involved as this -- in
this as you have. It used to be everyone around here was a real estate agent. Now, everybody is
a Planning & Zoning expert; and funny enough, it's a shame that you feel that you have to be.
You know, I was most recently a resident before now being a politician, and so I can empathize
very clearly with what you feel, and I recognize this from during my campaign and before. There
is a reputation that we have as a city, a feeling amongst the residents, warranted or not, that
things happen here, Planning & Zoning-wise, development-wise, that aren't quite straight; that
somehow, a developer will get their way, and that it then comes to us, and it's simply voted on.
In this very simple, small issue of a re-plat, the residents have asked me to sort of pick at a small
scab and see what's there. And the discussion I'm about to have is actually very difficult. And so
I've drafted a letter that I'd like passed out to the various Commissioners, as well as the Clerk, to
be entered into the record, and I'll tell you where I'm going with this. What I have found what
the residents feel is going on, but don't have access to within the public records, I asked our City
Attorney back in July to provide me and my office with all the documentation, any emails
between their office and the developer and the Planning & Zoning Department. I got back five
emails, which was basically the final legal decision that was given by Dan Goldberg. Later, we
ask -- we started having doubt on this opinion within my office and started really trying to study
how they came to this opinion. It just -- I'm no expert, but even from a layman's terms, I read
Dan's opinion and I have trouble with it. So we did a public records request from my office to IT
(Information Technology), asking for the exact same thing we asked from our Law Department,
and I got dozens of emails. My City Attorney has not been forthright with me and my office with
all the information that I need to decide on this case. Documents were withheld from me that
would have perhaps changed my decision on this case, to understand how we got here. The
representation of how this came to be was not straight. And so here I am, left to decide, work
with the developers, work with the residents, and I don't have all the tools that I need. So in this
discovery that my office was able to make through the IT Department, we learned that there is
another hand that's pushing this entire effort, and that is -- no surprise -- the lobbyist for the
developer. And this is not to demonize that lobbyist or the developer. They play within the rules
that are given to them. It is our job as a city, as a Planning & Zoning Department, as a Public
Works Department, as a Legal Department to know when to say, "No. The law says this, and this
is what you do." And in this particular case, it was whether or not a warrant should be issued for
this re-plat. It's not a big deal, but it is a big deal. And this small issue of whether or not a
warrant should have been issued has escalated to this, to where I don't have the trust of my own
City Attorney's Department anymore. So I don't know where you all will stand on this, because
you've heard many residents talk about deep into the weeds of what's wrong with this re-platting,
and I'm just going to give you a summary of what they're trying to tell you, but really, what I
want you to understand from me is that I don't have the trust of my City Attorney right now. I've
lost my trust in her office to provide the documents that I request and to give me the full story

that I request to know what happened. In this particular case, the Planning & Zoning
Department issued a decision to a developer. They would need a warrant to go through this
process. It was on a punch list. You need to have a warrant. No big deal. They fought that
decision. Again, no big deal. Planning & Zoning Department stuck by their decision. This
attorney then went through Victoria Méndez, through a friendly relationship that they have as
fellow attorneys. No big deal. Victoria Méndez then assigned an attorney to give an opinion.
Her office works for this city; not for the developer and not for that attorney. No one from my
office and no one from Planning & Zoning asked the Law Department to intervene here; the
developer did. And so Ms. Méndez put Amanda Quirke on the case. "Please review this, talk with
the developer, see what you can find." That attorney for -- under -- working under Ms. Méndez
agreed with our Planning & Zoning Department and said, "This has to go to warrant. It's very
clear." She made an analysis. Done. The developer pushed again. "No, we think it shouldn't
have to go to a warrant. Vicky, can you do something about that?" And in this correspondence
that I found, it doesn't look pretty. It's basically the attorney for the developer, Javier Vasquez,
pushing Victoria to side with their opinion. Our attorney disagreed. So that attorney is no
longer on it. And she bring -- gets another one of our attorneys, until that attorney gives an
opinion that agrees with the developer, against our Planning & Zoning Department. And then,
our Planning & Zoning Department is asked to change their mind to agree with that developer.
This is not the job of our Law Department; it's not. This is the purview of our Planning &
Zoning Department that gave their decision. The proper avenue for that attorney for that
developer -- and there is an avenue -- is to appeal at Planning & Zoning Appeals Board, where
there's a public hearing, where the public can weigh in, where all of us can see this and what's
going on, and other specialists can weigh in on whether or not that Planning & Zoning director
was correct in their decision. I understand things get fluid, the attorney gets involved, a decision
is made. I've been told this is the way it's always been done. That's not acceptable to me.
Things have to be done by the process; they have to be done in the public. We can go through
the weeds of whether or not the warrant is warranted or not, whether or not their process was
correct in getting involved, but the most important thing to me is I asked my City Attorney for all
the emails, and she didn't give them to me. She only gave me the end little mini-decision that
they had come through after their entire journeys, where people in her office disagreed with the
developer. I want the whole story so I can make the decision. It is absolutely not acceptable,
and for me, that alone is enough that I cannot work with trust in my City Attorney. And so I've
written this letter to you, as fellow Commissioners, and I will not make a motion at this point. I
think we will break for lunch, but I'll ask you to review it. I'll read it briefly into the record, and
then, obviously, you can sit on this, because I know it's a lot. I know none of you knew this was
coming at all. Due to sunshine, I have not been able to share my feelings of this week of what
I've been going through after discovering this information, and so: "September 8. Esteemed
colleagues, this is a difficult letter for me to write. I've lost my trust in our City Attorney,
Victoria Méndez, and I will be discussing her actions with you during item PH.4, the Battersea
Woods re-platting issue. Over the past two Commission meetings, I have taken the unusual step
of moving to defer the approval of PH.4, a re-plat in Coconut Grove, labeled 'Battersea Woods.'
I've made this motion twice in a row in order to hear from my constituents, who are concerned
and infuriated by what to them seems to be a zoning entitlement that violates our City Code.
While the detailed interpretation of the Code and the end decision of whether or not this re -plat
required a warrant are important, these are not the reasons that I'm writing this letter today.
Listed below are the relevant issues with regard to my loss of trust in our Attorney. One: Ms.
Méndez intervened improperly in a zoning matter in order to overrule a determination of the
Zoning Administrator, in overreach of her position that is in opposition to our City Code. Two:
Ms. Méndez ignored the opinion of experts, both inside and outside her department with their"--
"when their findings were not favorable to the request of a lobbyist friend. This includes
reassigning analysis of the issue within her department after an Assistant City Attorney made a
finding unfavorable to the lobbyist. Ms. Méndez mischaracterized the events related to the issue
when queried by my office. Upon being asked to provide backup information to help us
understand the issue, Ms. Méndez withheld dozens of vital documents. The documents
continually included all references to her involvement in the issue at the request of the lobbyist. I

take no joy in writing this, as I am personally fond of and have had a good working relationship
with Victoria thus far. However, I believe the level of impropriety that I've been able to
document warrants the removal of Victoria Méndez from her position as City Attorney, as well as
independent inquiry into her department's policies for handling zoning matters and public
records requests. Additionally, I believe it is important to consider these facts as we move once
again to consider this re-plat. I look forward to further discussion on this issue today."
Gentlemen, if you have any comments or would like to discuss this at all right now, I'm very
open. Victoria, obviously you, as well. If you'd like to wait, we can break for lunch and then
reconvene. Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Wow.
Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry.
Commissioner Suarez: I guess I wasn't expecting that with 13 minutes left to go before the end of
the lunchtime, for sure. This letter obviously refers to a variety of different things, one of which
is a Code provision in number one, so I'd like to see what Code provision specifically you're
referring to, number one. Number one refers to a violation of a Code provision, so I'd like to
know what specific Code provision you're referring to.
Vice Chair Russell: Sure.
Commissioner Suarez: Certainly -- you also referred to a lot of documents that -- I can't speak
for my colleagues. I don't know if they've seen any of the documents. I have not --
Vice Chair Russell: No, they haven't. I've only --
Commissioner Suarez: -- seen any of the documents, so, you know, that's something that I'd like
to also take a look at and review.
Vice Chair Russell: I'll have full backup for you. I know it's a lot of information, and on some
points, you may agree with me, and you may not, but in the end point, there's one thing that is
absolutely indisputable: Whether it was a mistake or not, whether it was by accident or not, I
requested documents, and I did not get them for months. So I will pass out the documentation. I
will provide all of you with backup to the analysis of the points that I've made. If there's no other
comment, we shall break for lunch.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. We'll reconvene at 3 o'clock?
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Commissioners, there is a Midtown CRA (Community
Redevelopment Agency) meeting, as well. We'll take that up now first.
Javier Vazquez: Would you --
Vice Chair Russell: Okay.
Mr. Vazquez: Commissioner, if I could?
Vice Chair Russell: Yes, of course.
Mr. Vazquez: For the record, my name is Javi Vazquez, with Ber -- Law Offices of Berger
Singerman, and I'd like, if I could, through the Chair, to address some of your comments, as my
name was brought up.

Vice Chair Russell: Yes.
Mr. Vazquez: Thank you very much. So I am the attorney of record, together with my partner,
Paul Figg, on this matter, and I would like to state for the record that I have been a practicing
lawyer for 25 years now -- I think 26 years -- and I'd like -- I think I have an obligation to stand
up here, because there was a tone of impropriety as it relates to some of your comments. I
appreciate that you made a specific comment that I -- and I'm not -- I'm going to paraphrase --
but that it is expected for the applicant's attorney to push for an interpretation as we see things.
We have at no -- I've known Victoria for a long time, and at no time have -- has there been any
request for a change of attorney. At no time has there been any time of special favors. This has
been a straight, straight -- as a matter of fact, this is a platting process, which typically is much
more black and white than your traditional quasi-judicial matter. So I want to stand up here to
defend my integrity as an attorney. I want to stand up here and defend the integrity of the law
firm that I represent. And I also want to defend the integrity of my clients, who have been
nothing but patient. They have done everything that has been asked of them, including more
than 10 meetings with the neighbors. And we feel that where the City is today, which we were
ready to not only cooperate with regards to Ms. Méndez' position, but as well with -- as well as
that of your Planning & Zoning Department with regards to whether or not a warrant is required
is what we worked hard for, and we worked very hard to get to this moment. So I'm up here to,
once again, respectfully address your comments, because of the fact that you specifically called
out my name, and I believe it's my obligation to clear my name, clear that of my law firm and
clear that of my client.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Vazquez. It's a pleasure. And I do want to stress that I do
not feel that you lobbying for your client is incorrect; that you shouldn't [sic] be pushing for the
interpretation that you feel is correct. But I do have a question, because the bulk of the emails
that I found on my secondary request did come from you and to Victoria. Are you registered as a
lobbyist on this project for this client?
Mr. Vazquez: My understanding is that I am.
Vice Chair Russell: My understanding is that you're not.
Mr. Vazquez: Okay.
Vice Chair Russell: I'm open to being incorrect on that, but I would like that checked.
Mr. Vazquez: Okeydoke.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you.
Mr. Vazquez: And we will look at it from our end, as well. I -- once again, I've been a land use
and zoning attorney and governmental attorney for many years, and that's part of the process
that we -- you know, one of the first things that we do at our office. There's a procedure for it.
My answer to your question is: I believe I am.
Vice Chair Russell: And I do understand. All -- I can see the fluidity that everything had
happened now that I've seen the documents, but I asked to be taken on that journey, and I was
kept in the dark. Thank you.
Mr. Vazquez: Thank you, Commissioner.
Vice Chair Russell: So we shall break for lunch after the Midtown CRA. Would you guys like
five minutes before getting to the CRA, or do you think we can do -- okay, we'll knock it out. And

Commissioner Hardemon has said he'd like to reconvene at 2 p.m. for the regular Commission
meeting. So we'll break now for the Midtown CRA meeting.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): I just need two minutes.
Commissioner Suarez: And just to be clear, Mr. Chair, I probably won't be here exactly at 2,
because I thought we were going to reconvene at 3, as has been our practice, so I'll probably be
a little late.
Commissioner Carollo: We reconvene at 3.
Later…
Chair Hardemon: I'm going to call this meeting back into order. Currently, we don't have
quorum just yet, so if any of the Commissioners are watching on television, which we tend to do
when we go in the back, please make your way to the dais. As I understand right now, there's no
motion on the floor, but we were considering PH.4. And typically, during the afternoon, we
consider the Planning & Zoning items, and I know everyone for the most part here -- well, for the
most part, here right now came for the Planning & Zoning items. And so we're going to move
our way through some of the regular agenda before we open up the public hearing section for the
Planning & Zoning items, so you'll have an opportunity to speak and go home, if that's what you
wish to do, okay? Okay, the meeting has already been called back in order. Now we have
quorum. We were on PH.4. I was watching. I know there was some lively discussion, and before
we move on any further, I'd just like everyone to be aware. PH.4 is the agenda item accepting
the final plat of Battersea Woods. Currently, there is no motion on the floor to accept or deny
that request. However, I know there was a -- some conversation regarding our City Attorney,
and so before we go further into that, I want everyone to understand that parliamentary
procedure, as Chairman, what I'm supposed to do is guarantee that we're moving efficiently on
our agenda, and if there is a will of the body for a discussion item or for a motion , that there is a
motion and a second. If there is a motion and a second, then we move on with that discussion
about that item, whatever it may be, on the agenda or not, and once that motion and second is
made, then we'll be able to finish that discussion, but until that motion and second is being -- is
made, then we're going to continue on with the regular agenda, okay?
Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Mr. Chair.
Vice Chair Russell: Separate from that, a few residents who did not get to speak this morning
because of the new public commentary period, have shown up and have some comments they'd
like to make on some of the agenda items, and they were asking if we could open public
commentary once again for those who did not know of the new process who would like to speak
on some of the issues on our agenda today. I don't think there's many.
Chair Hardemon: What we can do, can -- for those people who want to speak on agenda items
that are for the regular agenda, can you stand to be recognized? I don't see any right now. So
what we're going to do then --
Vice Chair Russell: I think we're all right then.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So what we're going to do then is we're going to call PH.4, unless you
want to make a motion and there's a second for -- that's consistent with what you said yesterday.
We can -- but like -- as I stated, we can move through the agenda. We can skip PH.4 if you'd like.

We can handle PH.4 and moving on PH.5.
Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to defer PH.4. I move that we defer PH.4. A lot of new information
has come in even in this past evening and morning from the Planning & Zoning Department,
which I believe has a new opinion on whether or not this issue should have gone through
warrant, and so we'd like some more time to review that, but that does not preclude the other
discussion that we had started, which I'd like to wait till my fellow Commissioners are here.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So it's been properly moved. Is there a second to defer PH.4?
Mr. Vazquez: Mr. Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Before -- let us finish this. Is there a second to defer?
Chair Hardemon: It's been seconded by Commissioner Gort. All in -- is there any discussion
about the deferral?
Mr. Vazquez: Chair --
Chair Hardemon: Is there a date that you want to defer to?
Vice Chair Russell: Next Commission meeting.
Mr. Hannon: Yes, sir; September 22.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. All in favor, say "aye."
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Vazquez: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. And I was hoping to be recognized prior to the
vote. My name is Javi Vazquez. I am with the Law Offices of Berger Singerman, and I am the
attorney for Battersea Woods, LLC (Limited Liability Company), which is the item that you are
now talking about. I do need to clarify an issue that was discussed prior to the break. At the --
right before we broke, Commissioner Russell asked me if I was a registered lobbyist for this
matter, and I answered affirmatively. I went back, checked not only with the Clerk's Office, but
with my office, and the misunderstanding that took place is that I am registered as a -- my annual
lobbyist registration is in place, and apparently, there was a misunderstanding as to whether a
lobbyist registration was required for the matter, and my assistant did not file it. What I did, to
err on the side of caution, is I did file a lobbyist registration during the break to make sure that
that issue was no longer an issue. If I could also, Mr. Chairman, I' d like to address
Commissioner Russell, because he did make some very significant comments having to do with
my name, my firm, and I think I need to clear the air on a couple things.
Chair Hardemon: Well, I was watching as I was in the car traveling away, so I -- you made that
exact same statement, and you did make some clarifications on the record. Where --
Mr. Vazquez: Just one small additional statement if you -- for the purposes of --
Chair Hardemon: If it's one statement, I'll give you the opportunity.
Mr. Vazquez: -- And I appreciate that. So I've clarified the issue on the lobbyist registration.

And again, just like I mentioned before, there was a significant tone of possible impropriety, and
I want you, Commissioner Russell, to understand that when you make comments with that kind of
a tone, you impact a firm that's got a very significant reputation in this town; a firm that has a
significant relationship with the City of Miami; a firm that has represented the City of Miami; a
firm that has done pro bono work on behalf of the City of Miami. You implicate my name. I have
possible clients in this audience, I have possible clients watching this, and that tone can affect
what I do for a living. This is how I make a living. And I've always made it a point to do things
the right way. The fact that we've asked the Law Department --
Chair Hardemon: Do your best to speak to the Chair.
Mr. Vazquez: Last point.
Chair Hardemon: To the Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Last point and I will wrap it. Last point that I was not able to make: The last
-- the fact that we asked through a legal -- the submittal of a legal memorandum -- the Law
Department for a reconsideration on a position is very normal and very ordinary in the course of
what we do when we're trying to advance the position of clients like Battersea Woods. It sounds
like you've deferred the item, but we were prepared to continue our presentation today. Mr. Paul
Figg, who presented before you July 29, is here. But again, it is very important, sir -- not sure
what the direction of your conversation was -- but it's very important that you please -- and I'm
asking you on the record -- clear that record, because you're putting a lot of reputations at stake,
and it's not fair.
Vice Chair Russell: I absolutely will do so now, and I thought I was clear when I spoke, but I do
not implicate your firm --
Mr. Vazquez: Thank you, sir.
Vice Chair Russell: -- for doing anything but advocating for your client --
Mr. Vazquez: Thank you.
Vice Chair Russell: -- and that you didn't do so in an improper way.
Mr. Vazquez: Thank you, sir.
Vice Chair Russell: The only question I had was with regard to the registration as a lobbyist on
this issue, and I know that -- I understand that you now are --
Mr. Vazquez: Thank you.
Vice Chair Russell: -- and I appreciate that.
Mr. Vazquez: And I apologize for --
Vice Chair Russell: But if my tone was misread, I apologize for that.
Mr. Vazquez: I thank you, sir.
Chair Hardemon: All right. Thank you very much.

PH.5 RESOLUTION
16-01124
Works ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE PLAT ENTITLED "KLEBBA BAY
ESTATES REPLAT", A REPLAT IN THE CITY OF MIAMI OF THE PROPERTY
DESCRIBED IN "ATTACHMENT 1", SUBJECT TO SATISFACTION OF ALL
CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE PLAT AND STREET COMMITTEE AS SET
FORTH IN "EXHIBIT A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, AND THE
PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 55-8 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED AND ACCEPTING THE DEDICATIONS
SHOWN ON THE PLAT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE PLAT; PROVIDING FOR
THE RECORDATION OF THE PLAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
16-01124 Back-Up from Law Dept.pdf
16-01124 Attachment 1.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, that this matter be
R-16-0429
the Day."
Chair Hardemon: Now, as I stated before, Commissioners, when we're looking at the items -- for
instance, the PH items -- if you don't anticipate having any objection to any of the items or you
don't have any discussion about any of the items, you can make a motion to approve the items,
you know, in bulk to help move us through the agenda, or if not, then we move through each
particular item, so --
Commissioner Suarez: Is that what we're doing right now?
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, yeah. We're back on PH.5 now.
Commissioner Gort: PH.5.
Commissioner Suarez: So I can make a motion, you're saying, from PH.5 to PH.8? Is that what
you're saying?
Chair Hardemon: Well, I know there's a four-fifth requirement on --
Commissioner Suarez: PH.8.
Chair Hardemon: -- 7 and 8.
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): PH.7 also requires RE.4 to go first.

Commissioner Suarez: Okay, so I'll make that motion, if that's what you're asking.
Vice Chair Russell: Would it be more appropriate, Mr. Chair, if anyone just says something
they'd like to pull out of those than --
Chair Hardemon: Right. That's what I'm saying.
Commissioner Suarez: That's fine. So I'll move --
Chair Hardemon: If there's something that you want to pull out --
Commissioner Suarez: -- the public hearing items. I'll move the public hearing items, right?
Chair Hardemon: There's something that the Clerk wants to say. Yes, sir.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): My apologies, Commissioners. But it's my understanding that
RE.4 needs to be heard before PH.7 is voted upon.
Chair Hardemon: And what is it about RE.4 that needs to be heard before?
Mr. Min: I'll defer --
Chair Hardemon: I mean, I understand that RE.4 is accepting a grant --
Mr. Min: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: -- but if, you know --
Mr. Min: We can't spend money if you don't have the money.
Chair Hardemon: Right. But what I'm saying --
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): So the item can be passed contingent upon the other item
passing later.
Commissioner Suarez: Which gets complicated when you're passing --
Chair Hardemon: Not necessarily.
Commissioner Suarez: Well, when you're passing items wholesale, because you start modifying
the item by making it contingent on a later item.
Chair Hardemon: It's not really modifying; it's amending the motion, really. I mean, because
there's no -- well, there's -- first of all, there's no motion on the floor when it comes to that item.
All I'm saying is this: If you had a motion -- a motion can be -- can have many parts to it, so just
for -- this is for our conversation. If I said, "I move to pass PH"-- which one needs the
addendum?
Mr. Hannon: PH.7.
Chair Hardemon: -- 6 -- okay, if I move to pass PH.5, 6, 8 and 7, which is contingent upon the
passing of RE.4, that's a sufficient motion to make. It is sufficient.
Mr. Min: Yes.

Mr. Alfonso: Thank you. So as a point of --
Vice Chair Russell: So we can have --
Mr. Alfonso: -- privilege, Mr. Chairman, if I may?
Mr. Alfonso: Director Ed Santamaria is here on his last presentation in front of this Commission
as a City of Miami employee, so this is his last PH item that he will be presenting as a plat, and
then he's left us to the “City Beautiful” of Coral Gables.
Commissioner Gort: No, he's leaving “City Beautiful.”
Applause.
Chair Hardemon: So I'll let you say what it is that you want to say for PH.5, and then I'll
entertain a motion in accordance with what we've just explained.
Vice Chair Russell: I promise this replat won't be as complicated.
Ed Santamaria: Hopefully not. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the Commission for
indulging me in this last item. I'd like to do it in an RE (resolution) form, but I won't bore you
with that. PH.5 is a resolution accepting the proposed plat of Klebba Bay Estates Replat,
located along the north and south sides of Curtis Lane, east of Rogers Road.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you.
Commissioner Suarez: So are we making a motion on all public hearing items?
Chair Hardemon: Yes, you can make that motion.
Chair Hardemon: But I will add that you might --
Vice Chair Russell: We don't need a separate vote for each?
Chair Hardemon: No. And I will add that you can add the language for RE.4. Remember what
we said?
Commissioner Suarez: Yes, with the language for RE.4.
Commissioner Suarez: In other words, conditioned on RE.4 passing that would pass --
Chair Hardemon: All right.
Commissioner Suarez: -- PH.7.

Chair Hardemon: So to clarify the motion that Commissioner Suarez just made, he moves to
accept PH.5, 6, 8 and item PH.7, which item PH.7 is contingent upon the passing of RE.4.
Commissioner Suarez: Yep.
Chair Hardemon: Is that correct? Is there a second? The Chair will second. Is there any
further discussion on the motion on the floor?
Commissioner Suarez: No.
Vice Chair Russell: Question?
Vice Chair Russell: We don't need each item read into the record so that it's --
Chair Hardemon: Not those items. When we get to the ordinances, yes, yes.
Vice Chair Russell: I just want to make sure that we're not reducing the public's -- the visibility
of -- by filming this and everything; that everybody sees the items that we're voting on. If they
don't have the agenda in front of them, they may never know this happened, right? That was my
only concern; that we're doing it all in batches.
Chair Hardemon: No, I understand the concern. So the agenda items are published, of course,
for the public to read through, you know --
Vice Chair Russell: True.
Chair Hardemon: -- this document to see if they want to read through it. The items that are
required by law for us to read at least the heading into the record will be the ordinances , and so
that's the one that we have to read on first reading and on second reading so the public knows
exactly what is being passed. And more importantly, it is something that we do so that they know
that this is an item that is of great importance, because it's law, it is becoming law, and they
should be aware, and it should be a signal to all of us as Commissioners that there 's a -- there's
law that's being passed, and we should be more keenly aware of what's happening. So, you
know, to me, when I look at the way that we're doing this and you compare it to CA.1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5 and 6, there's no difference. You know, it's -- the fact that those became CA (consent
agenda) items and these were not CA items --
Vice Chair Russell: And if we don't have an issue with it and the public didn't have an issue with
it, there's nothing left to discuss at this point.
Chair Hardemon: Right, right. But if you want to discuss something, you can always pull the
item for discussion. Any further discussion or unreadiness? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion passes.
PH.6 RESOLUTION
16-01106
Department of Real A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Estate and Asset ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
Management GRANT OF AN UNDERGROUND EASEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
ATTACHED FORM, WITH THE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT
("WASD") OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE

STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR A PERPETUAL NON-EXCLUSIVE
UNDERGROUND EASEMENT OF APPROXIMATELY TWENTY-ONE
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-SEVEN (21,257) SQUARE FEET OF
CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1020
MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF
WATERLINE FACILITIES, WITH THE RIGHT TO RECONSTRUCT, IMPROVE,
CHANGE AND REMOVE ALL OR ANY OF THE FACILITIES WITHIN THE
EASEMENT, WITH FULL RIGHT OF INGRESS THERETO AND EGRESS
THEREFROM; FURTHER CONTAINING A REVERTER PROVISION SHOULD
THE EASEMENT BE ABANDONED OR DISCONTINUED, WITH THE RIGHT
OF IMMEDIATE POSSESSION AND ENTRY.
16-01106 Exhibit - Grant of Easement.pdf
R-16-0430
Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PH.6, please see item PH.5.
PH.7 RESOLUTION
16-01099
Department of Capital A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Improvements ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE,
Program AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND
CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING, PURSUANT TO SECTION
18-85 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED,
WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPETITIVE SEALED BIDDING
PROCEDURES AS NOT BEING PRACTICABLE OR ADVANTAGEOUS TO
THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") FOR THE PROCUREMENT AND
CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND RIGHT-OF-WAY
IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY'S DESIGN DISTRICT ALONG
NORTHEAST 41ST STREET BETWEEN NORTHEAST 1ST AVENUE TO
NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, ASSOCIATED WITH THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM PROJECT
NO. B-173600, "NE 41ST STREET/DESIGN DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS";
FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM,
BETWEEN THE CITY AND OAK PLAZA ASSOCIATES (DEL.) LLC, A
DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY REGISTERED TO DO BUSINESS
IN FLORIDA, FOR SAID PURPOSE.


16-01099 Exhibit.pdf
R-16-0431
PH.8 RESOLUTION
16-01108
District 4- A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Commissioner ATTACHMENT(S), BY A FOUR-FIFTHS (4/5THS) AFFIRMATIVE VOTE,
Francis Suarez AFTER AN ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARING, RATIFYING, APPROVING AND
CONFIRMING THE CITY MANAGER'S FINDING THAT COMPETITIVE
NEGOTIATION METHODS AND PROCEDURES ARE NOT PRACTICABLE OR
ADVANTAGEOUS PURSUANT TO SECTION 18-85(A) OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED; WAIVING THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR SAID PROCEDURES; AUTHORIZING THE
ALLOCATION OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE DISTRICT 4 SHARE OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI'S ANTI-POVERTY INITIATIVE PROGRAM, IN A TOTAL
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,000.00 TO MIAMI BRIDGE YOUTH AND
FAMILY SERVICES, INC., TO RUN THEIR EMERGENCY SHELTERS;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, FOR
SAID PURPOSE.
16-01108 Back-Up Documents.pdf
R-16-0432
the Day.
END OF PUBLIC HEARING

SECOND READING ORDINANCES
SR.1 ORDINANCE Second Reading

16-00834
Department of AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Procurement ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING CHAPTER 18/ARTICLE III OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "FINANCE/CITY
OF MIAMI PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE", MORE PARTICULARLY BY
AMENDING SECTION 18-89, ENTITLED "CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC
WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS", TO ADD A NEW SECTION FOR THE USE
OF A PREQUALIFICATION POOL OF CONTRACTORS FOR CITY OF MIAMI
("CITY") CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, AS A COMPETITIVE SEALED
BIDDING METHODOLOGY; APPROVING A PILOT PROGRAM FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A PREQUALIFICATION POOL OF CONTRACTORS
FOR CITY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, AS SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT "A",
ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE ANY AMENDMENTS
NECESSARY TO THE PILOT PROGRAM AS DEEMED IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF THE CITY; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE,
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND A SUNSET PROVISION.
16-00834 Summary Form SR.pdf
16-00834 Legislation FR/SR.pdf
16-00834 Exhibit FR/SR.pdf

13625
Chair Hardemon: Let's -- moving on to SR (Second Reading) agenda, so we're on the second
reading agenda.
Vice Chair Russell: PH.7 passed -- continued.
Chair Hardemon: Is there -- are there any items within the SR agenda that people would like to
pull to discuss, that the Commissioners would like to pull to discuss?
Vice Chair Russell: SR.2, I just wanted to thank Commissioner Gort. I think this is a tremendous
strength to the CRB (Community Relations Board). That was my only comment there.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, I think the Clerk is having some heartburn.
Commissioner Gort: Yeah, "P"--
Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Oh, I'm sorry. The --
Commissioner Gort: PH.7 now.
Chair Hardemon: I'm sorry. The PH -- the SRs are -- that's actually ordinances. That's what --
that's your look. So we have to call SR.1. SR.1. Thank you.
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): May I read the title? Oh, I'm sorry.
Annie Perez: It's okay. Good afternoon. Annie Perez, director of Procurement. SR.1 is an
ordinance amending Section 18-89 of the Code to add the use of a prequalification pool of
contractors for construction projects. This is also approving a two-year pilot program for a
prequalified pool of contractors.
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved --
Chair Hardemon: -- and seconded. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, can you read the --
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, real quick.
Commissioner Carollo: Just for clarity, Mr. Manager -- and just for a point of clarity, we could
have even 200 companies on this pool, right? It's not limiting anybody, as long as they' re
qualified?
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): As long as they're qualified, there could be as many as there
are in the universe.
Commissioner Carollo: Understood.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, say "aye."
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item SR.1.
A roll call was taken, the result of which is stated above.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on second reading, 4-0.

16-01036
District 1 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER
Commissioner 2/ARTICLE XI/DIVISION 12 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AS
Wifredo (Willy) Gort AMENDED, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION/BOARDS, COMMITTEES,
COMMISSIONS/COMMUNITY RELATIONS BOARD," MORE PARTICULARLY
BY AMENDING SECTION 2-1152, BY CHANGING THE PROCEDURE FOR
FILLING VACANCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

13626
Note for the record: For public hearing comments referencing item SR.2, please see "Order of the
Day."
Chair Hardemon: SR.2.
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): SR.2 is a proposition to amend the process for appointing
members to the Community Relations Board. Those appointments could come directly from the
City Commission.
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved and seconded to accept SR.2. Any discussion?
Vice Chair Russell: I just wanted to thank Commissioner Gort for strengthening this board . This
change gives them the ability to rise like a phoenix from the ashes and then serve the community.
I think it's great. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Roll call vote.

16-01011
District 1 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Commissioner ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
Wifredo (Willy) Gort OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND
TRAFFIC", ESTABLISHING ARTICLE XIII, ENTITLED "FORKLIFT ZONE"
CREATING A ZONE NEAR THE ALLAPATTAH PRODUCE MARKET AREA
FOR MERCHANTS THAT REQUIRE THE USE OF FORKLIFTS AND SIMILAR
HEAVY MACHINERY ON A DAILY BASIS AND REGULATING THE USE OF
FORKLIFTS IN THAT AREA THEREOF; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.
16-01011 Legislation SR.pdf
OBSOLETE
16-01011-Submittal-City Attorney's Office-Exhibit A.pdf
16-01011 Exhibit SR SUB.pdf
13627
Commissioner Gort: SR.3, this is something the -- we put together. We have the forklift. They're
supposed to be working at the produce market -- within the produce market, but right now, for
the last four years, they've been using the streets, and I want to make sure we can regulate this,
because they -- it's sort of create traffic jams during the peak hours -- 14th Avenue and 12th
Avenue, 17th Avenue, the avenues being heavily traveled, and when you have a forklift with all
kinds of cargo going at two miles an hour, it makes it very difficult for people to get in and from
-- For those reasons, we have met with them, and we come up with a map, and this is a second
reading on the ordinance, and will you read it?
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Yes, sir. And just to be clear, I believe there was an
amendment to include an amended map. It's already been distributed to the elected officials.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): And excuse me, Chair. I have the mover as Commissioner Gort.
Is there a second?
Chair Hardemon: Second?
Commissioner Suarez: I'll second.
Mr. Hannon: Roll call on item SR.3.

16-00975
Commissioner Ken 2/ARTICLE XI/DIVISION 6/SECTION 2-1013 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
Russell MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION/BOARDS,
COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS/SPORTS AND EXHIBITION
AUTHORITY/GOVERNING BODY," TO MODIFY THE COMPOSITION OF THE
MIAMI SPORTS AND EXHIBITION AUTHORITY; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be
13628
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Commissioner Russell, SR.4 is concerning MSEA (Miami
Sports & Exhibition Authority).
Mr. Min: It's amending the appointment process for the board members to MSEA. It's limited to
two elected officials -- two City Commissioners. I'm sorry.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Move it.
Chair Hardemon: Properly moved by the Vice Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: Seconded by Commissioner Carollo. Is there any discussion?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item SR.4. Commissioner Gort?
Mr. Hannon: Commissioner Suarez?
Commissioner Suarez: Yes, and I'll happily not be one of the two members.
Vice Chair Russell: You want to be one?
Commissioner Suarez: I will not be one of the two.
Vice Chair Russell: Oh.
Commissioner Suarez: I'll be happy to not be one of two members.
Commissioner Gort: I'll be one.
Commissioner Suarez: I think there's -- I think there's three. And I think you --
Commissioner Carollo: No, there's two.
Commissioner Suarez: No. I think there's three now, currently; at least three. I'm on one, and I
think you're on one --
Commissioner Suarez: -- Commissioner Hardemon, and you're on one Commissioner Gort. I'll
be happy to not be one of the two. Yes.
Mr. Hannon: Commissioner Carollo?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes.
Mr. Hannon: Vice Chair Russell?

Mr. Hannon: Chair Hardemon?
Chair Hardemon: For.
Mr. Hannon: Ordinance passes on second reading, 5-0.
Vice Chair Russell: Just a moment. Mr. Clerk, do we need to now appoint to that -- in one of the
coming meetings, or are the existing board members --?
Mr. Hannon: No, sir. Commissioner Suarez has voluntarily withdrew, so that will leave us with
Chair Hardemon and Commissioner Gort on the Miami Sports & Exhibition Authority.
Vice Chair Russell: So there's no need to reappoint or anything?
Mr. Hannon: No, sir.

16-00827
District 4- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER
Commissioner 18/ARTICLE III/SECTION 18-104(B) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
Francis Suarez FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("CITY CODE"), ENTITLED "FINANCE/CITY OF
MIAMI PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE/RESOLUTION OF PROTESTED
SOLICITATIONS AND AWARDS/AUTHORITY TO RESOLVE PROTESTS", TO
ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF BID PROTESTS BY A
HEARING OFFICER; SETTING FORTH HEARING OFFICER
APPOINTMENTS AND DUTIES, HEARING DATE SCHEDULING, AND
HEARING PROCEDURES; FURTHER AMENDING CHAPTER 18/ARTICLE
V/SECTION 18-176.3 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "FINANCE/SALE OR
LEASE OF CITY'S REAL PROPERTY/PROCEDURES FOR RESOLUTION OF
PROTESTED UDP'S AND AWARDS", TO PROVIDE THAT PROTESTED
SOLICITATIONS AND AWARDS BE ADJUDICATED PURSUANT TO THE
PROCESS CREATED IN SECTION 18-104(B) OF THE CITY CODE;
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be

13629
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Commissioner Suarez, I believe the next item is
concerning --
Commissioner Suarez: Yes. So the next item, which is SR.5, is the change to the bid protest

process. We all had to undergo a very difficult legal procedure, and I've felt that the better
process for having a pure and more substantively effective decision was to change the process to
have an independent legal advisor rule on the legal issues related to the bid protest , so I move
this item, SR.5.
Commissioner Carollo: Second. Discussion.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved, and seconded by Commissioner Carollo.
Discussion.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to explain the only issue I have
with it before I offer a friendly amendment.
Commissioner Suarez: Sure.
Commissioner Carollo: And several times I have seen different organizations, even within the
City, even Bayfront Park and so forth, where we put something out to bid to see what's the
potential for something; and what I don't want is that we put something out to bid to see what the
potential is and then, if we don't like what has been proffered or has been proposed, I want to
make sure that the Commission still has the ability to cancel the RFP (request for proposals) or
throw all of them out. In other words, you know, if -- and just within the market. You know, the
proposal come in --
Commissioner Suarez: Totally understand.
Commissioner Carollo: -- the market, you know, increases, so, you know, we feel that, no;
whatever was proposed --
Commissioner Suarez: Right.
Commissioner Carollo: -- even if there's a protest and, you know, this top winner is still not
behooved to the City, I want to be able to maintain that possibility to the City Commission to say,
“We do not want to move forward,” or I'll give you another example where we put it out to see
what potential we get and what we get --
Commissioner Suarez: Are not happy.
Commissioner Carollo: -- you know, like let's say we put out some plot of land here next to --
Commissioner Suarez: Wherever.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. And the proposal is a hotel, plus this and that, and we are in
disagreement, I still want to reserve the right of the City Commission to say, “No, we want to
throw all out.”
Commissioner Suarez: I don't think an amendment is needed, Commissioner, because that -- this
does not infringe on our right to make the public policy decision that we're not happy with -- this
is just -- if someone goes through a bid protest as specified under our Code, rather than us be the
body that would hear the bid protest like we had to do, this defers that to an independent legal
authority.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay. But then just for the record, I want to make sure that the City of
Miami, the City of Miami Commission reserves the right not to move forward with any and all
RFPs or ITB, invitation to bids, notwithstanding the special master protesting process.

Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Commissioner Suarez is correct; this proposed legislation
is limited to a bid protest. The actual award, denial, throwing out, reissuance of the RFP is
actually solely up to the City Commission.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay, so we don't lose -- we still reserve the right that if it's not
beneficial for us in a certain way -- and the example I gave was the market --
Commissioner Suarez: Any reason, really.
Commissioner Carollo: Any reason.
Commissioner Suarez: It could be any reason.
Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) said that.
Commissioner Carollo: We still have the right to throw it out as a Commission.
Vice Chair Russell: Yes, sir. And as example with the latest one with the Rickenbacker RFP bid
protest, you heard the protest, you denied the protest, but you threw out the RFP, which was a
separate process before the City Commission.
Commissioner Suarez: Right, right.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay.
Commissioner Suarez: Exactly.
Commissioner Carollo: And I just want to maintain that. That's the only issue that I had. I'm
ready to vote.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner. Vice Chairman.
Vice Chair Russell: But just to clarify, we would not be able to override the decision of the
special master if it were in the selection process, aside from throwing out, or could we? That's
my question.
Commissioner Suarez: Well, I think if we threw it out, I mean, in effect, we would be overriding.
Vice Chair Russell: Aside from throwing it out. Like let's say the special master votes one way
on a bid protest --
Commissioner Suarez: Well --
Vice Chair Russell: -- and the result comes out.
Vice Chair Russell: Do we reserve the right to overturn that for any reason?

Commissioner Suarez: I don't think so, because here's the thing: The bid protest is a legal
process.
Vice Chair Russell: Yep.
Commissioner Suarez: And so what we're saying is in that legal -- because there's -- again, there
was two factors that play in the last one. There was what I called the “macro issues,” which
were issues related to whatever we wanted to make them about. And then issues that were very
specific legal questions related to the RFP and protest related to the RFP. They had to be
noticed in a certain way, they had to be -- you know, there were rules of evidence, if you will.
You could only listen to things that were in the protest. Remember, there were some issues that
were extraneous to the protest? So what I'm saying, that took -- and for our residents, it was very
frustrating, because they had to sit there and listen to that whole legal process. We could, at the
end of it, decide -- irrespective of whether the protest was upheld or was rejected, we could
essentially decide to keep the RFP or not keep the RFP. It's irrelevant.
Vice Chair Russell: I understand. And that's what I was expecting from reading it, and so just a
clarification was all I needed. Thank you.
Commissioner Carollo: And again, just to verify and confirm exactly what we're voting on.
What I don't -- what I'm hoping is that if, for any reason, the City of Miami does not want to go
forward with an RFP, regardless of the protest, we do not have to.
Commissioner Suarez: That's right.
Vice Chair Russell: Correct.
Commissioner Suarez: And that's what we did in the last --
Mr. Min: Correct. Based on the award, the throwing out of the award; that actually comes to
the --
Commissioner Carollo: Because we may want to put it out for an RFP to see exactly what -- you
know, what's out there, what is the possibilities; but that doesn't mean that now, because we put
out an RFP, we have to award, and that's what -- I'm trying to avoid that. Just because we put
an RFP doesn't mean that we have to award.
Mr. Min: That's correct.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort.
Commissioner Gort: You know, we have to be very careful in those things. Right now we have a
reputation. A lot of people do not answer our RFP, because they say it's too political. It's not
the right thing. I think all of us get a copy of the RFP. I don't know if you guys get it, but I do. I
get it, and I read it before it even goes out. This idea of throwing RFP to see if there's something
out there, I don't agree with that. I think any time we come up with an RFP, it should an RFP
that should -- people should have faith in it that's going to -- we going to work on it. They can

always appeal it. They always going to appeal it. The loser are always going to appeal any
RFP.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. And just to clarify a little bit. You know, sometimes government
put us -- puts out an RFP exactly to see what is the possibility with, let's say, this parcel of land;
doesn't necessarily mean that, you know, government always has all the ideas or wants exactly
this or that. Sometimes it's put out to see exactly what -- and -- not only what are the
possibilities; what actually could, you know, receive with regards to revenues, but it still would
not be beneficial for the City, and at that time, you know, they reserve the rights to cancel the
RFP, or not award.
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Manager.
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Mr. Chairman, just to assist. Commissioner Carollo, our
recommendation, if you want to test the market is that we do an RFI, a request for information,
and let the industry tell you what they would think rather than a full-blown RFP, which is a
different process, but that's how we would prefer to do. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Any further discussion? Hearing none, has it been read -- has the title been
read into the record? Yes. Roll call vote.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by the City Attorney.

16-00730
Commissioner Keon 10/ARTICLE I OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
Hardemon AMENDED, ENTITLED "BUILDINGS/IN GENERAL/BUILDING PERMIT FEE
SCHEDULE", MORE PARTICULARLY BY AMENDING SECTION 10-4 TO
INCLUDE AN AUTOMATIC DEFERRAL OF THE SOLID WASTE SURCHARGE
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS FUNDED BY A COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND

13630
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item SR.6, please see "Order of
the Day."
Chair Hardemon: SR.6. SR.6, colleagues, is a -- an ordinance -- or an amendment, actually, to

the ordinance that I sponsored. And basically, what it does is deferral of the -- it's a automatic
deferral of the solid waste surcharge when you have community redevelopment agencies creating
affordable housing or workforce housing in an area. So currently, it allows for a deferral, but
that the referral -- the deferral has to come -- become granted by the City Manager's Office, so
basically what this does, it says that if there's a community redevelopment agency that wants to
build affordable workforce housing in their area, it's an automatic deferral; furthermore, if that
project ceases to become affordable or workforce housing that that deferral is no longer valid ,
and within 30 days, the fees or the surcharges are made payable to the City of Miami. And so I
would ask for a motion to accept.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and --
Chair Hardemon: -- seconded by Commissioner Carollo. Any further discussion on that matter?
Vice Chair Russell: I think it's excellent.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Madam City Attorney.
SECOND READINGS ORDINANCES
FIRST READING ORDINANCES
FR.1 ORDINANCE First Reading

16-01057
District 4- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER
Commissioner 37 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED,
Francis Suarez ENTITLED "OFFENSES-MISCELLANEOUS", TO CREATE SECTION 37-13,
ENTITLED "CONVERSION THERAPY", TO PROHIBIT LICENSED
PROFESSIONALS FROM ENGAGING IN COUNSELING EFFORTS,
PRACTICES, OR TREATMENTS WITH THE GOAL OF CHANGING A
MINOR'S SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY; DEFINING
TERMS AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT;
IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.
16-01057 Legislation FR.pdf

PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell and Suarez
Noes: 1 - Commissioner(s) Hardemon
Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Carollo

Note for the record: For public hearing comments referencing item FR.1, please see "Order of the
Day."
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I may be recognized on FR.1?
Commissioner Suarez: FR.1.
Chair Hardemon: FR.1.
Commissioner Suarez: FR.1 is a ban on conversion therapy in the City of Miami. I think
Commissioner Aleman, who had an opportunity to speak, spoke very beautifully and eloquently
about the reasons why we should support this ban in the City of Miami. As far as we know, as
far as I know, there are -- there is no organization that is currently practicing it in the City of
Miami, but it's a practice that has been repudiated by a lot of the notable psychological
institutions throughout the world, including the World Health Organization, provided a very
robust backup to this piece of legislation. I move the item, and I just would like to say that --
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. -- you know, everyone in the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual,
transgender) community should feel accepted and respected and treated with compassion and
sensitivity in our city, and there should never be any signs of discrimination, or anything of that
nature should be avoided completely, you know, in our city. And so I think this is something --
this is a piece of legislation that encourages our city to be very compassionate on that issue.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Vice Chair Russell: I'm absolutely in favor of it. I'm thanking Tony Lima from SAVE (Saving
American Values for Everyone) for coming today --
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Tony.
Vice Chair Russell: -- and Commissioner Suarez for bringing this forward --
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you.
Vice Chair Russell: -- and Commissioner Gort for seconding. It's excellent.
Chair Hardemon: I do have something to say. You know, I'm not familiar with this issue. It is
the first time that I heard about this issue, and, you know, I know we're creating an ordinance
that is law, that --
Chair Hardemon: -- provides punishment to medical professionals for providing a service to

their patients, and that part to me is where -- because I'm so unsure about what it's all about that
it makes it very difficult for me to make a decision in this matter, especially like when I look at --
where it talks about the conversion therapy prohibited. You know, it doesn't state whether or not,
for instance, if a minor who makes a decision that he wants to go in to, say, for instance,
conversion therapy -- not against his will, but his own decision -- then this will prohibit the
doctor from providing those services to him. I have no idea what conversion therapy is. I've
never seen it being practiced. I don't know the ills of it. I have not read the full study that was
quoted within the -- this information, and so -- and we don't have any, you know, medical

professions here testifying to what the benefit of it is. I can imagine, this is something that's
probably going to be very important, maybe even similar to a woman's right to choose, you
know, because here we are talking about rights that an individual has -- I'm talking in one
instance -- to seek medical attention from a medical professional. And then what right do I, as a
City of Miami Commissioner, to interfere with that decision? The same way -- I would think that
the same way as an individual would say, "Hey, I'm homosexual. I don't want to be exposed to
conversion therapy." That person should have the right to say, "Hey, I am homosexual, and I want
to be"-- "to have conversion therapy,"and that's the part that I struggle with. Yes, sir.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, and I would just say that, you know, there is a tremendous amount
of backup in the item, if you can, you know, maybe between first and second reading, have an
opportunity to really review it, because I think the issue is that it's a practice that has been
repudiated by a lot of major organizations, including the American Psychological Association,
the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National
Association of Social Workers, the World Health Organization, et cetera, et cetera. So I just -- as
something that is detrimental and harmful and that could create a variety of harmful side effects ,
so I think that's the reason why this is being proposed in the City. It's been adopted in other
cities. And as far as we know, it's not going to hurt anyone's business or profession in the City of
Miami, because we're not aware of anyone that's actually practicing in the City of Miami, but I
think it's more --
Commissioner Gort: I had the same questions that I had. First of all, what is the enforcement?
Who's going to enforce it? Mainly, this is symbolic -- my understanding, it's a symbolic request
from them. They have been trying to get the -- because this is the -- Tallahassee is the one that
have the jurisdiction over this type of problem. I think, mainly, what they're looking forward to
get enough city to pass this -- because they understand; we cannot enforce it. We cannot do it.
So this is more symbolic, and maybe Tallahassee will get a message, and Tallahassee will look
into it.
Chair Hardemon: You know, Commissioner Gort, the way -- when I think about -- the only way
you could enforce something like this is to send undercover -- I don't -- I mean -- I don't -- you
know, I would think undercover minors into a doctor's office to seek this type of therapy, and the
therapy is then rendered to that child, then you would have an arrest. I'd rather spend my
undercover officers in Overtown, you know, battling drugs, but that's just my decision. I'm not
saying one is more important than the other.
Commissioner Gort: I understand.
Chair Hardemon: But definitely, you know, it -- to me, it just -- you know, I think about the
passionate arguments when you -- when someone says, “A women has the right to choose,” and
someone says that the life starts at conception, you know, and anything -- any type of way that
you choose to abort a child after conception is, in fact -- some people believe -- murder. And so,
you know, those type of things is -- that's what comes to my mind when I think about this,
because I know that it affects -- it's much deeper than just someone's opinion about the matter,
no matter where that opinion comes from. I would love to have more information. I didn't have
a lot of backup. I know you just stated the whole backup, because all I had were these two items,
so I don't have the other backup that you were speaking of.
Commissioner Suarez: I'll make sure that -- I don't see it in mine either, but I'll make sure that
we get it between first and second, for sure.

Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair, to one of your concerns, I believe the legislation refers
specifically to minors, correctly?
Commissioner Suarez: Yes, it does.
Vice Chair Russell: Correct? So if an adult were to seek this therapy --
Vice Chair Russell: -- it could legally be provided to them --
Vice Chair Russell: -- at their will. And then as far as enforcement goes, that is difficult. I
mean, we're looking into patient/client confidentiality issues and such. I'd like to ask the City
Manager what his thoughts are in terms of enforcement. I assume, if someone hung a sign
outside their business, we can enforce that; if they're advertising offering this service. If
someone were advertising locally, what would be the enforcement method? If we identify a
business that is carrying this out?
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Well, that's a good question. I think we will talk to the City of
Miami Beach. But, yes, if somebody's openly advertising it, then that's something that we could
say, “Hey, look, our Code does not allow that.” But if it's going on behind closed doors and we
have no knowledge --
Vice Chair Russell: It's very hard to know. Could we hear from Mr. Lima, who may be able to
shed some light on how the experience in other cities has been successful, and what has been
enforceable and whatnot?
Chair Hardemon: Sure. And one thing I would also want to add, just for my board members to
consider, if, for instance, where this ordinance speaks about minors, if this were against a
minor's will, I think it would be more palatable to me, because now you're doing something to a
minor that he does not want or she does not want done to herself versus just the practice being
outlawed, whatsoever. I just -- you know, I think about that choice that that person has as an
individual, whether or not that they accept who they are and where they want to be, orwhether or
not they want to change who they are and where they want to be. In my family, I mean, we have
gay and lesbian individuals, and so I would never want to interfere with their right to choose
how they want to go about living their lives. Some I believe are out, and some I don't believe
are. So, you know, that's their decision, though.
Tony Lima: Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity, Commissioners. I'm Tony Lima, and I'm
the executive director of SAVE, which is the longest-serving LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual,
transgender) rights organization in our State, but we're based here in Miami-Dade County.
We've been doing work for the last 24 years. So to answer the first question: This is absolutely
directed at the minors, because what happens is that parents or guardians push children into
these conversion therapies, and what ends up happening is that they're often depressed or get to
the point where they commit suicide. So that is why all these huge health organizations are
standing behind this being a deplorable act and a deplorable practice, because it' s incredibly
detrimental to young people. As far as enforcing it, in addition to if there is advertising, like the
City Manager was saying, but also someone would have to come to the City of Miami and report
it, and there is no State exemption at this point that would protect people from doing that . Just to
give you a little bit of history. This all started during last session in Tallahassee. We were
working closely with State Representative David Richardson to pass a statewide band. It didn't
move. So what -- our strategy now is to go throughout South Florida and then penetrate the rest
of the State with local bands that are enforceable, but to also send a really strong message to

Tallahassee, as Commissioner Gort was saying, that this is not right; that we will not tolerate
this. And it's about sending also a strong message, as Commissioner Aleman said earlier today,
to the youth in the City of Miami that we are an inclusive city, that we are accepting, that we are
here for them. So it's really about the young people. If an adult chooses to take on conversion
therapy, that's their choice, their prerogative, but this is more focused on those children that are
being pushed to do this, because the parents or their guardians are intolerant of who these
children are.
Chair Hardemon: So the maker of the motion, my question is, would you accept a friendly
amendment that would say, basically, that children who are forced -- “minors who are forced
against their will” to take conversion therapy, rather than just “minors”? Because that's what
I'm saying. My point is that if there is a minor that wants this thing, is there --? You know, that
the law doesn't prohibit the doctor from doing it. I don't know what the results could be. But if
the minor wants to versus the minor being forced to -- I would never want a minor forced to do
something that he or she does not want to do, so that's part of what comes to my mind.
Mr. Lima: That's a really interesting question, because the incidences of minors wanting to take
on something like this is minimal to none. I have -- we've heard from across the country no cases
like that whatsoever; usually, it's that these young people under 18 are being pushed by adults to
do this.
Chair Hardemon: So how do you think it would affect the legislation or the ordinance if you
made --
Mr. Lima: If we add that minor amendment?
Chair Hardemon: -- yeah -- it clear that minors who are forced or min -- I'm sorry -- minors
who are -- minors who get this against their will is -- that this is illegal?
Mr. Lima: I think we would have to discuss that a little bit more. I think in the ordinance, the
way that it's written -- because this same ordinance, the way that we wrote it -- and it was written
also with the Southern Poverty Law Center, and a series of other national LGBTQ (lesbian, gay,
bi-sexual, transgender, questioning) organizations -- but the way that it's written is the way that
it passed in the City of Miami Beach, that passed -- that is soon to pass in the City of Wilton
Manors; and we have right now scheduled, at least in six other municipalities here in South
Florida, ultimately looking to passing a countywide ban in December. So I'd love to chat with
you more about this; maybe have you speak to Commissioner John Aleman, Commissioner Justin
Flippen in Wilton Manors, to some of the lawyers at the Southern Poverty Law Center, as well,
just to satiate your questions, but I think -- I mean, I think what the ordinance, as it's written,
implies that it's minors that -- I mean, are going against -- that are being forced to do this.
Commissioner Suarez: Right. Go ahead. I'm going to yield, and then I'll put in my --
Chair Hardemon: Vice Chairman.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Mr. Chair, I believe the legislation speaks to regulating the
business.
Vice Chair Russell: And so it's really impossible for us, once regulating the business, to
ascertain whether the will of the child is there or not. And I would err on the side that a child
that comes forward saying they wish for this, you never know whether they've been shamed into
this or pressured at this or guilted into this --

Mr. Lima: Bullied into it, absolutely.
Vice Chair Russell: -- bullied into this, and they come saying, “Please, I want this therapy.” I
believe that the legislation is good because it regulates the business that's offering this, and it
closes that door; and if there is a specific case, you know, that is otherwise, I think that should be
handled separately, but it -- I understand what you're trying to achieve with protecting the rights
of a child. I just think the way that -- that would be -- legislation would have to be flipped more
toward the intent of the child, and it's very hard to get into, I could imagine.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. No.
Chair Hardemon: Let me ask you a question for those who dealt with issues like this. For
instance, I'm not sure if you know. If you don't know, you know, you don't know. But, for
instance, if a -- what would be the rights of a child if a child wanted to have an abortion? Does
the child have a right to seek an abortion?
Mr. Lima: You know, with that, I'm not sure. That's not a question I can answer.
Commissioner Suarez: I don't believe without parental -- because you can't do a procedure --
you can't do a medical procedure on a child without parental authority. I mean, you can't
provide --
Chair Hardemon: But -- and that's what -- that's part of what my worry is.
Chair Hardemon: Because, for instance, as a child, I would have gone to the doctor myself to
seek medical treatment without my parents knowing. So if I had gotten myself involved in
something that I probably should not have --
Commissioner Suarez: But the doctor wouldn't treat you.
Chair Hardemon: -- I would want to go to my doctor, receive treatment for what I was receiving,
and had a right to privacy at least to something. I don't know if I had that right, but that's
something that I would have done, and so these are the things that I'm saying. Maybe the
parents don't know that the child -- I'm just saying --
Chair Hardemon: -- is dealing with an issue, and that child wants to go speak to a medical
professional and seek treatment, and that's -- those are the types of decisions that if you regulate
the business, you remove that option for that minor.
Mr. Lima: But we're talking about different things. So if there is a young person that wants to
seek psychological help, a counselor's help to discuss how they're feeling about being LGB or "T,"
that's one thing. What we're talking about is a very specific practice that is condemned by pretty
much all of the world health organizations, basically saying that this is extremely detrimental to
children. So we're talking about different things, Chairman.
Commissioner Suarez: And I would say, I don't -- I'm not sure that a doctor could treat a child
without the parental authority. I don't think that's possible. In fact, one of the things my wife
always gives me a hard time about is when we go out of town, if a child is -- we have -- I have a
two and a half year old that I have to draft up a -- almost like a living will, an authorization to
someone else to have the right to make medical decisions on behalf of my child, so -- yeah, so
that's kind of the genesis here.

Chair Hardemon: All right. Is there any further discussion on the item? Can you read it into
the record.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item FR.1. Vice Chair Russell?
Mr. Hannon: Commissioner Gort?
Commissioner Suarez: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: You know, I want to say that, you know, I'm in support of issues, especially
that's -- that the LGBTQ community have. I'm just not satisfied that this protects the rights of a
child who fits that category to make a choice, and I'm not -- because I don't have all the
information yet, but we have a second reading. The conversion therapy that's prohibited, I
couldn't imagine that -- and it's probably true, because things have happened worst in the past --
that a doctor who took an oath to protect their patient will put their patient through something
against their will that will be a detriment to them, so with that, I'm going to vote against, but I
would love to have that conversation with you (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Thank you.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, 3-1.

16-00891
Office of the City AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING CHAPTER
Attorney 18/ARTICLE III/SECTION(S) 18-118 AND 18-119 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "FINANCE/CITY OF MIAMI
PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE/PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS,
UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS", TO REFER TO THE CURRENT FLORIDA
STATUTE; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
16-00891 Memo - Office of the City Attorney FR.pdf
16-00891 Memo - Budget Sign-Off FR.pdf
16-00891 Back-Up from Law FR.pdf
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be
Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell, Suarez and Hardemon
Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Carollo
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): FR.2, Commissioners, this is simply changing the Code
sections to comply with State Statutes with regard to public/private partnerships.

Chair Hardemon: Is there a motion?
Vice Chair Russell: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded --
Chair Hardemon: -- by the Chair. Is there any discussion?
Commissioner Gort: I'll second.
Chair Hardemon: Seconded by Commissioner Gort. Is there any discussion? Seeing none,
Madam City Attorney.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item FR.2.

16-01249
District 4- AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION RESCINDING
Commissioner RESOLUTION NO. 16-0254, ADOPTED ON MAY 26, 2016, IN ITS ENTIRETY,
Francis Suarez AND RE-ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF MIAMI SEA LEVEL RISE COMMITTEE
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 2/ARTICLE XI/DIVISION 18 OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED
"ADMINISTRATION/BOARDS, COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS/SEA LEVEL
RISE COMMITTEE" CODIFYING THE CITY OF MIAMI SEA LEVEL RISE
COMMITTEE, TO STUDY SEA LEVEL RISE AND ITS EFFECT ON THE CITY
OF MIAMI AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION,
INCORPORATING ALL AVAILABLE INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY; STATING THE
COMMITTEE'S PURPOSE, POWERS, DUTIES, COMPOSITION,
APPOINTMENT QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR
MEMBERSHIP; PROVIDING FOR OFFICERS, RULES OF PROCEDURE,
MEETINGS, QUORUM, BUDGET, LEGAL AND STAFF SUPPORT,
ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL, WAIVERS, AND PUBLIC NOTICE;
PASSED ON FIRST READING WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote.
Votes: Ayes: 4 - Commissioner(s) Russell, Carollo, Suarez and Hardemon
Absent: 1 - Commissioner(s) Gort
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. "S"-- I'm sorry -- FR.3 is an ordinance on the Sea
Level Rise Committee. This ordinance is -- sort of spoken about earlier today in the meeting, so
I'm not going to sort of rehash the whole thing, but it creates an ordinance out of a committee
that was created initially by resolution, fixes a variety of things, and provides for a minimum
level of funding that has been requested by the committee. So I move the item, and --
Commissioner Suarez: -- thank all the -- my colleagues who have worked collaboratively on this
issue along with me.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Discussion.
Commissioner Carollo: Yes, Mr. Chair.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The only thing that -- you know, and I mentioned
it earlier today. Again, there's a request of $50,000. And, in essence, when you look at what the
request is for -- and I'm glad that there's an explanation -- it's very similar to what we're going to
need so --
Commissioner Suarez: I think we can use it for that.
Commissioner Carollo: I'm sorry?
Commissioner Suarez: That we can use it for what you were saying.
Commissioner Carollo: Exactly.
Commissioner Carollo: And that's where -- I just don't want to be redundant with what we're
doing, especially where there's not an infinite amount of money, so --
Commissioner Suarez: Why don't we -- when you come up -- you have a -- was it a reso that you
have?
Commissioner Carollo: It's a reso, and I don't know if -- it's a reso.
Commissioner Suarez: You want to just direct those funds to be used for that purpose?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, that's fine.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm good with that.
Commissioner Carollo: Yes, because I got a feeling that, in order to do a citywide Storm Water
Master Plan and update it, it's going to be --
Commissioner Suarez: It's going to cost at least that much.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah.

Commissioner Suarez: If not more.
Commissioner Carollo: It's going to be -- exactly.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm good with that.
Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry. So the funds that -- I wasn't clear on the (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Suarez: So he -- so -- I think what the Commissioner was saying -- and it sort of
makes sense, which is, you know, look, the first step before deciding what kind of things we're
going to implement is figuring out exactly the scope of the problem, and I think you figure out the
scope of the problem by updating your plan, in essence, by updating the impact of -- Because as
he said, and we've said -- we've had many conversations about this, all of us, actually, this
Commission -- sea level rise is something that, just seven years ago when we started, was not as
much of a hot-button issue. You know, we noticed flooding, we noticed flooding excessively, but
I think, lately, and particularly in the last few years, resiliency in sea level rise have really gone
to the forefront of some of the issues. I know some people in the audience have been talking
about it for many, many years -- Mayor Lerner, among many -- but I think the issue is here, we
have to take that baby step first of, you know, sort of coming into the Twenty-First Century, if you
will, and then moving forward.
Vice Chair Russell: Would that delay funding of the board? Or are we approving the funding for
the board and the funding for --?
Commissioner Suarez: No. We're approving the funding for the board. What he's saying is that
we should initially direct that funding for that purpose, which is a purpose of updating the
Master Plan.
Vice Chair Russell: I'd be more in favor of giving that funding without the strings attached on
what they spend it on, because sea level rise doesn't only have to do with the flow of water;
there's socioeconomic issues, planning & zoning issues, things that they could be working on in
the meantime. I don't know how they would spend the money, but I certainly don't want to tie up
-- slow down the storm water drain plan. I -- that is absolutely a priority. I just didn't want to
limit what they could do with the money, if they had a better plan for it.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. And, in essence, you have to recognize that it starts with our
Storm Water Master Plan, which Commissioner Suarez was correct; that years back, especially
when it was done back in 2011, which was phase one, they didn't take into consideration sea
level rise, and these are professional engineers that actually see what the issues are. So I think
that's our first step. Now, these plans are costly, and currently, it's not even in our budget. So,
again, if we had, you know, unlimited amount of money, I'd tell you, “Sure, spend on this, spend
on this,” but no, we have to really curve and see, you know, what our priorities and take it step
by step. As far as what they're going to expend the $50,000, which was the request, it states it
there: “Expenditures shall be primarily made for the engagement of experts and consultants to
provide analysis, reports, recommendations, and other resources, or to implement programs to
help the City and its residents adapt to and prepare for adverse impacts to its sea level rise .” So,
in essence, you know, I don't know what more analysis, report, recommendations than that from
an expert in a Storm Water Master Plan report that actually needs to be done. And even going
back to the chairman of the Sea Level Rise Committee, when he mentioned insurance, it's
something that the Federal agency -- hold on. Let me get the name of him. The NFIP (National

Flood Insurance Program) Consumer Rating System, they require this in order to reduce
insurance rates and so forth for communities.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I would just say, I think none of us are under the disillusion that
$50,000 is going to solve our City --
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: -- our sea level rise issues. I think the key here was, first and foremost,
creating this ordinance; secondly, providing a minimum level of funding. I think the
Commissioner's right; that this funding -- minimum level of funding goes to what it was
explained it would go to. And then I think to -- I think satisfy a little bit of your concerns, Vice
Chair, you know, we can do a mid-year examination, because the fact of the matter is, once that
study is completed, we need to figure out -- we really need to dedicate resources to this issue. So,
I mean, I think that's a fair statement.
Commissioner Carollo: So I just want clarity. On these 50,000, would these then be directed
towards the Storm Water Master Plan?
Commissioner Suarez: Yes. And I would say, with your reso, you can also, I think -- unless you
want to -- I don't know how you want to do it.
Commissioner Carollo: That's --
Vice Chair Russell: Well, it's an amendment to the --
Commissioner Carollo: Yes, an amendment to this.
Commissioner Suarez: Fine. I'm okay with that.
Commissioner Carollo: Now, with that said, I want to also make sure that my colleagues know
that's just the first step, you know, and that's what --
Commissioner Suarez: Agreed.
Commissioner Carollo: -- Commissioner Suar -- that's just a first step, but we need to take that
first step, and that first step will be expensive, and that's why I'm already trying to allocate
fundings for what sources in order for us to take that first step.
Chair Hardemon: Seeing no further discussion.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item FR.3. Commissioner Carollo?

Commissioner Carollo: Yes, with the amendment of the $50,000 goes towards a Storm Water
Master Plan update.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on first reading, as amended, 4-0.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, guys.
END OF FIRST READING ORDINANCES
RESOLUTIONS
RE.1 RESOLUTION
16-01113
District 2 - A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Commissioner Ken ATTACHMENT(S), DIRECTING THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") HOUSING AND
Russell COMMERCIAL LOAN COMMITTEE ("HCLC") TO STUDY THE HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY CRISIS IN THE CITY, AS DESCRIBED HEREIN;
REQUESTING THE HCLC TO MAKE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
CITY COMMISSION BI-ANNUALLY; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY ASSISTANCE TO THE HCLC FOR SAID
PURPOSES.
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, that this matter be
R-16-0407
Chair Hardemon: I'll call RE.1.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. RE.1 is a -- directing our Housing and
Commercial Loan Committee to study the housing affordability crisis in the City. I don't think
anyone is unaware that we have a crisis of housing; the rent is too damn high. And the money
people make is not enough to afford to live here. I really want to thank Renescha Coats for
speaking today. I thought she was speaking on another item, but she spoke perfectly to RE.1,
which I'm talking about now, and she was specifically screaming for help with affordable
housing in Coconut Grove. She doesn't want to move to other parts of the City, and I think this
body heard you, this Commission heard you, and we're willing to take on the challenge. I
recognized, when I came in, that we actually don't have an affordable housing board; and at the
risk of Commissioner Gort hitting me over the head, I was going to create another board. But
George Mensah and -- he stressed to me that we have a board that could take on this task, and so
I withdrew that original motion to create a whole new board from scratch, and I'm looking to the
Housing and Commercial Loan Committee. I do understand that, periodically, once every three
years or so, they are supposed to submit a report on affordable housing and potential solutions .
But to my knowledge, this report has never been done, and once every three years is certainly not
enough. So my new resolution here, RE.1, basically, it's tasking this board with looking at
certain solutions that we, as a Commission, don't have the expertise in, but could definitely
service -- welcome from their opinions -- Transfer of Development Rights Program, how we
could alter that; the City's Affordable Housing Trust, how it could be -- best be used; there are
public benefits trust program; community land trust. I know a lot of people are talking about a
lot of these, but we need to turn them into legislation, and so I'm looking for this board to really
study it and come up with solutions for us. Inclusionary zoning, something the County's tackling
that we may want to look at; micro units, modular housing, and container housing; and even the
Florida Statute, “Requirements for Housing Stabilization.” So I look forward to hearing from
this board. And I know through the grapevine, I've heard that they are really excited about
taking this on, so I welcome your support in this simple resolution.
Chair Hardemon: Do you move it?
Vice Chair Russell: I do move it.
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none,
all in favor, say "aye."
RE.2 RESOLUTION
16-00990
Fire-Rescue ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE
CITY OF MIAMI AND THE VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE ("VILLAGE") TO
PROVIDE FIRE RESCUE, AUTOMATIC AID AND ANCILLARY SERVICES TO
THE VILLAGE, FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS, COMMENCING
OCTOBER 1, 2016 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2021.


R-16-0403
Chair Hardemon: Members of the Board, we're done with amending our Code, so we've done
our first readings and our second readings of our ordinances . So at this point, for the RE
(resolution) items, if there are any RE items that you know that you want to speak about -- so, for
instance, I'll let you know that RE.5, RE.8, and I'm sure RE.9, I know that I want to speak about;
so I would say that 5, 8 and 9, I would want pulled so that if we make a motion that includes the
number of different resolutions, we take those out. Are there any other items?
Vice Chair Russell: RE.1, I'd like to discuss; RE.10, I'd like to discuss, 12 -- are we going all
through the RE's?
Chair Hardemon: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: -- so 13. That's it for me. I assume 15 is the Storm Water Master Plan.
Chair Hardemon: Is that it?
Vice Chair Russell: Do we need to discuss it further?
Commissioner Carollo: I think we have.
Chair Hardemon: All right, so what's --?
Commissioner Suarez: I'll move the items -- the remaining RE items that are not -- the ones that
have been pulled by Commissioners.
Chair Hardemon: Which will be RE.2 --
Commissioner Suarez: 3, 4 --
Chair Hardemon: -- 3, 4 --
Commissioner Suarez: -- 7 --
Commissioner Suarez: -- 11 --
Commissioner Suarez: -- 15, 16. That's right.
Chair Hardemon: -- and 16.
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): 14 should be as amended. I believe there was a map that
was distributed to the elected officials after the agenda was printed.
Commissioner Suarez: Yes. Agreed.
Chair Hardemon: So 14, as amended.

Vice Chair Russell: Actually, I would like to mention something on 14, so.
Commissioner Suarez: So excluding 14.
Commissioner Suarez: So it's 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, and 15 and 16.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, all right. And --
Later...
Commissioner Suarez: So I'll try this again.
Chair Hardemon: Please.
Commissioner Suarez: 2, 3, 4, 7, 15 and 16. Sorry, Mr. Clerk, I don't mean to --
Chair Hardemon: Is there a second to that?
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved --
Commissioner Suarez: I don't mean to make your dif --
Chair Hardemon: -- that we --
Commissioner Suarez: -- your job more difficult, buddy.
Chair Hardemon: -- that we --
Vice Chair Russell: Actually, 16 I don't fully understand, so I would like a little discussion on
that.
Commissioner Carollo: Sure.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, okay. Let me -- you want me to try it again, or do you want me to
just --?
Chair Hardemon: I believe that the motion, as captured by the Chair, is to accept RE.2, 3, 4 --
Commissioner Suarez: 7.
Chair Hardemon: -- 7 and 15.
Chair Hardemon: Is there a second?
Chair Hardemon: Is there any discussion? Seeing no further discussion, all in favor, say "aye."
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes. So 2 passes, 3 passes, 4 passes --

Vice Chair Russell: 7.
Chair Hardemon: -- 7 passes, 15 passes.
RE.3 RESOLUTION
16-01100
Fire-Rescue ATTACHMENT(S), ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL RECEIVED MAY 12, 2016,
PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 547382, FROM PST
SERVICES, INC., A MCKESSON COMPANY, THE HIGHEST RANKED
RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE PROPOSER, TO PROVIDE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORT BILLING AND COLLECTION
SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI'S FIRE-RESCUE DEPARTMENT FOR
AN INITIAL CONTRACT PERIOD OF THREE (3) YEARS, WITH THE OPTION
TO RENEW FOR TWO (2) ADDITIONAL TWO (2) YEAR PERIODS;
ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF FUNDS OF THE
USER DEPARTMENT, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND
BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED; FURTHER AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, INCLUDING
AMENDMENTS, EXTENSIONS, AND MODIFICATIONS, IN A FORM
16-01100 Evaluation Committee Report.pdf
16-01100 Memo - Evaluation Committee.pdf
16-01100 Request for Proposals.pdf

R-16-0404
Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item RE.3, please see item RE.2.
RE.4 RESOLUTION
16-01098
Department of Capital A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Improvements ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT AND
Program APPROPRIATE GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $750,000.00, TO FUND THE COST OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
AND RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI
DESIGN DISTRICT ALONG NORTHEAST 41ST STREET BETWEEN
NORTHEAST 1ST AVENUE TO NORTHEAST 2ND AVENUE, MIAMI,

FLORIDA, ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM PROJECT NO. B-173600, "NE 41ST
STREET/DESIGN DISTRICT IMPROVEMENTS," FOR THE PERIOD FROM
JULY 1, 2016 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2017; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY
THE ATTACHED FORM, AND NEGOTIATE ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS,
INCLUDING AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS TO SAID GRANT
AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, IN
ORDER TO INSTITUTE THE ACCEPTANCE, IMPLEMENTATION, AND
ADMINISTRATION OF SAID GRANT.

R-16-0405
RE.5 RESOLUTION
16-01125
Department of Real A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
Estate and Asset ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
Management PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT ("AGREEMENT"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY
THE ATTACHED FORM, BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") AND
ASTOR TROLLEY, LLC ("SELLER"), FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3722 AND 3724 OAK AVENUE, 3320 AND 3340
SOUTHWEST 37TH AVENUE, AND 3723 FROW AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA,
("PROPERTY"), WITH AN APPROXIMATE TOTAL LOT AREA OF 21,658
SQUARE FEET, AS LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN THE AGREEMENT, FOR A
TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE OF THREE MILLION SIXTY THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($3,060,000.00), CONTINGENT UPON THE CITY OBTAINING
TWO (2) WRITTEN APPRAISALS FROM LICENSED FLORIDA APPRAISERS
STATING THAT THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS AT A
MINIMUM THE REFERENCED AMOUNT HEREIN; AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS,
INCLUDING AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS TO SAID AGREEMENT,
IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, AS MAY BE
NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE SAID ACQUISITION; ALLOCATING FUNDS
FROM A SOURCE TO BE DETERMINED, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED THREE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($3,130,000.00), TO COVER THE COST OF SAID ACQUISITION, INCLUSIVE
OF THE COST OF A SURVEY, ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT, TITLE
INSURANCE AND SUCH OTHER RELATED CLOSING COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH SAID ACQUISITION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT.


16-01125 Letter of Intent.pdf
16-01125-Submittal-City Attorney-Mendez Back-up.pdf
Motion by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be
R-16-0415
Note for the record: For public hearing comments referencing item RE.5, please see "Order of the
Day."
Chair Hardemon: RE.5.
Vice Chair Russell: RE.5 is the potential purchase of the trolley garage.
Mark Burns: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mark Burns, the lease manager with the
Department of Real Estate & Asset Management. RE.5 is a resolution authorizing the City
Manager to execute a purchase and sale agreement for the trolley garage with Astor Trolley,
LLC (Limited Liability Company), for an amount not to exceed $3,060,000 on the property; and
a total amount, with surveys and all other associated fees, of $3,130,000.
Vice Chair Russell: I move it.
Commissioner Suarez: Second. Discussion.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Commissioner, would you like to
discuss first?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, just briefly. Sometimes I look at these -- I'm a real estate lawyer,
so, you know, this is a wonderful opportunity to acquire a good piece of property. I think you
have a pretty good plan, as far as from what you said earlier today, as far as how you want to
decide to activate it. The key here is that it's using impact fees, which do not come from the
general fund, and I think that's something that, I think, needs to be clarified, because some
people may not understand that particular fact. That's it.
Vice Chair Russell: Park impact fees, in particular, of which the City has received quite a bit
from recent development, has yielded park impacts [sic] fees, and that is what the City has
decided to use to purchase this, correct?
Mr. Burns: I have a "B"number, but I'm not sure what the actual funding source was.
Vice Chair Russell: Yes. And would that limit what the use of that building was based on those
funds?
Vice Chair Russell: If the community, once we have these charrettes and, perhaps, they find a
different use -- I've heard even today Renita Samuels Dixon talked about a museum. Would a
cultural museum fall under the potential use that park impact fees could be used to purchase ?
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): We need to look at the uses. I know, for instance, Virginia Key
Beach Trust is a park facility, plus it has a component of a museum. So maybe not all of it, but
some of it. So we need to look at that a little further.
Vice Chair Russell: Most likely, this will be a mixed use building. Most likely, it will have
several purposes that will serve the community. If some of those uses are not directly park
related, for example, could the funding source after the fact be altered to accommodate that so
that partial funds came from an appropriate place, obviously at the will of the Commission, to
adjust for that?
Ms. Méndez: We would need to place that in the resolution.
Vice Chair Russell: The flexibility at that point?
Ms. Méndez: Yes.
Commissioner Gort: My understanding is, you can mix the two things. I mean, you can have a
museum and you can have a park at the same time. The museum can be a museum of the history
of the area, but at the same time, mix it with sports, and you can have a parks activity, because it
represents for that.
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Rotenberg, did you have anything? Rotenberg. I apologize.
Daniel Rotenberg (Director/Department of Real Estate & Asset Management): Perfectly fine. I
just wanted to add in, if we can, we can amend it on the floor right now to add in the possibility
of changing out funds and allocating them later on to change the use if we wanted to.
Commissioner Carollo: Changing funds to what?
Mr. Rotenberg: At a later date, if we have funds available.
Chair Hardemon: He means what type of funds?
Commissioner Carollo: What -- exactly -- funding source.
Mr. Rotenberg: Let's say, for example --
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, but I can't pass a resolution and you tell me --
Vice Chair Russell: Talking to an accountant. For an example, Commissioner, if the

neighborhood says they want it to be a NET (Neighborhood Enhancement Team) Office, for
example, could that be a potential use that a park -- we have NET Offices in park -- community
centers all over the place, right?
Ms. Méndez: The NET Offices that you do have are within a park, so you have a park, and then
you have a little piece of the recreation center as a NET Office and --
Vice Chair Russell: Is the funding source altered in order to accomplish that, for the buildout of

that NET Office, for example? So that would be okay. What about a police substation? Now
we're talking different, right?
Ms. Méndez: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: Which would create a different source in order to do that?
Mr. Rotenberg: Commissioners --
Vice Chair Russel: I'm willing to cross that bridge if the Commission will allow for a little
flexibility. What I really want -- and if you notice, there was some dissension in a couple of the
voices that spoke today. Their fear is that this is a preconceived notion of what will go into this
building, and before the public has had their input. And so I'm trying to keep it as flexible as
possible and have -- I mean, trust me, there were two voices that spoke today, but I've knocked
doors throughout the Grove, and the purchase of that really rights a wrong that they feel was,
you know, put on the community in the past. And I want to make sure we get it right so that we
don't do what we think is right and the community says, "No, that's not exactly what we want."
Without -- although the first step is to acquire the property, and so I'm looking for that flexibility.
Chair Hardemon: If I may, I don't think that two wrongs make a right, and what I mean by that
is you got a developer that went in, despite strong objection from the community and other
partners, to build something that they didn't want there in a neighborhood that is similar to
Overtown, not Overtown; I recognize that, and that neighborhood stood up, and I'm proud of
that, because you don't see those victories come too often for neighborhoods like that. A
neighborhood that does have two parks that was spoken about earlier that service those residents
that say that, "Look, we need more investment in those parks." And so for me, the reason I say two
wrongs -- I wouldn't want to give the developer fair market value for a property that, you know,
would be fair market in that type of use. I think that us buying the property and then holding it
and having to come up with the additional dollars and putting more investment in it , I mean, this
is -- I mean, this property could easily cost us 6 and a half, $7 million to get useable and --
because it simply -- it's not. I mean, effectively, it's a garage, and that is much different from a
youth center, basketball court, any of those different things. It's fully outfitted for a garage; and
no other person who operates a garage is going to buy it, because they're not going to get the
use that they want out of that property. And so, I personally think that when you look at the fair
market value of that pro -- I'm not a property appraiser, but the property appraisers looking at
like properties, they're not considering whether or not that the City of Miami said, "No, you can't
operate that in that way." I mean, I've never seen where they look at the political climate of the
properties; just buying and selling similar properties and what other ones sold for . So I would
dare to say that we're paying too much for a property where they can't use it for what they want
to use it for.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Mr. Rotenberg, the appraisal, would it have taken into account the
uses possible with that building?
Mr. Rotenberg: The appraisal that was done took into account the restrictions that are in place
right now on the property. And then keep in mind that in -- at the -- I think at the end of 2017, a
lot of those restrictions burn off, so the value of that it was appraised for right now took into
account limitations, where those limitations in a few years will be removed.
Vice Chair Russell: What's your personal feeling about the area and its potential for this -- for
the City to take this as an asset and hold it for the years to come, is it a good investment? Forget
about what goes in there; just simply as holding a piece of land that the City can use from a
financial perspective, is this charity work from a Real Estate Asset Management perspective, or

is this an investment in a property in a community that will develop?
Mr. Rotenberg: It's -- to me, it's an investment. Right now, because of those restrictions alone, if
we take it over right now, the value that we're paying for it will increase substantially when those
restrictions burn off. The restrictions that are on there are -- there are numerous ones, and they
restrict the use as retail, as commercial, as office space. Once they are removed, that will be
activated as a regular --
Vice Chair Russell: I think it cannot be a marijuana dispensary. Wasn't that one of the
restrictions?
Mr. Rotenberg: The restrictions that are in there are just immense. You can't use it for anything,
other than what we probably are going to end up using it for, which is a community center or
some kind of public facility.
Vice Chair Russell: Do you think those restrictions actually push the value down to what it is
now in the appraisal process?
Mr. Rotenberg: They definitely do.
Chair Hardemon: May I? When you say "restrictions,"who placed these restrictions on them, and
what type of restrictions are you speaking of that are --
Vice Chair Russell: Settlement, I think.
Chair Hardemon: -- that will be dropping off?
Mr. Rotenberg: There were covenants placed on the deed when it was sold to the current seller.
I believe it was from the municipality that was involved beforehand. And they restrict the use for
any type of commercial, retail; any kind of establishment if you wanted to use even to the point of
a garage right now for repairs, office space, a storefront. When they burn off, you can use it for
those.
Chair Hardemon: So the use -- when they built this thing out as a trolley station, or to repair
trolley stations, they're saying that that use -- or that intended use that the developer had was in
the face of the restrictions? Or were the restrictions placed on after it was developed into a
trolley garage?
Mr. Rotenberg: I'm not sure, but I believe they were placed on afterwards, almost as a measure
that he couldn't use it for anything else but that.
Vice Chair Russell: Madam City Attorney, I think you can probably refresh our memory that
there was a civil rights lawsuit that was filed with regard to use of --
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): Right. The Federal --
Vice Chair Russell: -- transit funds that did --
Ms. Méndez: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: -- not do the proper research on an impoverished neighborhood where that
could displace a community, and these restrictions were placed on there as a covenant -- as part
of a settlement to that lawsuit; is that correct?
Ms. Méndez: Yes, but it had to do with our trolley program more than anything, and certain

things that we had to comply with. I don't necessarily think that it's a covenant on this property.
Give me one second.
Vice Chair Russell: I don't think it had anything to do with our trolley program.
Commissioner Suarez: Not our trolley program.
Vice Chair Russell: This is for the Gables.
Ms. Méndez: Yes, it had to do with ours and the Gables. So we had to change certain criteria,
send information to the Federal Government and things -- the Department of Transportation,
with some criteria, and we complied with it.
Commissioner Suarez: What did it have to do with our trolley?
Vice Chair Russell: I thought the restrictions were part of a settlement. I could be mistaken. But
your question is whether that affected the value and that should affect the value, and if we
overpaid because of that. Is that --?
Chair Hardemon: If we will overpay. Essentially -- if, for instance, the restriction, as he
described it, burns off, could we use it as a -- I know we wouldn't, so this is a -- this is just a
purely theoretical question. I don't mean this, but could we use it as a trolley station? I know. I
know that's -- we wouldn't use it as a trolley station.
Vice Chair Russell: Don't advise it.
Chair Hardemon: Right. But the question really is, you're saying that the restrictions burn off --
one of the restrictions is that you cannot use it as a trolley repair station , as I understand. So
when the restrictions leave, could we use it as a trolley repair station?
Mr. Rotenberg: I would have to check. Mark just went out to go get the covenants and
restrictions that were --
Chair Hardemon: That -- I think -- and I think it would be good to know this information,
because to me, it does affect its value. Just because it was appraised at that level doesn't mean
someone's willing to buy it at that level because of the restrictions on it, or what you can and
cannot use it, or what you have to put into it. There are many times people buy homes and --
Commissioner Suarez, you probably know this better -- and the seller wants to sell it for
$200,000, and then the buyer says, "But, look, I have to” -- “your” -- “the foundation is uneven.
I have to put that money into it to fix the foundation, so it can't be for $200,000. I mean, give me
a little bit of leeway to make those corrections.” You know, it's part of the bargaining process.
And everything that I -- when I earned my real estates [sic] license when I was in college my
freshman year, the first thing I learned about real estate was that everything's negotiable, and I
think all the bid owners know that. So, you know, I'm just trying to understand where we are
with this number, because to me, if this is the market value, then we're overpaying for something
that I think that -- me, personally; doesn't have -- that I think that, in the future, he may have to
sell it for cheaper. Now, will the value of the property go up? That depends on, you know, other
similar properties in the neighborhood and things of that nature , and I would hope
(UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Rotenberg: It does rely on the market itself, but the fact that those restrictions do burn off
opens up the market itself.

Chair Hardemon: I just want to make sure what that legal definition of “burning off'” comes up
to.
Ms. Méndez: Right. If we can -- if you allow us just a few minutes to just double check this
covenant thing and --
Vice Chair Russell: Yeah. Mr. Chair.
Ms. Méndez: -- double check the case --
Vice Chair Russell: I do recall one of the uses, like potential uses was a bar that it was going to
be, and it could be sold as a bar or restaurant, and that was one of the restrictions, I believe, that
was put on it. When those burn off, the potential uses increase; the value goes up, which I
assume would mean that we're buying this at the best time when these restrictions are in place.
Mr. Rotenberg: My personal opinion is that is the case. If we were to go out and sell it, 2018,
say, when those restrictions burn off, you would have the market open up.
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, once -- because I just want to see what it says when you say, “the
restrictions will burn off”; what is it that we're talking about.
Vice Chair Russell: Shall we table it?
Chair Hardemon: Unless he --
Mr. Rotenberg: We have them here.
Chair Hardemon: -- has something.
Mr. Rotenberg: All right, this was from 2014.
Chair Hardemon: Can you tell us what you're reading from?
Mr. Rotenberg: Into record, this is Declaration of Restrictive Covenants.
Chair Hardemon: Who are the parties?
Mr. Rotenberg: This was by Astor Trolley, LLC, which is a -- the seller right now, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, in favor of Dorothy Henry, Coconut Grove Church of Christ and
Evelyn Prophet, collectively, the neighbors, so.
Chair Hardemon: So the covenant is with the neighbors. Does that covenant, in fact, apply to
the City of Miami?
Ms. Méndez: Right. If -- I can review it, and if we could just pass it momentarily so that I can --
Commissioner Carollo: So we'll table it.
Chair Hardemon: Yeah. What we'll do is we'll table it, and then we'll move on with the agenda
and come back to it.

Commissioner Carollo: As they're tabling this, can I also ask a question that maybe they could
find out during that time also?
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. Mr. CFO (Chief Financial Officer), Assistant City Manager,
impact fees has a life of six years, correct?
Fernando Casamayor (Chief Financial Officer/Assistant City Manager): I believe so, yes, sir.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Are we currently under any scare or issue that we have impact
fees that are coming up to that six-year mark, and we -- if we don't use them, we're going to lose
it?
Mr. Casamayor: Off the top of my head, sir, I can't answer that. I need a moment to check.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay. So that's why, since you were tabling for that, I wanted to ask
that, too. And if so, what is the amount?
Mr. Casamayor: Do my best to get it, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. We're going to table RE.5 until -- just a bit of time,
until we get more information.
Later...
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): We need RE.5, Commissioner. Back to RE.5.
Vice Chair Russell: RE.5. Thank you.
Mr. Alfonso: What's RE.5?
Commissioner Carollo: Trolley.
Vice Chair Russell: That's the trolley. We got to -- a --
Commissioner Suarez: Oh, we didn't do it?
Ms. Méndez: So two things that I wanted to clarify with you. One is the covenant that is on the
property at this time. It lasts for about five years, and it says the uses that cannot be utilized, so
that is if we purchase this property, it -- the covenant runs with the land, and it lasts for about
five years.
Vice Chair Russell: Five years from when, 2014?
Unidentified Speaker: 2014.
Mr. Alfonso: Correct. It expires in 2019.
Ms. Méndez: 2019 is the expiration.
Vice Chair Russell: So expires in three years? How does that affect the value of the land now
versus then?

Mr. Alfonso: Obviously, when covenants expire, they free up the use of the land so it would make
it more valuable.
Vice Chair Russell: So now is a bargain?
Mr. Alfonso: Now is a bargain. We're buying it with impact fee dollars. If we want to use it for
any of those other uses in the future, we would have to reimburse ourselves those impact fee
dollars from general fund, and then it can be fully utilized, assuming that the zoning can be
changed. If we zone it for parkland use, you know that zoning it to something else would be a
difficult proposition, because you have to have all the concurrency issues, so depends on what
you do with it; but in theory, if all else is equal, yes, once the covenant expires, the value of the
property goes up.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And just to clarify, the covenant is the result of the settlement
from a civil rights lawsuit; is that correct?
Mr. Alfonso: Correct.
Ms. Méndez: Well, that's a -- it has to do with a lawsuit that we were not involved in. There is a
second one that you brought up, and that had to do with the Florida Department of
Transportation, and it was a complaint as to how we ran our program, and we are in compliance
with that. We developed a Title VI program; we submitted it to the County for approval, and that
was a separate --
Vice Chair Russell: So this settlement wasn't because of that? This was because of the issue
with -- between Coral Gables and the developer.
Ms. Méndez: With the neighbors and all that.
Vice Chair Russell: Understood.
Ms. Méndez: Right. So there were two separate things, but it's good that you brought it up to
clarify the --
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. It's good to know the history.
Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved. Actually, it --
Nicole Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): Chair, there was a mover and seconder.
Vice Chair Russell: There was a move and seconder. Who was it?
Ms. Ewan: It was you who moved, and Commissioner Suarez second.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes. I want to verify. I also had a question, and I think the Manager
has the answer.
Mr. Alfonso: Yes. So the Commissioner asked a very valid question about the use of impact fees,
and it had to do with the timeliness, et cetera. What I told him is that we haven't fully done that
analysis. We can work on that. However, we can move forward with this purchase, and if there's

an issue with the use and timeliness, we'll report to the Commission on that.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay. And obviously, you used the --
Mr. Alfonso: We always use the oldest dollar first.
Commissioner Carollo: First in --
Mr. Alfonso: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: First in, first out.
Mr. Alfonso: First in, first out.
Vice Chair Russell: FIFO (first in first out)
Commissioner Carollo: First in, first out.
Vice Chair Russell: FIFO.
Commissioner Carollo: Hey. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) it's FIFO.
Vice Chair Russell: I remember high school.
Commissioner Gort: That's basics.
Vice Chair Russell: That's all I know.
Commissioner Carollo: And by the way, Mr. Vice Chair, just a caveat. Usually when we're
buying parkland, you don't normally get people in opposition, so I would expect that when you
do the town hall meetings, which I know you will, you know, because -- you know, when Mr.
Rashid came forward, Mr. Armbrister, I think, you know, they're individuals that have been in
that community for a very long time, and I know they're -- you know, they're conscious of how
(UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Vice Chair Russell: I spoke with at least Mr. Armbrister afterwards, and the concern is that
we're doing this; that means we're not going to do anything else.
Vice Chair Russell: And so there was a --
Vice Chair Russell: -- worry about either/or situation.
Commissioner Carollo: Understood, understood.
Vice Chair Russell: Any further discussion? All in favor, say “aye.”
RE.6 RESOLUTION

16-00995
Department of Police A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BID
RECEIVED JULY 6, 2016, PURSUANT TO INVITATION FOR BID NO. 623383,
FROM LAWMEN'S AND SHOOTERS' SUPPLY, INC., THE LOWEST
RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, TO PROVIDE THE MIAMI
POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH A ONE-TIME PURCHASE OF BUSHMASTER
RIFLES AND ACCESSORIES, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$101,332.64; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL POLICE FUND
00001.191501.552100.0000.00000, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY OF
FUNDS AND BUDGETARY APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF NEED.
16-00995 Bid Tabulation.pdf
16-00995 Invitation for Bid.pdf
SPONSOR: COMMISSIONER FRANCIS SUAREZ
CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote.
Note for the Record: Item RE.6 was continued to the October 13, 2016 Regular Commission
Meeting.
RE.7 RESOLUTION
16-01111
District 1 - A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION CONDEMNING THE
Commissioner ABUSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN TURKEY ARISING OUT OF THE 2016
Wifredo (Willy) Gort TURKISH COUP D'ÉTAT ATTEMPT; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO PRESIDENT BARACK
OBAMA AND THE MEMBERS OF THE 114TH UNITED STATES CONGRESS.

R-16-0406
RE.8 RESOLUTION
16-01128
District 1 - A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY
Commissioner ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER OF THE
Wifredo (Willy) Gort CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("CHARTER"), FOR
CONSIDERATION AT THE MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD

ON NOVEMBER 7, 2017, PROPOSING, UPON APPROVAL OF THE
ELECTORATE, TO AMEND SECTION 12 OF THE CHARTER, ENTITLED
"FILLING VACANCIES FOR MAYOR AND COMMISSION," TO PROVIDE THAT
A CANDIDATE ELECTED IN A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FILLING A VACANCY SHALL SERVE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THAT
UNEXPIRED TERM.
R-16-0433
Chair Hardemon: So we'll call RE.8. That's the --
Commissioner Suarez: Commissioner Gort.
Chair Hardemon: -- Commissioner Gort, a Charter amendment.
Commissioner Suarez: I can present, if you want, but it's up -- it's Commissioner Gort's item.
Commissioner, do you want me to present it or -- as a mem -- as a -- whatever you want.
Chair Hardemon: Yeah. I mean --
Commissioner Suarez: It's your item.
Commissioner Gort: Go ahead, yeah.
Commissioner Suarez: Commissioner Gort sponsored an item, which is one of the items that the
Charter Review Committee had recommended for change. As you recall, we had I think 12 to 15
amendments; the Commission whittled it down to seven, and then we further whittled it down to
three that we could put on this agenda -- I'm sorry, on this referendum. This one is for the next
referendum, and it is one of the 12, so it's -- I'll let him explain it, because it's something that has
affected him in his life, because of the number of times he's had to run. I'll defer to him.
Chair Gort: Thank you, Commissioner. If you recall in 2010, we had a lot of -- three new
Commissioners. There was two vacant seats, and they made a resolution in the past, if you were
-- you going to run for a position that was open because the Commissioner left or resign , you ran
and you finished the term. But they made a resolution that they had to run -- go in the first
election, which it was in January 10; and then they had to go back in the next general election,
which was November 10; and then you had to go once again, in November 11, to finish the term.
So it was a three elections within a year and a half. So what this would do is anybody that's
going to replace any one Commissioner or any vacancy, whatever election they win, is to finish
the term.
Chair Hardemon: I do have a question. You know, and I'm not sure if this would violate the
single subject law, but in the City, we currently have a requirement that someone who's running
for Commissioner in a particular district has to reside within the district for at least a year
before they can take office or run in that district. In the County, they have something similar, but
they require six months. And I think that the County has an additional restriction where it says
that before you can run, you have to be in that district for six months, but in the County for three
years. And I thought that it would be in good practice if we also had a restriction that said that
before you run for office -- just before you run for office, you have to be a City resident for three
years; and then, of course, keep the restriction that you have to be in that district for one year.
And I was hoping that the City, as an amendment -- with this to go with this, that the City
Attorney's Office would bring us back some language that would reflect that.
Commissioner Suarez: So it's sort of a robust -- more robust residency requirement is what
you're saying.
Chair Hardemon: Right, right.
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): Do you want that as --? I mean, not as a part of this question,
but another one. I bring a resolution, same way as I brought this to draft language, or are you
putting it -- are you combining it or editing this resolution?
Chair Hardemon: That's what I was wondering. I don't know if you can do it to this one --
Commissioner Suarez: It would have to be separate.
Chair Hardemon: -- because it might subject -- it might be a separate one.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, it would have to be separate, yeah.
Ms. Méndez: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: I don't think that it's something that's super complicated. I thought that this
was -- this even -- like this one is not super complicated.
Commissioner Gort: No. It is --
Chair Hardemon: It's good because of what the effect of the change is, and I didn't know if -- I
don't remember if we decided each of items that were going on the ballot. I know that we --
Commissioner Suarez: No. We just decided this year, and then we were going to potentially
reconvene and look at all the remaining ones, and then start, you know, trying to push them up
as well, but that -- we could take a look at that one, if you want to.
Chair Hardemon: Yeah. I mean, I would love --
Commissioner Suarez: Because that's a pretty straightforward one.
Chair Hardemon: -- if we can -- yeah, if we can do it --
Ms. Méndez: We could put it on the September 22 agenda, the same as this is a resolution to
bring back language, and then we'll bring it back. It's not complicated, what you're asking for.
Chair Hardemon: But I don't -- right. And so, for instance, with this one, this could potentially
end up on the November ballot, this -- what the Commissioner has now?
Ms. Méndez: This resolution is just directing the City Attorney to draft the language. We will
bring back the language, and then it will be placed on the November 2017 --
Commissioner Suarez: '17 ballot.
Ms. Méndez: -- ballot.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. We passed --

Ms. Méndez: So not --
Commissioner Suarez: -- the time for this ballot.
Ms. Méndez: -- next month.
Chair Hardemon: We passed the time?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, a while ago.
Chair Hardemon: Right. Okay. So I guess we can pass this, but --
Ms. Méndez: Right. And I'm bringing back then a resolution similar to this, but on your issue --
Chair Hardemon: Correct.
Ms. Méndez: -- September 22.
Ms. Méndez: Are we planning to bring this one, also? We're bringing the language to this one
that we already have drafted to September 22, and then your resolution directing.
Chair Hardemon: So there was no -- there's no motion just yet, right? Okay, so what I'd like to
ask is for -- Commissioner Suarez, if you can make the motion to --
Chair Hardemon: -- carry the Commissioner from the first district, his request, along with my
additional request to bring back --
Vice Chair Russell: Separate, right?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): The instructions to the City Attorney are perfectly clear. So you
can just make a motion on RE.8, and the City Attorney will be bringing a resolution basically for
your particular Charter amendment question on the 22nd.
Chair Hardemon: Well --
Commissioner Suarez: Yes. I make that motion with that direction.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing
RE.9 RESOLUTION
16-00637


Commissioner ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A
Francis Suarez MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE
ATTACHED FORM, WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TO FUND A PORTION OF
THE UNDERLINE PROJECT WITH CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY") PARK IMPACT
FEES ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER
13, SECTIONS 13-5 AND 13-6 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, THAT HAVE PAID OR WILL PAY IMPACT FEES
WITHIN ONE THOUSAND (1,000) FEET OF THE UNDERLINE PROJECT IN
DISTRICTS 2 AND 4 AND FIFTY PERCENT (50%) OF ANY IMPACT FEES
COLLECTED WITHIN ONE THOUSAND (1,000) FEET OF THE UNDERLINE
PROJECT IN DISTRICT 3 IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED FIFTY
MILLION DOLLARS ($50,000,000.00), PROVIDED THAT SAID FUNDS SHALL
BE EXPENDED ON THE UNDERLINE PROJECT WITHIN SIX (6) YEARS OF
THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF THE IMPACT FEE BY THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY TO THE CITY; FURTHER PROVIDING THAT SAID FIFTY
MILLION DOLLAR ($50,000,000.00) CAP BE REDUCED IF THE UNDERLINE
PROJECT RECEIVES FUNDS FROM OTHER SOURCES OR IT IS
DETERMINED IN THE FUTURE THAT THE OVERALL PROJECT COST WILL
BE LESS; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INCLUDE THE
UNDERLINE PROJECT IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 13-5 OF THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW FOR CREDITS
AGAINST IMPACT FEES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT SEEKING TO IMPROVE
THE UNDERLINE PROJECT.
16-00637-Submittal-Powerpoint Presentation-Commissioner Carollo.pdf
16-00637-Submittal-Steven Wernick-Letter of Support.pdf

R-16-0409
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item RE.9, please see "Order of
the Day."
Chair Hardemon: RE.9.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you, Mr. Chair. RE.9 is a resolution authorizing the Manager to
enter into an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with Miami-Dade County to fund a portion
of the Underline Project with the City park impact fees that would be created through new
development within a thousand feet of the Underline, not to exceed the total amount of $50
million, which is the total cost of the Underline in the City of Miami. As was stated here by the
public commentary, the Underline is a citywide project. It's really the only opportunity that we
have as a city to create 60 acres of contiguous parkland. The idea of dedicating the funds that
are created within a thousand feet of the Underline and rededicating them to the Underline is
logical, because those are the people that will be impacted by development that is next to the
Underline. They could walk to the Underline. Having said that, it's a citywide park. I mean,
everyone -- and then this touches two out of the -- you know, three out of the five districts, but the
reality is it will affect all the districts, and it'll affect the City tremendously, because it'll be
something that we'll look at -- will be looked at from across the world as a destination. If we
want to be a world-class city, which I believe we are and we will continue to be -- Everyone who
goes to New York talks about the High Line. Everyone who goes to different parts of the world
talks about the public spaces that those cities have. And, you know, I think in our generation, the
-- one of the questions of our generation as we become more urban and more dense is, "What are
the quality of life investments that we're going to make as a community?"And so I move RE.9,
and I respectfully request my colleagues' support.
Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved. Is there a second?
Vice Chair Russell: Second for discussion.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first of all, I'd like to begin by thanking
everyone that has been working, you know, nonstop hours with regards to the Underline,
especially Meg Daly. I think, you know, her work, a lot of time -- it definitely doesn't go
unnoticed, but it's not given the proper credit that it's due, because I have seen how hard she has
worked. And with that said, I definitely want to say that I'm a proponent of the Underline, and
I'm not just saying that. As a matter of fact, Meg and I have walked areas in District 3, parts of
the Underline; and you know, I have showed her documents where even before the Friends of the
Underline was formed and became an organization, I was actually working on making a certain
area of District 3 by the Underline a park. I have the documents to show, you know, how we've
been working closely with that. As a matter of fact, I will predict that the first part of the
Underline that will be finished and built will be in District 3, because it's something that I've
been working with the Administration in order to do. We've allocated the fundings, and I just
want to show a few -- and I know Meg's seen this already. I want to show a few of the -- if
possible, a few of the slides. This is on 1st Avenue by 15th Road. As a matter of fact, we've
allocated fundings for this park with impact fees already, so we've -- we as a Commission have
done this in the past. So if you just go briefly.
Vice Chair Russell: Is that Simpson Park behind?
Commissioner Carollo: Simpson Park is behind it, but this is actually new park space that we're
actually doing, so everything you see in green is new park space. Now, what abuts that is
Simpson Park.
Vice Chair Russell: Will there be an access? I'm curious. It's probably not.
Commissioner Carollo: There will not be access from here. You will have to go around to
Simpson Park. And having meetings with many of the residents over the years -- and mind you,
we started this in probably late 2012, early '13. And during that time, speaking with the
developers -- as a matter of fact, this was empty lots that now have fully buildings. As a matter
of fact, you were there in the ribbon cutting with me of the Atton Hotel.
Vice Chair Russell: Atton Hotel.
Commissioner Carollo: And I mentioned how, as a city, we still have not completed that park
that I want to make sure we complete, which is -- will be part of the Underline, and what I
foresee as the first part of the Underline that will be complete. So I wanted to show that I'm
definitely a proponent of the Underline. However, at the same time, I want to make sure and
everybody understand that there's other less affluent areas that I also represent. And as a matter
of fact, according to the Miami Parks and Public Spaces Master Plan, in Little Havana -- and
I'm going to quote -- and again, this comes straight out of the Miami Parks and Public Space
Master Plan. And I'm going to quote: "In Little Havana, new park space is needed. There is a
severe deficit of park west of 12 Avenue. Few public or private vacant lots are available for new

open spaces." And this is a quote. This comes straight out of our Miami Parks and Public Spaces
Master Plan. So I also represent an area that lacks public parks and -- So I first want to show
the part that the City of Miami Park Master Plan stipulates that there's no park space. If you
notice, all this, which is Little Havana, including parts of the Roads, with all this, there are no
parks. Thank you. If you see, all this area of Little Havana, there's absolutely no parks; even the
Roads area, no parks. In all fairness, this map's a little old, because we just added one in 12
Avenue, a playground. But right here, there's no parks. So there's definitely a deficit, and I
agree with the City of Miami Parks Master Plan. Now, going back to the Underline in the City of
Miami, which is roughly all this, the park that I just showed that we're going to be doing with the
help of the Administration -- and we've been working on it for years now -- will take up roughly
this amount of the Underline. So we will actually do this amount of the Underline, which is a
significant amount. So what I am saying and what I'm proposing, that the impact fees from
District 3 -- and we actually made a calculation, according to Francisco Garcia, which is
roughly 7,000 -- 7,500,000 to do a split, 50 percent. So in other words, in the area of District 3,
a thousand feet from the Metrorail Station, that those impact fees, 50 percent goes towards the
Underline, 50 percent goes towards Little Havana. As our Park Master Plan says, that's where
exactly parks are needed. So that is what I'm hoping that you all take into consideration, and
then I will be in favor of this. And by the way, just to mention, the amount that the Underline is
stipulating, they're not giving me a credit for already using park impact fees, District 3 park
impact fees, to actually do this whole amount, but I'm okay with that, because I believe in it, I
really do. And again -- and like I said, I'm not just saying it, I'm acting on it. But I do think it
will be highly unfair that I only look at this area and not the area of Little Havana that also
needs park space, and use up all the impact fees for this area and not consider the other areas of
East Little Havana and Little Havana that are very much needed of parks.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Carollo: But -- and by the way, I spoke to Meg Daly about this, and she
understood what I was saying, and there's no issues. And Meg's here, if she would, you know,
need to say anything.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I mean, my issue is the following: First of all, I'm glad that you
are -- I'm not sure what funding source is for that -- the Band-Aid part that you put the tape over.
Where's that one from? Is that from --?
Commissioner Carollo: Park impact fees to District 3.
Commissioner Suarez: But that hasn't been allocated yet, has it?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes, it has. It is allocated to District 3, so I'm actually using District 3
park impact fees allocations in order to do that.
Commissioner Suarez: For the Underline?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes, absolutely.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. That was already allocated?
Commissioner Carollo: Absolutely.
Commissioner Suarez: When was that allocated?

Commissioner Carollo: Years ago. I hate to say it, but unfortunately, our Administration
sometimes doesn't work as fast, but --
Commissioner Suarez: So --
Commissioner Carollo: -- we'll leave it at that. But it's already been allocated, yes.
Commissioner Suarez: How much was allocated?
Commissioner Carollo: I want to say 1.5 million.
Commissioner Carollo: So, I mean, if you want to give me a credit for that amount --
Commissioner Suarez: I think that's fair. I think that's fair. My issue is -- and, you know, there's
a lot of unallocated and unspent impact fees, some are citywide, some of them are district wide,
and so that's the only sort of pushback that I have a little bit, you know, which is -- I have no
problem giving you a credit for monies that you've allocated to the Underline, because,
obviously, that's -- you're doing the right thing, the thing we all agree on. My concern is -- on
the 50 percent is, you know, there's a lot of unallocated and unspent district-wide and citywide
impact fees. I'm talking about like 8 million, or something like that, if I'm not mistaken; at least
8 million. So that's the concern that I have. I think, you know, the issue here is -- I don't have a
problem giving you a credit for that, so if we reduced the total amount -- Go ahead.
Vice Chair Russell: Before you amend it, if we could discuss it a little further. Because I had
actually quite a similar amendment that I wanted to propose today, and there are some options
with this. First of all, absolutely, a proponent; fully in favor. Congrats to Meg. Wonderful. I
wanted to look at this as a precedent for moving forward on when we have projects that we want
to help improve park-wise. It's often been an issue about how impact fees are spread throughout
the City versus concentrated where the impact happens. And I certainly want to recognize that
the impact fees generated, especially in, for example, District 2, to stay in District 2 would make
no sense for the rest of the City. The engine of the City is meant to run the whole city, and if the
majority of the development's happening here, doesn't mean all the impact fees are meant to stay
here. That being said, of course, the pressure from the residents that are looking for impact fees,
at least some of which to stay here, should happen. So this hybrid approach was exactly what I
was going to propose, and that we could actually use this idea in other park-related acquisitions,
which I know are on a lot of radars. First of all, Commissioner Hardemon, who's not here, but I
know one of his concerns was that the Underline doesn't necessarily directly affect his district.
So what if the carve-out, that a certain percentage was citywide or could be accessed by all
districts, and that a certain percentage remained in -- for specifically the Underline, and then
let's say we went on to another park and had a similar idea; we wouldn't have to reinvent the
wheel. And if I could, for example, Museum Park. A lot of development happening around
Museum Park. Impact fees from that development could really help us improve Museum Park
and bring it up to the standard that those residents around that area really enjoy , but it shouldn't
capture all of it. The rest should go. What that percentage is, I don't know. I hadn't thought of
specifying it to one district, but that it could be accessible by any district. Same thing with the
Ludlum Trail, and I didn't -- I hope the wrong message wasn't transmitted in the votes the other
day with regard to the budget, because I am in favor of the purchase of the -- our portion of the
Ludlum Trail and support you in that in with park impact fees.
Commissioner Suarez: My issue is this: There's a clear nexus, like you said, between --
Vice Chair Russell: Yeah.

Commissioner Suarez: -- the impact fees that are generated and the Underline, number one. So
I think that's the first issue. The second issue is the magnitude of this project. I'm sorry. The
magnitude of this project. There is no other project that has this magnitude. I mean, there just
isn't. So I don't have a problem with the Commissioner's request for crediting a million and a
half dollars, because that million and a half dollars is allocated, as he said. You know, I want to
make sure that the Underline gets fully funded in terms of its full plan, because I do -- the plan is
very robust, but I think it's important that we don't cut corners; because if you go to other places,
like the Atlanta Beltline, you'll see that it's, in my opinion -- I've been to it -- it's not really done
the way that it should be done, so it doesn't have the same panache. It doesn't have the same
attraction that it would have otherwise. So I think that's important. The only caveat that I would
have to the 50 percent is that there's a lot of unspent money. So, you know, if there was going to
be an amendment for it to be -- By the way, the 50 percent also reduces the speed with which we
would get to a point where we could actually build the Underline completely, so that's the other
concern that I have. You know, if monies aren't being spent -- like, for example, I've spent a lot
of my park acquisition monies -- even though my -- his graph showed that his district is deficient;
mine is also. I think the City's deficient just generally, and it may be the most deficient in his
district, but it's pretty deficient in all districts, and certainly deficient in mine, and certainly
deficient citywide. And so I've spent some of my park acquisition fees in pocket parks, because
it's just really, really difficult to assemble land. What makes this unique is that the land is
already assembled, and it's owned by someone that will -- that we can partner up easily with, so
that's -- again, sometimes I look at things from a real estate perspective. That's kind of the -- you
know, the real estate attorney in me, saying, "Look, this is a unique opportunity that you just can't
find. There's just no way.” And even if you could find it, by the way, you wouldn't be able to
afford it, because you'd have to pay not only the development costs, but the land costs that are
associated. And we saw a one-acre parcel in downtown sell for $125 million, just a one-acre
parcel; just the land, the raw land. So that's the -- those are the concerns I have. What I would
respectfully request -- I have no problem giving the credit, because it's the right thing to do, even
though it was allocated beforehand. You know, he makes a very compelling point.
Vice Chair Russell: Is it a credit for a specific amount?
Vice Chair Russell: Or 50 percent of the total impact fee generated? What is it?
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned the credit. However, I'm more concerned
about the 50 percent, because, listen, I'll show you the map again.
Vice Chair Russell: I know.
Commissioner Carollo: Clearly, District 3 -- and you know what? We make such big issues
about the Master Plan. I remember with Virginia Key, "Master Plan, Master Plan, the Master
Plan. What does the Master Plan say?” Well, what does the Master Plan say? It clearly
stipulates, you know, the need of park space; and it also indicates, yes, that it's hard because
there's a lack of available lots, vacant lots, so it's difficult. And -- but I don't want to close that
door and able to, you know, provide additional parks in the near future. As a matter of fact,
there was supposed to be an item coming to this Commission meeting for a park in the Roads , a
new park in the Roads. And, you know, sometimes it takes longer, so I thought it was coming to
this Commission meeting; it's not. Now I've been told it's in the next Commission meeting. So
again, what monies are we going to use? Realistically, you would think park impact fees. And
what's happening now is that -- listen, the City has money now. The problem is in a downturn --
and this is a cycle, so there will be a downturn again, and in that downturn, you know, where --
which is, by the way, the best time to buy park space -- where are we going to have the monies to
buy park spaces in areas that it's very well needed? Now, listen, I'm not turning a blind eye to

the Underline. As a matter of fact, District 3 monies of impact fees, you know, I use for that part
of the Underline, you know. But at the same time, I can't turn a blind eye to Little Havana. And
now is when we're first starting to actually receive monies from District 3 impact fees, so we're
really starting to be impacted, and the numbers are there, even for this. The total amount, we've
calculated already, citywide, which by the way, it took some time; and I understand that, you
know, we had the August break and so forth, but I received some of this information a day ago,
or two, three, four days ago, you know; but at the same time, now it's -- finally, when District 3 is
starting to generate some impact fees, I want to be able to, you know, use it in a prudent manner
in Little Havana where our own Master Plan stipulates that it's very much needed.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, and again, you make a lot of good points. I think, clearly, that's
what the Master Plan says. I think the counterpoints, just because we have always a good
debate, spirited debate on all these issues, are, for example, there's a lot of unspent money. And
I understand that there could be a downturn in the future. Maybe that's a better time to acquire
property than currently. But we do have a time limitation on some of these funds. The other
issue we have that's peculiar to your district that's not mine, and certainly your district, not so
much Commissioner Gort's either, is there's SAPs (Special Area Plans). I mean, so there is a lot
of future development potentially that is going to happen in your district; that there is no SAP
that's ever going to come to my district, so there's never going to be a big billion-dollar
development or multibillion dollar development that would generate a tremendous amount of
impact fees. So, I mean, you have one project alone in your district that could generate a
significant amount of impact fees if it gets built. So, you know, that's also going to be something
that influences the amount of money. But we've gotten -- you know, the amount of money that
this can generate for the Underline, which is a significant amount of the Underline, according to
the analysis, is amounts that we've generated in one year citywide. And we've had a couple of
years where we've generated a significant amount. And I understand that those were, you know,
sort of, anomalous years because they were years where we've had a tremendously -- you know,
14 percent growth, 11 percent growth last year. I think we're forecasting 7 percent growth;
hopefully, we're at 9 percent growth. Hopefully, we're a little bit better. We still have a
tremendous amount of new construction that's coming online. So I just think the issue is, if all
the impact fee money that we had was spent, then I could see the argument that, you know,
maybe we should be dedicating less of it to other areas, but this is the impacted zone. So that's
my counter.
Vice Chair Russell: My recommendation would be that 50 percent be set aside but not just for
District 3, but for citywide, for all districts to have access. You'd still have access to it, but that
way -- because, really, 50 million, if it -- if half of all the impact fees generated every year are
going just to one district, that's also a little imbalanced.
Commissioner Carollo: We --
Vice Chair Russell: It's very needed, for sure --
Commissioner Carollo: We --
Vice Chair Russell: -- but it's very needed in District 1 as well and District 5.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay, so let me go into a little bit more details. First of all, the analysis
that was done by Francisco Garcia -- and I appreciate it, and his staff -- is that looking at all the
possible construction and vacant lands and so forth, the maximum amount of revenues or impact
fees that it would generate is about $32 million.
Commissioner Carollo: Out of those $32 million, roughly, I believe --

Vice Chair Russell: That's over 10 years, right?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Roughly -- I have it by district. So, roughly, Mr. Vice Chair, your
district would generate twenty-four thousand, three hundred thousand -- 24,000,300; District 3,
that I represent, would generate about 7,000,400, so I'm saying 50 percent of those 7,000,400.
And then District 4 would generate 300,000. So all I'm saying is the part of District 3 that's
actually generating -- finally generating some impact fees -- and I mean “finally” in the last two
or three years, because last year, I think District 3 was one of the districts that generated the
most. What I'm saying is half of the 7.5 million, put it for another area in District 3, okay? So
you are identifying this whole amount for just one project. I'm saying, “No. Do half of it, and
the other half to another area in Little Havana,” which is very much needed, okay? Now, at the
same time, I'm doing a good portion of the Underline in District 3 that I started before the
Underline even became the Underline. This was in late 2012, early 2013. And regardless of this
funding or no funding, regardless, I predicted the first part of the Underline will be built in
District 3, because I've been working with the Administration, and we're going to finish that part
of the Underline, that part of the park that -- And by the way, I'm not just saying it now. You
heard me months ago in the ribbon cutting of the Atton Hotel, where I said, “Yes, we are going to
do it. We'll move forward.” I had spoken with Roads Homeowners Association; they are on
board. And we want to make sure we make it happen. So what I'm asking for is half of this 7.5;
50 percent. So it's not 50 percent of the whole amount; just 50 percent of what District 3 is going
to generate.
Vice Chair Russell: 50 percent of -- well -- yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: 50 percent of what District 3 is going to generate.
Vice Chair Russell: 50 percent of what the thousand foot of the entire Underline generates.
Commissioner Carollo: Inside District 3.
Vice Chair Russell: Inside District 3.
Commissioner Carollo: Inside District 3, which is approximately 7,400,000.
Vice Chair Russell: Right. But wouldn't you get -- wouldn't the district get more if we took the
entire project and carved out a portion for all five districts? Because that way, District 5 gets
additional parks money generated from the -- I mean, I just -- I'm just worried that we're leaving
a lot of potential park impacts fees that could be benefiting those districts. I know we do have
some unspent money, but I guarantee you that won't be for very long.
Vice Chair Russell: If we find the good uses for them and we've tied all of our funds up --
Because here's where I'm going with this: 50 million is, if I'm not mistaken, the actual entire cost
--
Commissioner Carollo: Thirty-two.
Vice Chair Russell: No, no, no. The 50 million that we're allocating --

Vice Chair Russell: -- is the entire cost --
Commissioner Suarez: We're not allocating that.
Vice Chair Russell: -- that -- Well, that we're -- we would be dedicating (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Suarez: It's a limit. It's a limit on what could be generated.
Vice Chair Russell: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: But there's no closing end to it. In this legislation, it would just keep
generating, right? There's no -- if I'm -- and that's something I would want to amend if it's not
already in there --
Vice Chair Russell: -- that there is an end to this; that if they finish the construction --
Commissioner Carollo: Absolutely.
Vice Chair Russell: Because there are other funding sources that they're seeking and probably
quite successfully --
Commissioner Suarez: Of course.
Vice Chair Russell: -- that I don't want to stop those flows from happening. And if they do get
the funds they need and they move forward over the next six years, that we're not still tied in to
go all the way to 50. I want to make sure that there is something --
Commissioner Suarez: No, I agree. No. There's no doubt about that. That makes sense. And I
think --
Vice Chair Russell: And certainly, I believe --
Commissioner Suarez: -- they understand that.
Commissioner Suarez: The understanding is that --
Vice Chair Russell: But as it's written, I believe it allows it to keep feeding the Underline.
Commissioner Suarez: Correct. And I think that's a friendly amendment that I will accept,
which is essentially that if they generate monies from other sources that that would diminish the
cap of the $50 million, which is absolutely correct.
Vice Chair Russell: And --
Commissioner Carollo: Well, if I may, if I can interject just on that topic?
Commissioner Carollo: Or if it's built with less than that amount --

Vice Chair Russell: Exactly. If they don't need it --
Commissioner Carollo: -- you know, not --
Vice Chair Russell: My other suggestion or concern for an amendment is that many
developments don't actually pay their impact fees; instead, they may even contribute to the
construction of the Underline within that area in lieu of, and the way the legislation's currently
written, that doesn't count against the 50 million.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm okay with that, too.
Vice Chair Russell: So I believe we can make an adjustment for that, that when a developer
constructs part of the Underline that that would then --
Commissioner Suarez: I'm okay with that.
Vice Chair Russell: -- subtract from that amount.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm okay with that.
Vice Chair Russell: Yeah, a tail end cap. And then this sharing idea. I mean, honestly, it
shouldn't concern me because a lot of it's within my district and I benefit as the -- but I'm
thinking citywide here. I'm thinking citywide.
Commissioner Suarez: But here's the way I look at it. Here's the way I look at it: I know that
sometimes because of -- and I commend the Commissioner, because he's really drilled down on
this. You know, because we're looking at this zone, we're almost making it seem like this is the
only place where impact fees are generated. We generate impact fees all over the city. What I'm
trying to say is that you have multiple SAPs that are going to generate a significant amount of --
none of the SAPs even touch this. The Commissioner has an SAP in his district; doesn't touch
this. So there are, you know, a lot of big developments that are entitled and that are going to be
developed that are going to generate a significant amount of impact fees that are not impacted ,
for lack of -- you know, no pun intended -- are not impacted by this legislation. Where I thought
this was elegant was because it created a -- and by the way, it already exists. It just exists in a
smaller form. It exists in your district; it's 500 feet, and it's a specific area, so what we're doing
is expanding an already existing concept. It's acting like a catch bucket, like a rain water catch
bucket, very similar to what a TIF (tax increment financing) financing district would look like for
transit-oriented financing, which is something that's been talked about, as well. So I just think
the nexus is very clear, and also the opportunity. I mean, 60 acres. I'm sorry, guys, but there's --
no matter how many impact fees we divide and generate, there's no way we're going to be able to
aggregate that kind of land for that price, which is essentially free to the public already.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And that reminds me of another point I wanted to bring up.
This actually isn't our land, correct? It's County land. Is there an agreement in place --?
Commissioner Suarez: Well, it is our land, collectively.
Vice Chair Russell: Right, but not --
Commissioner Suarez: It's public land.
Vice Chair Russell: But it's County, not City, right?

Vice Chair Russell: So my question is, all this acquisition or development, it actually doesn't
affect our ratio, our park ratio, does it? And is there -- do we have legislation coming or in
place that will change that, some sort of MOU or anything?
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): I'm not sure about that.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to have legislation. By the way, and I've
also been working with Commissioner Barreiro all this time, since back in 2012, 2013, to see
how we make it so it's additional park space, because part of that land is owned by the County;
part of that land is owned by the City, so just as an FY [sic]. But, again, unfortunately --
Vice Chair Russell: Francisco, may I have a --?
Mr. Alfonso: Yeah, Francisco will get up there and explain, but under the current laws, we don't
think it will add to our comp plan because of the zoning of the transit use.
Ms. Méndez: It's a rapid transit corridor.
Mr. Alfonso: Right.
Ms. Méndez: It's not considered park space.
Vice Chair Russell: What law would have to change to change that?
Ms. Méndez: The County.
Chair Gort: County.
Ms. Méndez: And they won't change --
Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) transit agency.
Ms. Méndez: Right, but the rapid transit corridor designation by the County is very coveted by
them, and they're not going to change it.
Commissioner Suarez: But can I -- may I, Mr. Chair?
Vice Chair Russell: Of course.
Commissioner Suarez: I think we're getting a little bit into the weeds, because the fact of the
matter is, this will be -- whether we call it a park, whether we don't call it a park; whether it
counts for our park impact fee lands or not, this will be the nicest park -- or one of the nicest
parks -- I don't want to offend anybody -- in the City of Miami, if not the United States, so it's
going to be a beautiful park. It's going to be a place where we're going to take our kids and our
grandkids and our great grandkids -- because we're all going to be around for our great
grandkids -- to go and play --
Commissioner Gort: I hope so.
Commissioner Suarez: -- and enjoy themselves.
Vice Chair Russell: Absolutely. I just want to get credit for it.

Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Very briefly. With your permission, Francisco
Garcia, Planning & Zoning director. Just to plant a seed, so to speak; and, of course, the
County, as the landowner, would have to be a willing participant and a partner in this. We have
tentatively explored the notion that we might pursue with Tallahassee, with the Department of
Economic Opportunity, which controls the land use plan for the states, a land use designation
that would allow both for improvements to be made for rapid transit and also improvements to
be made for parks and open space. And it's such a sort of mixed use, land use designation, could
be cobbled together, then we could conceivably use this land also for concurrency purposes, and
that would be a win-win.
Vice Chair Russell: That would be my hope. And just to clarify it, I mean, I want to get credit
for it. I mean, if the City invests 50 million --
Commissioner Suarez: No, I get it.
Vice Chair Russell: -- that it counts toward our park space.
Commissioner Suarez: I agree, too. I do, too, but I'm just saying, I don't want to --
Vice Chair Russell: Get into it.
Commissioner Suarez: -- sort of throw out the baby with the bath water.
Vice Chair Russell: I under -- that would be a different issue.
Vice Chair Russell: That may be a different issue.
Vice Chair Russell: But thank you.
Commissioner Suarez: Commissioner Gort, you want to say anything?
Commissioner Gort: Thank you. Thank you for giving me an opportunity; I appreciate it. For
years, I've been looking at all this overpass and empty spaces, and I've always been saying, not
only this corridor, but the Underline. But even in Overtown, we can see -- right now we're using
parcel of the I-95 underneath for the Skate Park, so it's going to be used for this. It is a waste to
have all this land not being used. I agree the park, I think it's a beautiful idea. It's going to be
very attractive. People are going to be able to use it. I'm all for it. But also, at the same time, I
would like for them -- and I tell them from the beginning: I want to go up north of Flagler Street
also, because a lot of time they says, we build everything south of Flagler Street, but we have a
city that goes up through the north also, and there's not a need for the park spaces within those
area. And as they make their models, which they already been working on, I want to be able to
pick some of this and -- that we can implement in the north side; the reason being, I have a lot of
infrastructures that going to be coming into my district. There's a lot of new development that's
going to be coming into my district that's going to create funds; and we can require, if we have
the plans already, certain part -- part of the applications to donate some funds or to go ahead
and do whatever the project they have, we can implement to the north of it.
Commissioner Suarez: Can I --
Commissioner Gort: But I'm all for it. I think it's --

Commissioner Gort: -- great.
Commissioner Suarez: Can I propose maybe a compromise? Maybe that'll satisfy the
Commissioner, because I'd love to have his support.
Vice Chair Russell: That's your specialty.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, it is sort of my specialty. So my compromise is -- Look, I

understand his concern about Little Havana, and I understand his desire to want to have in his
district a certain percentage of that impact. I personally think we should put a hundred percent,
because I think, even for his district and even for Little Havana, that's the place where people are
going to want to go. That's my personal opinion. But, you know, maybe they won't. So I think
that's a place where everybody's going to want to go throughout the world, but that's just my
perspective. But I would be more willing to accept his friendly amendment on that issue, if we
had a caveat that said, "So long as there is no unspent impact fees."
Vice Chair Russell: Meaning that within his district, he uses up all of the other available impact
fees.
Commissioner Suarez: And see why. I mean, we have -- not just -- I don't want to just signal
him out, but we have also citywide. We have $5 million in citywide unspent impact fees for park
acquisition. This year alone, we budgeted, what; $37 million worth of impact fees, if I'm not
mistaken?
Mr. Alfonso: Some large amount.
Commissioner Suarez: Give or take? So, you know, for me, if we're generating impact fees --
and maybe we don't generate 37 this year, but maybe next year we generate 25, you know, that --
those numbers are going to continue to increase if we don't spend them. And so my issue is, look,
I don't have a problem with dividing up what gets generated in the future but after we've spent
what we already have. You get what I'm saying? Does that make sense?
Vice Chair Russell: It makes perfect sense in theory. How would you apply that to the
legislation?
Commissioner Suarez: I would just say, if the Commissioner's going to say that 50 percent of the
fees that are generated in his district go to non-Underline sources, I would say, “subject to all
impact fees district and citywide having been allocated and spent.”
Vice Chair Russell: So in that sense, in practice, it wouldn't actually start flowing to District 3
until the unspent monies are --?
Vice Chair Russell: What do you think?
Commissioner Carollo: I have a problem with the “spent.” "Allocated"is one thing, because --
for instance, we may allocate monies for a project like we have on this park, and we're still
working on it.
Commissioner Suarez: I'll yield on "spent,"because sometimes we allocate money, like he said, in
good faith, and it just doesn't get spent within a reasonable amount of time.

Commissioner Carollo: And then another caveat: I will be bringing items with regarding to
certain parks. I would expect that since we have so much park impact fees that it will be
improved -- it will be approved, and one of them should have been in this Commission meeting.
Unfortunately, it got pushed on to the next one, but there's a parkland in the Roads that we're
looking at, and, you know, even your -- the trolley station that you're thinking about, notice the
question that I asked: How much of that, you know?
Commissioner Carollo: Because I want to make sure that, you know, the one -- the monies that's
generated is not lost and it's used.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, and I think that's fair. And, look, obviously, I'll support you in the
Roads, you know. I think you have, you know, like you said, park impact fees from your district
that you, you know, want to allocate. I've done something similar in my parts of the district,
which have to do with, you know, obviously pocket parks. Go ahead.
Commissioner Carollo: Right. Just -- every -- listen, I -- one of the reasons that there's districts
is because even within the City of Miami within the districts, there's a lot of differences. A large
part of District 3 are not very fond about pocket parks, so it's just a fact.
Commissioner Suarez: No, I'm not saying you have to do pocket parks, by the way.
Commissioner Carollo: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: You can do whatever you want.
Commissioner Carollo: But then it becomes harder to assemble land.
Commissioner Suarez: Of course. Well, that's a problem that we have -- right -- because of how
expensive land is.
Commissioner Carollo: Ironically enough, when we were actually looking at a large parcel of
land, it actually was with a developer that we're considering purchasing land from, and this was
on 19th Avenue and Southwest 8th Street --
Commissioner Suarez: He built a building there.
Commissioner Carollo: -- and right -- and it was right at the tail end of, you know, the bust, and
I guess by a few months, we couldn't end up buying the lot -- the -- you know, the parcel. Not
only that, I was trying to buy it with Federal dollars, CDBG (Community Development Block
Grant), because the City didn't have money at that time. But ironically enough -- and it was the
same developer, and he actually built a -- some high-rises or condominiums there on 19th
Avenue and Southwest 8th Street. With that said, yeah, in Little Havana, it's harder; and, you
know, the Master Plan says it, because there's very scarce vacant lots. They didn't like pocket
parks, so we have to assemble land, and it makes it more difficult.
Commissioner Suarez: I think we're good.
Vice Chair Russell: All right. So can we articulate the amendment, and does the mover and
seconder accept?
Commissioner Suarez: So the amendment is subject to the caveats that you put on the record,
because you put two caveats on the record that were -- that I accepted, and then subject to 50
percent of the impact fee generated in that zone from District 3 going to non-Underline sources,

so long as City and district impact fees are un -- so long as there are no unallocated City and
impact fee -- and district impact fees.
Vice Chair Russell: Hi, Meg.
Meg Daly: Hi. Could I make a comment?
Ms. Daly: Well, first of all, I want to thank all of you for being -- opening up and listening to us
so much, and I felt like it was our time to listen to you, and thank you for your thoughtful
dialogue. I do want to add that one of the hallmarks of this project is the speed of
implementation and the excitement that it's driving because of momentum. And I also want to
thank you for your leadership. In the audience today, we also have Commissioner Lago from the
City of Coral Gables, you know, because City of Coral Gables is also stepping up. The County
has also provided funding. We are intent on looking at every possible funding source to make
this project happen as quickly as possible, because it will catalyze other great things happening.
It will bring energy to Little Havana. We want to go north into your district, Commissioner Gort,
because we have so much need and we simply don't have enough time. And whatever we can do
to ensure that we're driving the momentum with this discussion, I would implore you to put that
in the back of your mind. And thank you so much for all you're doing. I just wanted to say thank
you.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And if you could --
Vice Chair Russell: -- state your name for the record. Mega Daly.
Ms. Daly: Oh, I'm sorry. You said my name.
Vice Chair Russell: I did.
Ms. Daly: Meg Daly, founder of Friends of the Underline, from -- I live at 1004 Cotorro Avenue.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. And I'd certainly like to welcome Commissioner Lago from the
Coral Gables. Did you want to say something?
Commissioner Vince Lago: Well, thank you very much. Vince Lago, a City of Coral Gables
Commissioner. It's an honor to be here with you. 5200 San Amaro Drive. I'd like to commend
this great Commission for their very spirited and collegial debate and discussion in regards to
this very important issue. I wanted to highlight one important issue. I don't want to take up
much of your type, because I know that you have a long agenda ahead of you. Something that
Commissioner Suarez mentioned, and I respect what Commissioner Carollo was stating in
reference to his concerns in reference to the lack of parks in his district. Now is the time. There
is a direct correlation in between open space and property values and public safety, so we need
to step up as not only the City of Coral Gables, but also as our partners in the City of Miami and
come together and really find a way to make sure that we bring this project to fruition. There
have been some hiccups. There have been some hurdles on the way. But I want to make you
aware of one simple thing, and that is the City of Coral Gables is committed not only coming
here today, but we've also made sure through our financial commitments to bring this project to
fruition. I make it a point several times a year to go to New York to attend several art events;
and I'd just like to briefly tell you, if you haven't had the opportunity to be there and check out
the Underline --

Commissioner Suarez: High Line.
Commissioner Lago: -- it is a transformational project. I've been there before the project was
conceived and implemented, and I've been there after. And subsequently, you've seen
neighborhoods that abut the Underline and you've -- excuse me, not the Underline. I apologize.
Commissioner Suarez: The High Line.
Commissioner Lago: The High Line, I apologize. Excuse me. And it's incredible to see the
community just grow with this project. And with that comes higher property values, and with
higher property values, obviously comes more money into the coffers. So you're going to see
through different angles a significant return on investment, and I'm not only talking about
monetary investment, but I'm also talking about you need places for children to run, you need
people to gather, you need places for people to really come out and have a good time. So I
commend you for your spirited discussion. I want you to know that you have a partner in the
City of Coral Gables, and I appreciate everything you've done in reference to the Underline.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Carollo: I'd like to thank Commissioner Lago for coming before us, and I
definitely am open to his partnership. And listen, I'm not an attorney; I don' t do the pretty
words, but I'm more -- I'm a CPA (certified public accountant), so I'm more into financial. So
just out of curiosity, how much, financially, is the City of Coral Gables going to put forward?
Commissioner Lago: Well, from my understanding, it's -- the City of Miami committed in
reference to the Master Plan $200,000, and correct me if I'm wrong. For the City of Coral
Gables, we committed 50,000. We're a city of $175 million yearly budget. And correct me if I'm
wrong; I haven't -- I don't read your budgets, but you're around 900 million, so -- am I correct?
So I think --
Commissioner Suarez: 660.
Commissioner Lago: Excuse me?
Commissioner Suarez: 660, but who's counting?
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): The operating budget that you're comparing to would be our
670.
Commissioner Lago: Okay.
Mr. Alfonso: The 900 million includes capital, which I don't think your 175 does.
Commissioner Lago: All right. So, I mean, including capital, we're at 175. So the reason why I
bring that up is because we're making -- we're taking a significant stand, and we're going to --
and I'm going to implement similar legislation, as Commissioner Suarez has done, to make sure
that we pay our fair share. We have close to three miles of the Underline, which dissect through
the City of Coral Gables. And again, we're seeing developers that have never before looked at
US 1 as a possibility to bring projects to fruition now clamoring and fighting over pieces of
property, and it's a clear indication. And why are they there? They're there because they see the
Underline as a significant driver. It's an infuser. So I -- again, like I said, I welcome any

questions. We're your partners. It's a great opportunity for us to collaborate.
Commissioner Carollo: No, I appreciate that, because you're seeing firsthand that the City of
Miami is stepping up. I want to make sure that the City of Coral Gables doesn't lag behind,
because it's one whole project.
Commissioner Lago: And like you mentioned, Commissioner, just to, you know, dovetail with
what you said right now, we are one community. I may be from the City of Coral Gables, you
may be from the City of Miami, but we're one community in South Florida, and we have a
responsibility to look at this as an entire community. And I'm in a different situation. As you
mentioned, you're in districts. I have the fortunate ability to represent the City as a whole, and
sometimes that puts me in a very good position. So I think it's a very benefit -- a very -- a
situation which benefits us all. What's good for the City of Miami is good for the City of Coral
Gables.
Commissioner Carollo: And I appreciate that. And I just want to make sure that you guys step
up financially also, so.
Commissioner Lago: We're here.
Vice Chair Russell: We're working on some affordable housing together in our joining area
between the West Grove and the Gables, so --
Commissioner Lago: As Meg --
Vice Chair Russell: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) financial (UNINTELLIGIBLE). He's stepping up.

He's stepping up.
Commissioner Carollo: Chairman, and I know in transportation, we have trolleys that intersect
Gables and City, so that's very good.
Commissioner Lago: I proffered legislation which puts the trolley over US 1 and connected City
of Miami and City of Coral Gables, because again, it's all about connectivity. Let's get cars off
the street. And I want to commend Meg Daly for her efforts, because she's the true driving force,
along with the Friends of the Underline.
Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely.
Commissioner Lago: So thank you.
Commissioner Suarez: Absolutely.
Vice Chair Russell: All right. Any further discussion? We can move this along. I believe we
have three amendments; is that correct?
Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman, if I may? I'd just like to ask that we -- once this passes, we be given
some time to discuss how the disbursements of the monies would take place, what rules, what --
so there has to be an MOU developed as to how we transfer the funds, under what conditions, et
cetera. I don't -- I'm assuming that this is not a blank check. Every time an impact fee comes in,
we send them a check. So there's got to be, I think, some understanding of under what conditions
we transfer the money. So we'll discuss that with the Legal folks and give you a report on that.
Commissioner Carollo: Or do some type of MOU, I guess.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, that's what it says on the legislation.

Mr. Alfonso: Okay.
Vice Chair Russell: All right.
Commissioner Carollo: And just for clarity, and when Commissioner Suarez mentioned the
amendment, I want to make sure the 50 percent will go to non-Underline --
Commissioner Carollo: -- in District 3.
Commissioner Suarez: Correct; generated from the District 3 portion.
Ms. Méndez: Right. That -- just to be clear on the amendments, I had the 50 percent going to
non-Underline projects in District 3 --
Commissioner Carollo: From the --
Ms. Méndez: -- within the 1,000 feet.
Commissioner Carollo: -- within District 3.
Ms. Méndez: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: But that's so long as there is no allocated -- unallocated portions of

district or citywide funds.
Vice Chair Russell: Park impact fees.
Ms. Méndez: Then --
Commissioner Carollo: So -- and, in essence, what that's saying is that you're okay with that
money to go to the Underline because then District 3 could use -- defund --
Commissioner Carollo: -- unused portion of (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Suarez: Exactly. And by the way, next year --
Commissioner Carollo: That's fair.
Commissioner Suarez: -- we'll get more money, so if -- for whatever reason, you know, in the
next year there's still money that's unallocated, then more money will come into those coffers, so
that's what --
Commissioner Carollo: Understood, but --
Commissioner Suarez: You got it.
Commissioner Carollo: -- I'm also looking further down when there's a downturn.

Commissioner Suarez: I get it, and that's why I think you have downturn --
Commissioner Suarez: -- I think you have down-risk protection there.
Vice Chair Russell: That's a good compromise.
Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry; one more comment, because I just heard something that
flipped the light bulb. In the proposed budget, as approved -- the capital budget, as approved,
there's an assumption that next year, the City of Miami would receive roughly $14 million of
impact fees in the entire City, and those 14 million were allocated in our budget. There's a
projection that it'll probably be more. Hopefully, it's enough more so that if anything within a
thousand feet -- this thousand feet is generated, it will cover that, and we don't have to come
back and reduce something else in the budget, but that's something that, you know, we'll get
there -- we'll cross that bridge when we get there.
Vice Chair Russell: No. For sure this --
Commissioner Suarez: Understood.
Vice Chair Russell: -- creates a hole.
Mr. Alfonso: Okay.
Vice Chair Russell: For sure, because this is impact fees we would have otherwise received for
citywide and that was my suggestion for the carve out, but --
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. There's some truth to what you're saying, because I know that
right now we have in the budget, I think, 200,000, and I know there's a project coming online
that may provide a million, so that -- right there, there's a little incongruity, so yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: So --
Vice Chair Russell: An interest --
Commissioner Suarez: We're good.
Vice Chair Russell: -- in carving out anything? No.
Commissioner Suarez: No, we're good.
Vice Chair Russell: All right, we're good. All right, gentlemen. Do we need to read this into the
record? Roll call. This is up or down. Okay.
Ms. Méndez: And then just --
Commissioner Suarez: No, up or down.
Ms. Méndez: -- I wanted to clarify two more -- the other two amendments. We talked about the
50 percent. We talked about when a developer makes improvements themselves that lowers the

cap --
Ms. Méndez: -- of what we're going to donate. And then this one, I couldn't get it perfectly --
Commissioner Suarez: Other funding sources.
Ms. Méndez: -- but -- any --
Commissioner Suarez: Other private funding sources.
Ms. Méndez: Right. -- any other monies that are donated also reduces the 50 million.
Vice Chair Russell: Would it lower the cap or lower that year's allocation to the Underline?
Commissioner Suarez: No, no. Lower the cap.
Commissioner Carollo: The cap.
Ms. Méndez: Lower the cap --
Commissioner Suarez: The cap.
Ms. Méndez: -- because we haven't made a yearly --
Ms. Méndez: I don't think you amended to a yearly allocation, so.
Vice Chair Russell: Because -- I mean --
Commissioner Carollo: The cap.
Commissioner Suarez: No. Lower the cap.
Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) we're not going to get to the cap, right? I mean --
Commissioner Suarez: Anything's possible, but I would say lower the cap, because if you do
lower that yearly's allocation, you --
Vice Chair Russell: But that's because --

Commissioner Suarez: The idea is to get them --
Vice Chair Russell: -- someone invested in building the Underline that year.
Commissioner Gort: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: But not necessarily, because someone might just give a financial
contribution, so we don't know.

Vice Chair Russell: No, no. The only thing that would lower it is if somebody -- if a developer,
in lieu of paying the impact fees, built the Underline -- a portion of the Underline that year, so it
should reduce the fees given to them that year.
Commissioner Suarez: No, because the thing is you want them to do other parts of the
Underline, so you don't want to re -- you want them to accelerate other parts then of the
Underline. You know what I'm saying?
Vice Chair Russell: I'm just trying to make sure that we --
Commissioner Carollo: Within the City of Miami.
Vice Chair Russell: -- keep the impact fees that --
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, in the City. In the City. Let's not get too complicated. I think
we're good. We have consensus. We have consensus.
Ms. Méndez: There are going to be developers --
Commissioner Gort: We're saying the same thing.
Ms. Méndez: -- that are going to want to do projects because it makes their project look even
better --
Ms. Méndez: -- so that -- I think that's what we're discussing.
Commissioner Suarez: But we're --
Vice Chair Russell: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: -- also trying to accelerate the process by which they can get the
maximum amount of funding so they can get the project done as quickly as possible.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Anything else to clarify on the amendments?
Ms. Méndez: No, that's it.
Vice Chair Russell: Any more discussion? All in favor, say “aye.”
Mr. Hannon: As amended.
Vice Chair Russell: As amended.

Commissioner Carollo: As amended.
Vice Chair Russell: Next, we are with --
Ms. Daly: Thank you. Excuse me.
RE.10 RESOLUTION
16-01069
District 4- A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY
Commissioner MANAGER TO ALLOW THE PLANTING OF COCONUT PALM TREES
Francis Suarez (COCOS NUCIFERA) AND ROYAL PALM TREES (ROYSTONEA REGIA) IN
THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE SAME OR SIMILAR BASIS AS OTHER
TREE SPECIES FOUND IN THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY LANDSCAPE
MANUAL CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER 17 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA, AND CHAPTER 18A OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SUBJECT TO REVIEW FOR LIFE-SAFETY PURPOSES.
16-01069-Submittal-Elvis Cruz-Powerpoint Presentation of Coconut Palm trees.pdf

R-16-0410
the Day."
Vice Chair Russell: RE.10, Coconut Palms. I believe we had an amendment. Your time is up,
Mr. Cruz.
Elvis Cruz: Fine. In case anybody wants to ask me anything.
Commissioner Suarez: I'd like to move the item.
Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved and seconded; however, there is a friendly amendment.
Commissioner Suarez: Is there a friendly amendment? What's up?
Vice Chair Russell: Regarding safety. Could you --?
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Well, Commissioner, we just asked that the -- it would be --
still be subject to review and approval by our tree ordinance department for a permit.
Commissioner Suarez: For a permit; permitting.

Mr. Alfonso: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: Well, there's actually specific wording that's been proffered for the
amendment.
Mr. Alfonso: Okay.
Vice Chair Russell: Not -- Barnaby (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Suarez: As amended.
Vice Chair Russell: Do -- We need to read that amendment in, please.
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): Was it said by --?
Vice Chair Russell: Barnaby showed me an amendment for this particular --
Ms. Méndez: Mr. Min, do you have a particular amendment that you need to read into the
record?
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): The proposal was simply to say, “subject to City Manager
approval concerning the life-safety issues.”
Vice Chair Russell: As amended. Mover and seconder accepts?
Vice Chair Russell: Any problem with this?
Mr. Cruz: It was very -- said very quickly. What is the amendment?
Commissioner Suarez: What was the amendment?
Ms. Méndez: Subject to City Manager approval regarding life-safety issues.
Mr. Cruz: Does this mean each individual palm that gets planted has to be reviewed by the City
Manager?
Vice Chair Russell: As with any permit would be, right?
Mr. Cruz: Well, usually, it just goes to Public Works.
Mr. Alfonso: Or my designee.
Commissioner Suarez: Or your designee. That --
Mr. Cruz: Oh, okay.

Commissioner Suarez: Okay. That's fine.
Vice Chair Russell: He's going to personally plant each palm tree.
Commissioner Gort: Okay.
Commissioner Suarez: Yes, we're good.
Mr. Cruz: We have the plans for each one. He's a busy guy.
Commissioner Suarez: Aye.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay. All in -- any further discussion? All in favor, say “aye.”
Vice Chair Russell: Any oppose? Motion passes. Congratulations, Mr. Cruz.
Mr. Cruz: Thank you, gentlemen. Very quick question --
Vice Chair Russell: Long live the Coconut Palm.
Mr. Cruz: Thank you, and keep it in Coconut Grove.
Commissioner Suarez: Amen.
Mr. Cruz: Quick question: Does this then do away with the notice of violation that I was given
for planting a Coconut Palm?
Vice Chair Russell: That is a completely separate issue.
Mr. Alfonso: No.
Commissioner Gort: That's a separate issue.
Vice Chair Russell: That's a separate issue.
Mr. Alfonso: And you still need a permit.
Ms. Méndez: This is not the forum.
Commissioner Carollo: You still need a permit.
Mr. Cruz: I have a permit.
Ms. Méndez: This is --
Vice Chair Russell: You have an original permit for a tree that died and you replanted; is that
not correct?
Mr. Cruz: I do, but --
Ms. Méndez: This is not the forum.

Mr. Cruz: -- it's for a hundred Coconut Palms, and that there's no expiration date, and
therefore, I'm grandfathered in.
Vice Chair Russell: We will get a legal opinion on that.
Commissioner Suarez: He -- that's a pretty good argument, guys. Come on.
Ms. Méndez: Well, can we not -- not the forum today --
Commissioner Suarez: We're not discussing that now. That's fine.
Ms. Méndez: -- and we'll --
Commissioner Suarez: That's fine. All right.
Vice Chair Russell: How many of the hundred have you planted?
Mr. Cruz: Probably about 30.
Mr. Cruz: Maybe 40, at the most.
Vice Chair Russell: The Johnny Appleseed of Coconut Palms.
Commissioner Suarez: He's got 60 left.
Vice Chair Russell: All right, do we --
Commissioner Suarez: They're going to revoke your permit, by the way, at the end of the -- after
this. Whatever --
Mr. Cruz: They revoke my permit, I'll see them in court.
Commissioner Suarez: No, there's no -- the thing is, there's no expiration date, is what he's
saying.
Vice Chair Russell: There was no expiration date on the permit.
Mr. Cruz: Mr. Manager -- If you want to give me two minutes, I can tell you why there's no
expiration date.
Vice Chair Russell: No, not tonight. Not tonight, Elvis.
Mr. Cruz: Okay, thank you.
Vice Chair Russell: But --
Commissioner Suarez: Thanks, Elvis.
Mr. Cruz: They are very valid reasons, just so you know, and I'll be happy to let you know any
time you want.

Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. All right.
Commissioner Suarez: Good job.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much.
Mr. Cruz: Thank you.
RE.11 RESOLUTION
16-01218
Commissioner ATTACHMENT(S), WAIVING THE CITY OF MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT
Francis Suarez AND FIRE RESCUE DEPARTMENT COSTS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 54-6.3(c)(18) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
AS AMENDED ("CITY CODE"), ENTITLED "CRITERIA FOR ISSUANCE OF
SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT", AND SECTION 19-9 OF THE CITY CODE,
ENTITLED "SPECIAL OFF-DUTY FIRE-RESCUE SERVICES", FOR THE
MIAMI TUNNEL 2 TOWERS 5K RUN/WALK & CLIMB WITH AN EXPOSITION
TO BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2016 AT BAYFRONT PARK TO HONOR
THE VICTIMS AND FIRST RESPONDERS OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
TERRORIST ATTACKS.
16-01218 Back-Up Document.pdf
16-01218-Submittal-Lourdes Sanchez-Breton-Tunnel to Towers Foundation Letter.pdf

R-16-0411
the Day."
Commissioner Carollo: Question. And I don't mind doing it this way; just question on RE.11. I
don't want to have a lot of discussion, because I understand waiving Police and Fire fees, but if
we waive them, who's -- you know, the cops are still going to have to get paid for off-duty work,
and so would the firefighters. So who will be paying that?
Vice Chair Russell: Should I pull that one too, then?
Chair Hardemon: The City Manager's Office.
Fernando J. Casamayor (Chief Financial Officer/Assistant City Manager): No. It's going to be
coming from the departmental funds.
Commissioner Carollo: I'm sorry?

Mr. Casamayor: It'll come from the departmental funds that were budgeted towards the
department.
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, if I may? I think -- at the next budget meeting, I would
presume that you would bring an item to be incorporated into the budget.
Commissioner Carollo: The problem is, in the next budget meeting, we're talking for a budget
that starts October 1 --
Commissioner Carollo: -- and this is for an event that's this year.
Commissioner Suarez: In September.
Commissioner Carollo: September 18.
Commissioner Carollo: So that's why I'm asking for it. And again, I see what's going on, and I
understand --
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: -- the waive. The thing is, okay, once we waive it, there's a second part
to it; who's paying for it? Because I don't --
Chair Hardemon: So, for instance, like -- so that's an item that you would want to be pulled
from the agenda. Like, for instance, I would think that even items such as RE.12, I mean, I
would think that all of us are going to vote in favor of RE.12. We know that that's an item that
doesn't have much discussion involved with it, so I would not have pulled RE.12. However, I
would have pulled the item you just said, because you have substantive questions about that.
Later...
Commissioner Suarez: Move RE.11.
Vice Chair Russell: RE.11 has been moved. Was there any discussion on the item?
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. The only thing was, okay, we're going to waive the fees, but
there's still going to be police officers and firefighters there working. Who's going to pay for that
amount?
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): The City of Miami will have to pay it. And actually, in some
cases, I need the approval not only to absorb the cost, but I may actually have to transfer the
money to the organization because the off-duty officers, we don't pay them; they have to be paid
through the organization.
Commissioner Suarez: That's fine.
Vice Chair Russell: Is there a second? We have a mover but not a second.
Vice Chair Russell: Any further discussion? All in favor, say “aye.”

RE.12 RESOLUTION
16-01228
District 2 - A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION URGING THE UNITED
Commissioner Ken STATES CONGRESS, FLORIDA LEGISLATURE, AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
Russell TO IMMEDIATELY TAKE ALL NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE ACTION,
INCLUDING THE ALLOCATION OF EMERGENCY FUNDING, TO COMBAT
AND PREVENT THE SPREAD OF THE ZIKA VIRUS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI;
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS
RESOLUTION TO THE DESIGNATED OFFICIALS STATED HEREIN.

R-16-0412
the Day."
Vice Chair Russell: RE.12. This is mine, gentlemen. This is -- has to do with a request for
funding regarding Zika. So the Mayor and I attended, along with other members of staff, a
roundtable from Governor Scott. I was very thankful to receive an invitation from his office.
And our Mayor expressed some of the needs that we have as a city to combat Zika, and so I
really wanted to concretize some of that and some legislation; and in particular, there are some
things that we want to ask for. Obviously, the obvious funds that we're trying to encourage the
Federal Government to approve the over billion dollars to prevent the spread of Zika for our
purpose; not only throughout Wynwood, but throughout the City as a whole. We're looking to
allocate additional funding to the City to be used for promotion, marketing information to
encourage residents and tourists to continue to visit Miami and Wynwood, as there will be a
financial impact, as we have already allocated some funds for Wynwood the other night; an
economic recovery program. I know Pete Gomez in the Fire Department is working on a
economic impact study to really see how bad things will and are, after everything settles from the
impact of Zika. And this one -- this number three is interesting. This is a request for
infrastructure upgrades to improve drainage, reduce flooding, and prevent standing water.
Commissioner Suarez: Move it. Second.
Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved and seconded. And I just would like to mention that I
received a personal note from Governor Scott saying, “Commissioner Russell, please let me
know how I can be helpful.”
Commissioner Suarez: There you go. There it is.
Vice Chair Russell: So, Governor Scott, I would definitely like to thank you --

Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): 40 or $50 million.
Vice Chair Russell: What's that?
Mr. Alfonso: 40 or $50 million.

Commissioner Suarez: By the way, that's all our -- all the money we need for resiliency, so we're
good then.
Vice Chair Russell: Well resiliency -- we're not talking about infrastructure upgrades. We're
talking about drainage to reduce flooding, standing water; these sorts of issues.
Commissioner Suarez: Goes straight to the heart of that.
Vice Chair Russell: That also speaks to some sort of acknowledgment of climate change and sea
level rise, and the standing water issues that are there. So if you're asking me what you can do
for us as a city, with a bipartisan support for climate change issues and resiliency in sea level
rise, Governor Scott, I ask you to acknowledge that as well in our efforts. So thank you very
much, gentlemen. Is there any further discussion? All in favor, say “aye.”
RE.13 RESOLUTION
16-01157
Planning and Zoning ATTACHMENT(S), SUPPORTING THE CREATION OF THE
MANA-WYNWOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ("CDD") BY
MANNIGAN HOLDINGS, LLC, MEGAN HOLDINGS, LLC, MELANIE
HOLDINGS, LLC, MIZRACHI HOLDINGS, LLC, WYNWOOD HOLDINGS, LLC,
2294 NW 2ND AVENUE REALTY, LLC, MAPTON HOLDINGS, LLC, MALUX
REALTY, LLC, MILANA HOLDINGS, LLC, MILLIE REALTY, LLC, 2450
NORTHWEST REALTY, LLC, (COLLECTIVELY, THE "DEVELOPER") FOR
THE SITE, GENERALLY BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY NORTHWEST 24TH
STREET INCLUDING SPECIFIC PARCELS FRONTING NORTHWEST 24TH
STREET TO THE NORTH, NORTHWEST 6TH AVENUE TO THE WEST,
NORTHWEST 20ND STREET TO THE SOUTH, AND NORTHWEST 2ND
AVENUE TO THE EAST, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A",
ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED AND AS DEPICTED IN THE BOUNDARY
MAP ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "B" ("SITE"); ENCOURAGING THE
MIAMI-DADE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ("COUNTY
COMMISSION") TO APPROVE A PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE
DEVELOPER TO CREATE THE CDD; AND SUPPORTING THE
ESTABLISHMENT BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION OF A MULTI-PURPOSE
SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT ON THE SITE.
16-01157 Exhibit B.pdf
16-01157-Submittal-Carlos Lago-Exhibits.pdf

Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be

R-16-0434
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item 13, please see "Order of the
Day."
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Mr. Chairman, I believe RE.13 was deferred -- tabled,
subject to this --
Iris Escarra: Correct.
Mr. Min: -- passing (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: Yeah. Is there a motion for RE (resolution) --?
Commissioner Carollo: Move it.
Chair Hardemon: Moved and seconded by the Chairman. RE.13 -- but I believe there -- was
there a boundary issue with RE.13 --
Ms. Escarra: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: -- that's been amended? I know that there were some concerns. Although --
and I will say this: A CDD (Commercial Development District) is a much different type of
animal than any other type of boundary that you could create for Mana. So the CDD was just a
taxing of their properties, but there has been an outpouring, and that's why you're here regarding
that -- the boundaries that are within the Overtown -- traditional Overtown neighborhood are
removed from the CDD so that you're not taxing your own properties against yourself to provide
for the funding for the Mana Wynwood. So are you in agreement with that change, or you're
removing the Overtown section from the CDD?
Carlos Lago: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So make sure that the motion and second -- the motioner [sic] and the
seconder agree to that amendment.
Mr. Lago: So we -- and I can give the City Attorney a exhibit with those properties; the exact
addresses and phone numbers of those properties that are to be excluded.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. I see there's a demonstrative here that also shows what those
properties are.
Mr. Lago: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: Yes. You okay? Ms. Stewart, you've seen -- have you seen this
demonstrative?
Mr. Lago: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: Just so you know.

Mr. Lago: We recognize the community's --
Chair Hardemon: Can you identify the properties for her so she -- ?
Mr. Lago: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: Give her a microphone. Can you give Ms. Stewart the microphone, if you're
speaking -- yes.
Cecilia Stewart: Okay, it's on. That's like -- is that 22nd Street there? 22nd Street Northwest
5th Avenue, and then coming over at Northwest 5th Place, and this will be 20th Street. Did you
get that for the record, please? Thank you.
Mr. Lago: And I'll -- Ma'am, this image shows those properties being removed, so you recognize
(UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Ms. Stewart: Correct. That's correct. Absolutely. Thank you so much. And don't you all forget;
we want those historical Overtown signs that you promised in your Master Plan.
Mr. Lago: They've been included in the development agreement, at your request.
Mr. Min: Mr. Lago, whatever you've shown Ms. Stewart, if you wouldn't mind showing that to
the Clerk (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- submitting that into the record just so the record's clear. Thank
you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Okay, is there any further discussion about this?
Seeing none, all in favor, say "aye."
Chair Hardemon: All against?
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes, as amended. That's RE.13. Let us --
Mr. Lago: Thank you very much.
RE.14 RESOLUTION
16-01116
City Manager's Office A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACKNOWLEDGING THE
CITY MANAGER'S AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ("FPL"), OR ASSIGNEE, TO
CONDUCT AN UNDERGROUND ENGINEERING STUDY FOR A TOTAL
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED OF $250,000.00, PURSUANT TO SECTION
18-72(B)(16) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AS AMENDED.
16-01116-Summary Form-SUB.pdf


R-16-0413
Vice Chair Russell: Now we're on RE.13, support creation of Mana Wynwood CDD (Community
Development District). Did someone like to -- would -- did someone want to discuss this item?
Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Chair -- Vice Chair, it's my understanding that this item needs to
be heard after --
Vice Chair Russell: Was that one of --
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Planning & Zoning and issues -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) PZ.1
and PZ.2, they need to be heard.
Vice Chair Russell: Have to be heard before?
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): Right. We were going to hear it after those items.
Commissioner Suarez: Oh, we are?
Ms. Méndez: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: Then let's skip that one and get through the RE's (resolutions). How's that
sound?
Commissioner Suarez: Sounds good to me.
Vice Chair Russell: RE.14, agreement with FPL (Florida Power Light) to underground
engineering study.
Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved and seconded. I simply wanted to make a comment; to
commend our City Attorney on her work regarding the FPL issue. It's been a absolutely --
Ms. Méndez: I'll take what I can get.
Vice Chair Russell: -- it's been absolute --
Vice Chair Russell: And I absolutely have to say that the work with -- that -- in our cases against
FPL, which are leading to this underground engineering study, are absolutely phenomenal. It's
been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All in favor, say “aye.”

RE.15 RESOLUTION
16-01250
Commissioner Frank MANAGER TO UPDATE THE CITY OF MIAMI'S STORMWATER
Carollo MANAGEMENT MASTER PLAN TO COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL FLOOD
INSURANCE PROGRAM-COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM ("NFIP-CRS");
FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENSURE THAT SEA LEVEL
RISE ESTIMATES NOT ADDRESSED IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN ARE
CONSIDERED IN THE MASTER PLAN AND SERVE AS A TOOL TO ANALYZE
AREAS OF FLOOD CONCERNS WHICH IMPACT THREATS OF SEA LEVEL
RISE, PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES AND PROPERTY LOSS RESULTING FROM
STORM WATERS; FURTHER RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE
FINDINGS, MEASURES AND LOCATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.

R-16-0408
RE.16 RESOLUTION
16-01251
Commissioner Frank MANAGER TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD CREATE OPTIMAL
Carollo PUBLIC BENEFITS IN RETURN FOR TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS ("TDR") LAND USE PROJECTS, FOR CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI IN LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS BY IMPLEMENTING A
STABILIZED CONSUMER PRICE INDEX ("CPI") TO ANY AND ALL SPECIAL
AREA PLANS ("SAP').
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Suarez, that this matter be

R-16-0414
Vice Chair Russell: RE.15, we don't need any comments; already been passed before. RE.16,
transfer development rights. I just wanted to hear from the Commissioner exactly what this is.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chairman, realistically, this is a resolution asking the Manager to
bring back an ordinance, and I will sponsor, so it doesn't have to do the 60 days and all that. I'll
be the sponsor. But, in essence, what happens is, especially with SAPs (Special Area Plans), like
for now -- like even now, the Mana SAP, they -- in public benefits, they're saying that they would
contribute “X” amount. So “X” amount; we know what “X” amount is in today's dollars. Yet,
when we talk about 5 years from now, 10 years from now, because that's when they actually
could pay, if that's when they construct, what's that worth? So I want to make sure that we have
a CPI (consumer pricing index), calibrated yearly, compounded, so we still receive the same
amount --
Commissioner Carollo: -- we receive the same value of monies in today's dollars as it would in
the future.
Commissioner Suarez: Second. Quick discussion.
Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) moving it (UNINTELLIGIBLE) second.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. What he's saying, I think, is basically -- and I agree a hundred
percent -- it's -- we do the entitlement today, project gets built two years from now, three years
from now, four years from now until it's not fair that the public benefits that are calculated are
based on three years -- three-year-old dollars. It should be based on current dollars.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you for translating from "accountanese"to laymen's terms.
Commissioner Carollo: No, no. Monies promised to the City will still have the same purchasing
power, despite the passage of time and changes in the value of the dollar.
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Suarez: I like the way you used “purchasing power.”
Commissioner Carollo: Which, by the way --
Commissioner Gort: I have a question.
Commissioner Carollo: -- that would maximize the return of investment on the contribution of
the City's and will allow to make more use of public benefits to the City as a whole.
Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved. It's been seconded. Any further discussion. All in favor,
say “aye.”
END OF RESOLUTIONS
BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
BC.1 RESOLUTION
16-01233
Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING A
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE ARTS AND
ENTERTAINMENT COUNCIL FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.

APPOINTEE: NOMINATED BY:
Mike Margulies Mayor Tomás Regalado
16-01233 Arts CCMemo.pdf

16-01233 Arts Current_Board_Members.pdf

Votes: Ayes: 3 - Commissioner(s) Gort, Russell and Carollo
Absent: 2 - Commissioner(s) Suarez and Hardemon
R-16-0416
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item BC.1, please see "Order of
the Day."
Commissioner Gort: BC (Boards and Committees).
Vice Chair Russell: Boards and committees.
Nicole Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. BC.1, Arts and
Entertainment Council: Mayor Regalado will be reappointing Mike Margulies.
Vice Chair Russell: All in favor, say "aye."
BC.2 RESOLUTION
16-00261
Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE AUDIT ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
APPOINTEES: NOMINATED BY:
Chair Keon Hardemon
Vice Chair Ken Russell
16-00261 Audit CCMemo.pdf

16-00261 Audit Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN

BC.3 RESOLUTION
16-01234
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE BAYFRONT PARK
MANAGEMENT TRUST FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Jesse Manzano Commissioner Francis Suarez
Alex Cardenas Commission-At-Large
16-01234 Bayfront CCMemo.pdf

16-01234 Bayfront Current_Board_Members.pdf
Motion by Commissioner Carollo, seconded by Commissioner Gort, that this matter be

R-16-0417
Nicole Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): BC.3, Bayfront Park Management Trust: There is one
Commission at-large appointee. Commissioner Carollo would be reappointing Alex Cardenas;
Commissioner Suarez will be reappointing Jesse Manzano.
Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, say "aye."
BC.4 RESOLUTION
16-01235
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE CHARTER REVIEW AND
REFORM COMMITTEE FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Marie Mato City Manager Daniel J. Alfonso
16-01235 Charter Review CCMemo.pdf

16-01235 Charter Review Current_Board_Members.pdf



R-16-0418
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): BC.4, Charter Review & Reform Committee: City
Manager Alfonso will be reappointing Marie Mato.
Chair Gort: Second.
Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor, say “aye.”
BC.5 RESOLUTION
16-01236
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
16-01236 Beautification CCMemo.pdf

16-01236 Beautification Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.6 RESOLUTION
16-01237
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD
FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Lillie Harris Commission-At-Large
16-01237 Civil Service CCMemo.pdf

16-01237 Civil Service Current_Board_Members.pdf

R-16-0419
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): BC.6, Civil Service Board. There is one vacancy: Chair
Hardemon will be appointing Lillie Harris.
BC.7 RESOLUTION
16-01238
Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION CONFIRMING THE
Clerk APPOINTMENT OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE
CIVILIAN INVESTIGATIVE PANEL FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED
HEREIN.
Civilian Investigative Panel
16-01238 CIP CCMemo.pdf

16-01238 CIP Current_Board_Members.pdf
16-01238 CIP Memo and Resumes.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.8 RESOLUTION
16-00900
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Commissioner Francis Suarez
Commission-At-Large
(Alternate Member)

16-00900 CEB CCMemo.pdf

16-00900 CEB Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.9 RESOLUTION
16-00902
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON THE
STATUS OF WOMEN FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Rosa De Sanchez Commissioner Wifredo (Willy) Gort
Connie Johnson Commissioner Francis Suarez
16-00902 CSW CCMemo.pdf

16-00902 CSW Current_Board_Members.pdf

R-16-0420
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): BC.9, Commission on the Status of Women:
Commissioner Gort will be reappointing Rosa De Sanchez; Commissioner Suarez will be
reappointing Connie Johnson.
Chair Gort: Move it.
BC.10 RESOLUTION
16-00600
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE EDUCATION ADVISORY
City Manager Daniel J. Alfonso

(Ex-Officio Non Voting Member)
City Manager Daniel J. Alfonso
(Ex-Officio Non Voting Youth Member)
16-00600 EAB CCMemo.pdf

16-00600 EAB Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.11 RESOLUTION
16-00474
Office of the City A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING CERTAIN
Clerk INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ADVISORY
Chair Keon Hardemon
Chair Keon Hardemon
Commissioner Frank Carollo
IAFF
FOP
16-00474 EOAB CCMemo.pdf

16-00474 EOAB Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.12 RESOLUTION
16-01239
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE
FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Fausto Alvarez Commissioner Wifredo (Willy) Gort
16-01239 Finance CCMemo.pdf

16-01239 Finance Current_Board_Members.pdf


R-16-0421
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item BC.12, please see "Order of
the Day."
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): BC 11, Equal Opportunity Advisory Board -- actually,
that's a five-five waiver, so I'll skip to the other one. BC.12, Finance Committee: Commissioner
Gort will be reappointing Fausto Alvarez.
BC.13 RESOLUTION
16-01240
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE MAYOR'S
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Jose Fuentes Mayor Tomás Regalado
Armando Rodriguez Mayor Tomás Regalado
16-01240 MIC CCMemo.pdf

16-01240 MIC Current_Board_Members.pdf

R-16-0422
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): BC.13, Mayors International Council: Mayor Regalado
will be reappointing Jose Fuentes and Armando Rodriguez.

BC.14 RESOLUTION
16-00601
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE MIAMI SPORTS AND
EXHIBITION AUTHORITY FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Chair Keon Hardemon
Chair Keon Hardemon
16-00601 MSEA CCMemo.pdf

16-00601 MSEA Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.15 RESOLUTION
16-01241
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION
ADVISORY BOARD FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Michael Hepburn Commissioner Wifredo (Willy) Gort
16-01241 PRAB CCMemo.pdf

16-01241 PRAB Current_Board_Members.pdf
16-01241 PRAB Resume.pdf

R-16-0423
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): BC.15, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board:
Commissioner Gort will be appointing Michael Hepburn.
Vice Chair Russell: It's been moved --

Vice Chair Russell: -- and seconded. All in favor, say "aye."
BC.16 RESOLUTION
16-01242
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE PATRICIA AND PHILLIP
FROST MUSEUM OF SCIENCE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR TERMS AS
DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Commission-At-Large
Commission-At-Large
16-01242 Frost Museum CCMemo.pdf

16-01242 Frost Museum By-Laws.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.17 RESOLUTION
16-00604
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING, ZONING AND
APPEALS BOARD FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Commissioner Wifredo (Willy) Gort
16-00604 PZAB CCMemo.pdf

16-00604 PZAB Current_Board_Members.pdf
16-00604 PZAB Application.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.18 RESOLUTION
16-01243
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE SEA LEVEL RISE
COMMITTEE FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Kilan Ashad-Bishop Chair Keon Hardemon
16-01243 Sea Level Rise CCMemo.pdf

16-01243 Sea Level Rise Current_Board_Members.pdf
16-01243 Sea Level Rise Resume.pdf

R-16-0424
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): BC.18, Sea Level Rise Committee: Commissioner
Hardemon will be appointing Kilan Ashad-Bishop.
Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry. One question: On BC.16, the Frost Museum Science Board, is
that -- was that an at-large appointment, or is that a Commissioner appointment?
Ms. Ewan: That is an at-large appointment.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay, thank you. Where were we?
Ms. Ewan: We are on BC.18, Sea Level Rise Committee. Chair Hardemon would like to appoint
Kilan Ashad-Bishop.
BC.19 RESOLUTION
16-01244
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE SENIOR CITIZENS'
ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
16-01244 Senior Citizens Committee CCMemo.pdf

16-01244 Senior Citizens Committee Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN

BC.20 RESOLUTION
16-00271
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW BOARD (UDRB) FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Chair Keon Hardemon
Chair Keon Hardemon
16-00271 UDRB CCMemo.pdf

16-00271 UDRB Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.21 RESOLUTION
16-00608
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA KEY BEACH
PARK TRUST FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
Mayor Tomás Regalado
Chair Keon Hardemon
16-00608 VKBPT CCMemo.pdf

16-00608 VKBPT Current_Board_Members.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
BC.22 RESOLUTION

16-00961
Clerk CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AS MEMBERS OF THE WATERFRONT
ADVISORY BOARD FOR TERMS AS DESIGNATED HEREIN.
William Kearney Mayor Tomás Regalado
Richard Schinners Commissioner Frank Carollo
16-00961 WAB CCMemo.pdf

16-00961 WAB Current_Board_Members.pdf

R-16-0425
Nicole N. Ewan (Assistant City Clerk): BC.22, Waterfront Advisory Board: Mayor Regalado will
be reappointing Jose Fuentes; Commissioner Carollo would be appointing Richard Schinners.
Ms. Ewan: That concludes the Boards and Committees. Thank you.
END OF BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
DISCUSSION ITEMS
DI.1 DISCUSSION ITEM

16-00330
District 4- STATUS REPORT REGARDING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH TROLLEY
Commissioner SERVICE EXPANSION.
Francis Suarez
16-00330 E-Mail - Discussion Item.pdf
16-00330-Submittal-Sandra Harris-City of Miami Trolley Operational Review.pdf
DISCUSSED
Chair Hardemon: Commissioners, there are two -- oh, I'm sorry -- there are a few items that are
left on the agenda. If it's your wish to complete it, we can. We have discussion items. We have
DI.1, status report of the trolley service expansion; DI.2, discussion of MOU (memorandum of

understanding) traffic calming devices. We can also do that, if you like. And then we also have
a couple of discussion items from Commissioner Russell -- Vice Chairman Russell.
Commissioner Carollo: Want to defer them?
Chair Hardemon: You can, by motion. Yeah, sure.
Vice Chair Russell: I'm open to hear them. It's up to you guys. I know some people came to
speak on some of them.
Commissioner Carollo: Someone's here to speak on them?
Vice Chair Russell: Yeah. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: Is there anyone here to speak on DI.1, DI.2?
Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, I can briefly summarize DI.1.
Commissioner Suarez: DI.1 is something that I had asked for, which was a feasibility study on
the expansion of trolley services, both in the northern part of the City and also on the western
part of the City. The Administration did a pretty comprehensive report, and I want to commend
them for their report. And I believe they think they can start services on this by the mid-year.
Mr. Manager?
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): Commissioner, my apologies. Yes. Go ahead.
Commissioner Suarez: No. I was just saying that based on the report that's included in the
package, it stated that the additional service can be started by, I think, June or July of next year,
if I'm not mistaken?
Sandra Harris (Chief Transportation Manager/Capital Improvements and Transportation): No.

I think you're referring to the FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) grant that was in
July.
Ms. Harris: No?
Commissioner Suarez: No. I was told that this service could start as early as June or July of
next year. Was I -- did I misunderstand?
Mr. Alfonso: We seem to have some confusion, sir.
Mr. Alfonso: So let's hear the report from our Transportation folks as to what is it that we can
do and when. Ms. Harris --
Ms. Harris: Okay.
Mr. Alfonso: -- the floor is yours.
Ms. Harris: Hi. Sandra Harris, Transportation. It seem like you want to discuss the --

Commissioner Suarez: Look, I don't want to infringe on my colleagues' time. If you guys want to
hear it, I'm fine with that. If you don't want to hear it -- doesn't look like you do. So my issue is
just -- it's a very comprehensive report. It's very well done. You all look it over. The issue is --
the issue here is -- it's -- obviously, it cost money, like everything else, so we have to make a
decision on whether or not we want to expand the trolley service; and if so, where is it going to
come from; and if so, when will it be started. Sound good?
Chair Hardemon: Sounds good.
Commissioner Suarez: Fair? It's a very good -- it's a very, very well-done report. Please.
Ms. Harris: Thank you.
Commissioner Suarez: I mean, she did a phenomenal job; so did Assistant City Manager Alberto
Parjus. It's really comprehensive.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Suarez: The MOU (memorandum of understanding) traffic-calming devices --
Chair Hardemon: DI.2.
Commissioner Suarez: -- is --
Commissioner Suarez: Go ahead.
Commissioner Gort: Question on the study of the trolley. My understanding, we have seen
routes that the -- certain time; after 7 o'clock, 9 o'clock, there's not that many people in it, or no
one in it during the week -- weekdays, so I think we should analyze and look at those things and
cut the --
Commissioner Suarez: It's all in here.
Chair Gort: It's all in there?
Commissioner Suarez: All in here. There's --
Commissioner Gort: The hours are cut?
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. There's a peak hour -- a non-peak hour cut.
Chair Gort: Wait a minute.
Sandra Harris (Chief Transportation Manager/Capital Improvements and Transportation): We

had did a study of the possibility of changing the headways during the out peak -- off-peak time
to get some economy of scales and maybe --
Commissioner Suarez: Savings.
Ms. Harris: -- move those resources somewhere else.
Chair Gort: That's in here now?
Ms. Harris: It's in there. The presentation that I have today is more of a bullet point, but I did

speak pretty much with every Commissioner, except Commissioner Hardemon, but I did provide
it to your assistant, and everybody has a detailed report. Yes.

16-01055
District 4- UPDATE ON MOU BETWEEN CITY OF MIAMI AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
Commissioner REGARDING TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES ON NON-ARTERIAL ROADS
Francis Suarez
16-01055 Intergovernmental Agency Agreement with MDC.pdf
16-01055 FDOT Complete Streets Initiative.pdf
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the
dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item DI.2 to the September
22, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm going to ask -- thank you. I'm going to ask for DI.2 to be deferred to
the next meeting.
Vice Chair Russell: DI.3, we have someone -- sorry.
Chair Hardemon: DI.3 has already been deferred.
Commissioner Suarez: It was deferred. Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: DI.3 was deferred by the City?
Chair Hardemon: It was deferred earlier in the --
Chair Hardemon: -- agenda. So the deferral is to the next Commission meeting, I'm assuming,
DI.2. Seeing no objection, that motion will pass.

15-01666a
Department of Real STATUS REPORT REGARDING: 1) WHETHER OR NOT THE ADDITIONAL
Estate and Asset OUTDOOR SEATING PROVIDED BY THE REVOCABLE LICENSE
Management AGREEMENT WITH CROCODILE CANTINA, INC. D/B/A MAMBO CAFÉ,
GENERATES ENOUGH INCREASED REVENUE TO ALLOW THE
RESTAURANT TO PROVIDE ITS EMPLOYEES WITH A $15 PER HOUR
MINIMUM WAGE; AND 2) WHETHER OR NOT THE RENT BEING CHARGED
THROUGH THE REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT IS FAIR MARKET
VALUE.
15-01666a E-Mail - Directive.pdf

15-01666a Back-Up Document - Report.pdf
CONTINUED PASSED by the following vote.

Note for the Record: Item DI.3 was continued to the October 13, 2016 Regular Commission
Meeting.
END OF DISCUSSION ITEMS
PART B: PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
Chair Hardemon: We're only on PH.5.
Vice Chair Russell: Sorry.
Chair Hardemon: I understand that we have a number of individuals that are here from our
community to speak on a number of different items that are here; particularly some that are in
the Planning & Zoning. So what I'll do is -- We know that we have -- we can hear from the
public on the Planning & Zoning items after 2 p.m. It is after 2 p.m., and so I want to give all of
you an opportunity to be heard so that you can go about and finish the rest of your days [sic],
because I know this isn't what you choose to do every single day. So what I'm going to do is I'm
going to have the City Attorney -- I want to -- I'm going to move into the Planning & Zoning
section; have the City Attorney read into the record all that's required. We're going to have our
public comment section for items PZ.1 through PZ.4 -- I'm sorry -- PZ.1 through PZ.5. And so
you understand, if you're here from the public and you want to speak on items PZ.1 through
PZ.5, this will be your opportunity to be heard on those different items. Once the public has
concluded, then we're going to go back to our regular agenda to finish our typical agenda . Yeah,
we got work to do. We got work to do. So we're going to get through as quickly as possible so
that we can come back and address the Planning & Zoning items. Now, of course, ladies and
gentlemen of the public, if you wish to stay, you can stay to hear the discussion, but that's what
we're going to do now.
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll now begin the Planning &
Zoning items. PZ (Planning & Zoning) items shall proceed according to Section 7.1.4 of the
Miami 21 Zoning Code. Before any PZ item is heard, all those wishing to speak must be sworn
in by the City Clerk. Please note, Commissioners have been briefed by City staff and the City
Attorney on the items on the agenda today. The members of the City Commission shall disclose
any ex parte communications to remove the presumption of prejudice, pursuant to Florida
Statute Section 286.0115 and Section 7.1.4.5 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code. Any person may be
heard by the City Commission through the Chair for not more than two minutes on any
proposition before the City Commission, unless modified by the Chair. If the proposition is being
continued or rescheduled, the opportunity to be heard may be at such later date before the City
Commission takes action on such proposition. The Chairman shall -- will advise the public when
the public may have the opportunity to address the City Commission during the public comment
period. When addressing the City Commission, the member of the public must first state his or
her name, his or her address, and what item will be spoken about. A copy of the agenda item
will -- and titles will be available at the City Clerk's Office and at the podium, for ease of
reference. Staff will then briefly present each item to be heard. For applications requiring City
Commission approval, the applicant will then present the application or request to the City
Commission. If the applicant agrees with the staff recommendation, the City Commission may
proceed to its deliberation or decision. The applicant may also waive the right to an evidentiary
hearing on the record. For appeals, the appellant will present its appeal to the City Commission,
followed by the appellee. Staff will be allowed to make any recommendation they may have. The
order of presentation shall be as described in the City Code and the Miami 21 Code. The City of
Miami requires that anyone requesting action by the City Commission must disclose before the
hearing anything provided to anyone for agreement to support or withhold objection to the
requested action, pursuant to City Code Section 2-8. Any documents offered to the City
Commissioners that have been -- not been provided seven days before the meeting as part of the

agenda materials will be entered into the record at the City Commission's discretion. If any
Commissioner thinks that the documents supplied to the Commission less than seven days before
merit a continuance, the item may be continued by the City Commission. Thank you, sir.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. If you will be speaking on
any of tonight's Planning & Zoning items, may I please have you stand and raise your right
hand? If you will be speaking on any of the Planning & Zoning items, please stand and raise
your right hand.
The City Clerk administered oath required under City Code Section 62-1 to those persons giving
testimony on zoning items.
Mr. Hannon: Thank you, Chair.
Chair Hardemon: Ladies and gentlemen, like I stated before, this is your reasonable opportunity
to be heard on the Planning, Zoning -- Planning & Zoning items PZ.1 through PZ.5. So if you're
here to speak on those Planning & Zoning items, PZ.1 through PZ.5, please line up at each of the
lecterns and you'll be called accordingly. This is --
Chair Hardemon: -- not the time for -- if you are an attorney from one of the different parties to
speak. It's just the public hearing section of the agenda.
Commissioner Suarez: I just -- I'm -- just to be clear, because we haven't done much of the
agenda.
Chair Hardemon: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: And there are people here that are waiting that have spoken earlier.
Commissioner Suarez: So I just want to make sure that I understand what -- the process.
Commissioner Suarez: Are we just going to do "P"-- the PH (public hearing) portion of the PZ?
Chair Hardemon: We're doing the public hearing portion of PZ.
Commissioner Suarez: And then we're going to go back to --
Chair Hardemon: And then we're going to go back to --
Chair Hardemon: -- the regular scheduled --
Commissioner Suarez: So we're going to go back in order. Okay.

Chair Hardemon: No problem. Ma'am, you're recognized.
Cecilia Stewart: Ceci --
Chair Hardemon: Oh, I'm sorry, one more thing, and you know this, because I know you're
going to do it, because the first thing you said was "Ceci." Okay. So please remember to state
your first name, last name, and your address; and also, which item you're here to speak about.
Thank you so much.
Ms. Stewart: Cecilia Stewart; PZ.1 and PZ.2. I'm here to support the Overtown community
receiving funds for affordable housing; that we get the money so that we can have our
community provide sustantiable [sic] housing for our residents. And I would like for you to
consider that we are in need of housing there, so that money will be well needed. So I'm asking
for the allocation of funds for the Overtown for affordable housing . Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Are you speaking?
Steve Wernick: Mr. Chair, Steve Wernick; offices at 98 Southeast 7th Street, Miami. I'm here
just briefly on items PZ.3, 4 and 5, and speaking in support. If you recall, at the last Commission
meeting, PZ items -- items PZ.4 and 5 were -- there was a question about whether they needed to
be deferred or they could be heard. Commissioner Suarez sponsored these items. They're back
in front of you on first reading. These are essentially the clean-up amendments to the NRD
(Neighborhood Revitalization District) regulations. I think it's very helpful in terms of the
reformatting that has been done for the applicants that are coming forward with projects , and
hopefully, you'll approve them on first reading. And item PZ.3 is here on second reading, which
is a future land use map amendment, which is also specific to Wynwood, and it passed
unanimously on first reading, and hope you'll do the same today.
Ellis Cantey: Good afternoon. My name is Ellis Cantey. My address is 816 Northwest 2nd
Avenue. I'm the president of the International Longshoremen Local 1416 that work the Port of
Miami. I have quite a few members that work for me that's young, innovated, in which the
various jobs, they come into the industry at $21 an hour. It's a great job, and quite a few of them
like to be in the Overtown area, close to their jobs, and I rise in support of affordable and
working housing, because to build a community and keep a community, you got to have your
village folks stand strong. Thank you.
America Medina: My name is America Medina. I represent the Wynwood Historical

Homeowners Association. And we support the Mana Project. We're eager for this to get started,
for the beautification of our community to get started. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Sir.
James Adams: I'm Bishop James Adams, senior pastor of the St. John Institutional Missionary
Baptist Church, 1328 Northwest 3rd Avenue. I'm here to support our Commissioners' recent
negotiation with Wynwood. I believe that the funds for Overtown, as all of us know, are much
needed; not only for affordable housing, but also for workforce housing. We need to have people
who are going to be in the area who are going to have disposable income in order to be able to

support the businesses that are there. I'm also here to reiterate that the boundaries remain. I
believe we were here in chambers before where that was established, and I'm here to encourage
that we stick to our guns and let Overtown be Overtown and let Wynwood be Wynwood. Thank
you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Sir, you're recognized.
Elvis Cruz: Good afternoon, gentlemen. Elvis Cruz, 631 Northeast 57th Street, speaking about
PZ.1 and 2, the Wynwood Special Area Plan. Please, if I can direct your attention to the handout
I've handed you, the proposed Special Area Plan is illegal. It violates Miami 21. Please notice
the highlighting. The capacity or height distribution does not result in development that is out of
scale or character with the surrounding area. Now, if you could please look at pages 2 and 3,
where you will see that there's a massive up-zoning taking place on 50 different properties that
are going from T5, five stories; and some at D1, which is eight stories; and they're going up to
T6-8; some of them as high as T6-12, and it's been reported that those will be 20 and even 24
stories high. That is an enormous increase in density and intensity and beyond any reasonable
doubt, violates the capacity or height distribution does not result in development that is out of
scale. Moreover, I would urge you to repeal that portion of Miami 21 which even allows Special
Area Plans. They are a Pandora's Box. Any law that includes the words "flexible"or "flexibility"is
rife with the possibilities of selective enforcement and favoritism. In closing, I'm hoping to direct
a question to the Planning Department through the Chair for them to answer. By what objective
criteria do they determine whether a development is in or out of scale or character with the
surrounding area? Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Can you do me a favor, also? The page that you gave us as the
front page seems to be the second or maybe third page of another couple documents. Can you
give me the first two pages so I understand where I'm reading from?
Mr. Cruz: I didn't want to drown you with paperwork. I know you get a haystack at your seat
every meeting, Commissioner, but that is just above the end of Section 3.10 in Miami 21, if you
want to find it.
Mr. Cruz: I don't have copies of the rest of the --
Commissioner Suarez: Is it 3.09? Is it 3.09?
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): No. It's Section 3.9.1 of Miami 21.
Commissioner Suarez: .9.1.
Mr. Min: We're making a copy now for the Commissioners.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cruz: Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized, ma'am.
Laurestine Bass: Good afternoon. My name is Laurestine Bass, and I'm a member of Greater
Bethel AME (African Methodist Episcopal) Church, which is at 245 Northwest 8th Street. I have
been a member for about 50 years. We are here in support of Commissioner Keon Hardemon
and his request in securing funds for Overtown residents and businesses. Commissioner
Hardemon has been working and supporting small businesses and affordable and workforce

housing initiatives. There is a saying, "Am I my brother's keeper?" So am I my neighbor's keeper?

Yes, I am, because what's good for our neighbors in Wynwood -- which, by the way, we patronize
-- is good for everyone involved. Why not invest in your neighbor's quest -- yes, Overtown -- so
that we are then able to patronize each other? Hopefully, you will understand and support the
Commissioner's request, as we do. Thank you, Commissioner, for keeping Overtown alive and
well.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you. You're recognized, sir.
Eric Bason: Eric Bason, Spring Forward, a civic community non-profit and re-entry, and I'm
speaking about PZ.2. I'm concerned about the lack of time and notification that was given to the
residents of Overtown in order to make a conscious decision about what -- how it benefits their
community. And I have a great concern when stuff is done at the last minute, because when it's
done at the last minute like that, it seems like it's a deliberate attempt to squash the voices of
people that live in that community. So until the people in that community can have a clear
understanding of what's supposed to be going on, I think it would be disingenuous for this
Committee to vote on anything in reference to PZ.2 until the community has had their voice and
understanding about how this is going to work. And it's my understanding this information did
not become available until about two days ago. So I don't see how in good conscience our City
-- our employees, which are the Commissioners, because they do work for -- the rest of their staff
and whatever that's here, their supervisors from the community, and I think it would be not a
good decision to move forward. And you talked about due process earlier. How would it be due
process if the community is just not getting the information in reference to this agenda item , or to
be able to bring forth any questions or recommendations? So I'm asking you all to hold any
recommendation or any vote on this decision on this item until the community has had a chance
to really evaluate it and decide if it's in the best interest of them or how they could best -- receive
the best benefit in Overtown, because we know time and time again, when you connect stuff with
Wynwood and Overtown, Overtown citizens always choose -- always seem to wind up on the
short end of the stick. So I think we need more time to be able to -- the community members need
more time to be able to assess what is truly going on and to really have their voices heard . And I
just want to say one more thing: Commissioner Russell, keep up the good work. Ask for
accountability, I don't care who it is, if it's the State Attorney. And I have a problem also if you
have developers who can talk to the Zoning Department. That is totally inappropriate, and I
appreciate you going the extra mile to see that that type of behavior doesn't go on. Thanks a lot.
Chair Hardemon: Much said. Ma'am, you're recognized.
Shantol Mitchell: Good afternoon. My name is Shantol Mitchell. My address is 3795 Northwest
164th Street. I'm speaking on PZ.1. I lived in District 5 almost half of my life, and I'm a leader
in the local union, Unite Here, 355. This summer, I spent over eight weeks with my other
colleagues, walking and talking to the residents of Overtown. And what they're saying is, "We
need good jobs, we need affordable housing, we need family housing, workforce housing." And
I'm here to support Commissioner Harding [sic] and the resources for affordable housing given
to Overtown residents. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you, ma'am. Sir, you're recognized.
Edduard Prince: Edduard Prince, 175 Northwest 1st -- 14th Street. I'm introducing into the
record a resolution passed by the Overtown Community Oversight Board of the Mana Wynwood
Special Area Plan.
Chair Hardemon: Do you have a copy that you want to read into the record, or do you want to
just submit it?
Mr. Prince: Say it again.

Chair Hardemon: Do you want to submit it or just -- or read it into the record?
Mr. Prince: I'm submitting it.
Mr. Prince: And that the item is PZ.1 and 2.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you.
Vice Chair Russell: What is it exactly? I'm sorry, I didn't hear what it was.
Commissioner Suarez: 1 and 2.
Chair Hardemon: Resolution from the Overtown --
Vice Chair Russell: In support.
Chair Hardemon: -- Community Oversight Board. I guess he'll make copies of it and provide to
the Commission.
Mr. Prince: Thank you.
Charles Haynes: Good evening. My name is Charles Haynes. I live at 263 Northwest 8th
Street. I'm here to support PZ.1, PZ.2, but I'm really here to support my Commissioner,
Hardemon. I want to say one thing about Overtown. Before there was Wynwood with all the
pretty paint and all the restaurant, it was old abandoned buildings, it was junkies, and homeless
people lived there. Only thing was in Wynwood that really mean something was Austin Burke.
Overtown always showed Wynwood love. Only thing we asking Wynwood is to show us love.
Don't come in a man house and tell him how you going to pay him; pay us right. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, sir. Hello, ma'am. You're recognized.
Cynthia Vizcardo: Hi. My name is Cynthia Vizcardo. I actually live in 301 Northwest 22nd
Street, Apartment 206. I live in the middle of the whole project, the Mana Project. And I'm
actually -- I live -- by me living in Wynwood, I'm also part of the -- I'm one of the committee
leaders for Unite Here, and I'm here to thank you, Mr. Hardena [sic], because I definitely
support what you guys are doing, working with the union. We work along -- you know, I'm -- I
live right in Wynwood, in the middle of the project and everything. We see how community
housing, it's very important. And actually, where I live, it's not that great of a place, so it would
definitely be a good investment to invest in Overtown and invest in -- definitely in housing, good
housing.
Charles Ratner: Good afternoon. My name is Charles Ratner. I'm an attorney; address at 200
South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3200, Miami, Florida 33131. I'm here representing -- speaking
about PZ.3, in support of PZ.3; here representing Baron Wynwood 35 LLC (Limited Liability
Company), Baron Wynwood 49 LLC, Baron Wynwood 63 LLC, Baron Wynwood 65 LLC, Baron
Wynwood 73 LLC, and Baron Wynwood 83 LLC, owners of a assemblage of a number of

adjacent properties. Here to support PZ.3 on its second reading; would urge the Commission to
continue the passage of PZ.3, and bring my clients' properties and the other properties that were
left out of the original rezoning of this area back into the fold. Thank you very much.
Chair Hardemon: Mayor, you're recognized.
Mayor Cindy Lerner: Thank you. Good afternoon. Cindy Lerner. I am here on behalf and in
support of the Wynwood Business Improvement District, and the very lengthy, open public
engagement that the BID proposed over the course of many months in terms of negotiating an
agreement with one of the BID members and developers, Mr. Mana. In the course of the
negotiations between the developer, his entire team, and the board of the Business Improvement
District, public was engaged. There was a vote; very open dialogue and concern about the
potential adverse impacts that the amount of development that was being proposed would impact
on the core of Wynwood, and the negotiations back and forth. The willingness to come to an
agreement between the parties was something that we all felt, at first reading, was going to
continue on the track and the trend it had been, and then literally, out of nowhere, the developer
evidently sought other conversations without ever bringing them back to the BID Board. We
were -- the public and the board were caught by surprise. And as a result of continued dialogue,
public dialogue that occurred over the last couple of weeks and as late as yesterday afternoon
that I attended and participated in, there was again a very open and collaborative attempt for
the developer's team and the board of the BID to come to a new agreement that everybody felt
would satisfy his interest in being able to go forward based on current and newer financial
realities, and the concerns that the BID Board had about how that would or would not impact
the original agreement. I was pleased with the caliber of commitment that they each appeared to
have to each other to finding common ground, and so what I understand is before you today is
the new common ground that the board of the BID adopted as their new resolution . I am here
both as a property owner. My husband is on the board of the BID. The Lerner family has owned
property in Wynwood since the 1960s, so our roots in the neighborhood, as business interests
have gone back for decades, and we feel very strongly about the ability for the efforts that the
BID has demonstrated in order to secure a successful future that it be permitted to go forward as
they have recommended. I'm also here as an elected official, and would hope that, as elected
officials, you would assure supporting the kind of dialogue in a very open and public manner , as
has been done through the BID efforts with the public; in addition, having the opportunity to
give input during the BID meetings that were held, and would, for those purposes as well,
support what the BID is recommending, because it has been done in a very open and transparent
face-to-face negotiation. So I'd ask for your support of the BID.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you so very much, Mayor. You're recognized, ma'am.
Renescha Coats: Hi. My name is Renescha Coats. I stay at 3420 Hibiscus Street, Apartment 1.
I don't know if this is the right time to speak on this, but my neighborhood is basically going to
be gone. We have 11 to 12 properties that families are being evicted from. My building was the
first one to be evicted. And I find it very funny that you guys are talking about affordable
housing in Overtown when I can go and I could apply for affording housing in Overtown , and it's
very -- a lot of affordable housing in Overtown. Unfortunately, in West Grove, Coconut Grove,
there's no affordable housing for our residents, so what are our families forced to do? Be evicted
and move to where? To Overtown? To other people's neighborhoods where we never grew up
at? And it's not fair. And I feel like you guys talk about other neighborhoods; what about
Coconut Grove? What about West grove? What about the residents that are being evicted now?
I have an eviction notice, and I have four kids. Where are we going to go? To Overtown? And
my kids grew up in the Grove. It's not fair. And every time I come here, you hear about other
people talking about affordable housing, affordable housing. I -- it's churches in Overtown that
give affordable housing; what about West Grove? What about us?
Vice Chair Russell: Thank you, Renescha.

Joseph Furst: Joseph Furst, chairman of the Wynwood Business Improvement District.
Commissioner Gort: Bring the mike up.
Mr. Furst: Commissioner Hardemon, this is a special request for you. As you're aware, the
Mana Plan, which is agenda item 1 and 2, has been ever changing and ever evolving. I come
here today with four different resolutions, depending on which version of the plan they actually
present. As you know, they've been working through changes overnight into today, so we would
like to reserve our comment till after they present their agenda item.
Chair Hardemon: You're recognized. You're recognized, ma'am.
Arden Karson: Good afternoon. I'm Arden Karson of the Related Group, with address at 315
South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami 33133. I am here in support of item PZ.4, which will
effectuate the intent of Wynwood's new Zoning Code by permitting the transfer of certain
development rights between properties with the goal of revitalizing the area. The Wynwood
NRD-1 (Neighborhood Resource District) is unique, in that the maximum densities of both the T5
and T6-8 transect zones are identical at 150 dwelling units per acre. This legislation will
essentially address an initial oversight in the NRD and permit the transfer of development rights
in Wynwood, as is currently allowed between similarly zoned properties throughout the City.
Development will still be required to comply with the other regulations provided in Miami 21 and
the NRD-1 by requiring compliance with building envelope limitations and other regulations ,
such as setbacks, lot coverage, and open space requirements. I urge you to approve item PZ.4,
which now, more than ever, promotes the revitalization of one of Miami's most exciting
neighborhoods. Thank you very much.
David Polinsky: David Polinsky, 1040 Biscayne, Miami. I'm a member of the Wynwood BID
directors, here speaking for the moment on behalf of PZ.4 and 5. PZ.5, in particular, is the
cleanup amendments to the NRD that this body passed a year ago. These are principally
procedural in nature, and we'd encourage you to support them. And I look forward to speaking
on behalf of the Mana SAP (Special Area Plan) when that item comes up.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am, you're recognized.
Victoire Francoise: My name is Victoire Francoise. My address, 62 Northwest 26 Street, Miami,

Florida. My zip code, 33127. My momma lived this area 40 years. She passed and leave the
house for all my family. Any time I receive the letter in my mail, they sell my house. My house
not for sale. The people call me in the phone all the time; don't want me to sleep. Now I'm tired.
I got my house for rest.. I can't work in anymore. I'm working to housekeeping. I'm try to work
now, man. Before, I'm got two job. Now, you know, I'm working sometime. I need my house for
raising my family, please. I call -- I'm coming here because I want the people leave me alone.
They give me too much pressure. I can't sleep. They tell the City go take my house. They put me
outside. They put me -- they foreclose my house. No. I'm citizen. I'm living long time. All my
kids live here. That's why I'm coming here, the people leave me alone. Don't call me in my
phone. Don't give me pressure, because when they call me, they make my blood pressure high,
my sugar high, my cholesterol high. Please, I have my house for rest, please, me and my family.
That's why I'm coming here. My address 62 Northwest 26 Street, Miami, Florida. My zip code,
33127, okay?
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much, ma'am. You're recognized, ma'am.

Brenda Betancourt: Good afternoon. Brenda Betancourt, 1436 Southwest 6th Street. I just still
have concerns about the way we are doing our public hearings. To me, hearing the voice of the
public, I believe, is the right to do it when the items are being presented, and maybe this is the
better way to do it to -- in order to finish it on time, but I believe that you all has to notify
everybody, and it has to have some consents [sic] on it. It's not the same that you can come here
for two minutes and talk about the entire agenda, or either the morning or either -- and the
zoning items. And for some people, they are coming talk to one thing, two minutes might be
efficient, but for those who are involved with the community, I think that you are giving us a less
time for us to express our opinion. And I would like to know exactly, you know, where on our
Charter or the bylaw of the City or anywhere what it says that we have limit of two minutes for
the entire agenda in a section. I believe that it's -- giving us less time is not going to resolve and
a lot of the issues that we have as a community. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: You're welcome. Thank you very much. The Legal -- our Legal staff can help
you with that. The Florida Statute states that the public have a reasonable opportunity to be
heard, so a time in which -- a reasonable opportunity is a matter of definition through case law,
but it's quite generally a time in which you can be heard to speak before the -- before this board.
It does not tell you exactly how many minutes per person is allowed. In fact, I believe there's
case law -- and the City Attorney's Office can research it -- that basically says that it's -- there's
no time that is determined that is a reasonable opportunity -- a reasonable time to be heard; it
just depends on the meeting, and certainly the Chair has the right to limit the discussion of --
well, limit the time period in which the public speaks in order to move through a meeting
efficiently. So it's -- you know, like I said, you can meet with the City Attorney's Office or -- have
an opinion --
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): If you'd like, I can add Section 2-33(i), the City Code
states that “The public shall have the right to speak for two minutes, unless modified by the
Chair.”
Ms. Betancourt: So it will be two minutes for --
Chair Hardemon: But that's --
Ms. Betancourt: -- the entire agenda. If it's in the morning, if it's in the afternoon, then it'll be
two minutes, so --
Chair Hardemon: Not always. I mean, as you've seen, you have people that speak over two
minutes, you have people speak four minutes --
Ms. Betancourt: Yeah.
Chair Hardemon: -- you have people to speak eight minutes, but this is an opportunity for us to
get through the business of the City with the public having to know when they can come and
speak, how long they can come and speak for, and so that they can come, speak, and then move
on with their day. Some people like to stay for the entirety of the meeting, no matter what time it
is, and some people need to get back to their one job or two jobs, and so we want to give
everyone an opportunity so they can know that they can come and be heard as a public at this
time, so that's what this is.
Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman, we don't have a quorum.
Chair Hardemon: Yes, sir. Okay.
Commissioner Gort: Most important, the person, if they had different items, they can speak two

minutes on the different items.
Chair Hardemon: So if -- like I've always said, if you have comments that you want to make,
especially substantive changes to items that are on the agenda, you should try to speak to those
Commissioners -- any of the Commissioners, actually. I mean, I would encourage -- I don' t care
what district you're in. If you want to speak to --
Commissioner Gort: Yay, we got quorum back.
Chair Hardemon: -- a certain Commissioner, speak to those Commissioners; and then

additionally, send emails that say your position so that we have an opportunity to review those
things before. And, you know, when you come up on the -- to the lectern, you have to decide
what it is that you want to say and how persuasive you want to be, and this is not something
that's just done for public. I mean, you have attorneys that speak before judges and Supreme
Courts and Third DCAs (Third District Court of Appeals) that have time limits on what they have
to say. No matter if they have 2,400 pages of backup information, they may get seven minutes.
And so this is just a way that things are. We don't have -- if the entirety of the City of Miami
wanted to come and speak, we don't have the capacity, really, to hear all of their comments, and
we certainly don't have the capacity, even if it's 200 people, to hear them speak seven times for
two minutes. We just -- we don't have the capacity to do it, so I'm trying to find a way that we
can -- know when you can come and speak, reasonably expect to speak, to be heard, speak, and
then move on with your day, if you choose to; and if not, you can stay with us and enjoy the rest
of the Commission meeting.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair?
Vice Chair Russell: I appreciate this change, actually. I think it went well today. I -- the way it
went through with the public input was very orderly, and it was very efficient, so I look forward
to giving this a try.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you. Is there any other person that wanted to make a public comment
on items PZ.1 through PZ.5? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing at this time, and
move back to the regularly scheduled agenda and --
Chair Hardemon: -- PH -- which is PH.5, correct.
PZ.1 ORDINANCE Second Reading

15-00977ap
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH
ATTACHMENT(S), PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 3 AND 7 OF THE MIAMI 21
CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
("MIAMI 21 CODE"), AS AMENDED, APPROVING THE REZONING OF
CERTAIN PARCELS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 23.46
ACRES (1,022,917 SQUARE FEET) FOR THE MANA WYNWOOD SPECIAL
AREA PLAN ("MANA WYNWOOD SAP"), A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
COMPRISED OF SELECTED PARCELS, BOUNDED APPROXIMATELY BY
NORTHWEST 24TH STREET TO THE NORTH INCLUDING SPECIFIC
PARCELS FRONTING NORTHWEST 24TH STREET TO THE NORTH,
NORTHWEST 6TH AVENUE TO THE WEST, NORTHWEST 22ND STREET
TO THE SOUTH, AND NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE TO THE EAST, MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A", ATTACHED AND

INCORPORATED; THE MANA WYNWOOD SAP CONSISTS OF A PHASED
PROJECT DIVIDED INTO SIX (6) PARTS WHICH INCLUDES
APPROXIMATELY 9,719,083 SQUARE FEET OF DEVELOPMENT
CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING: A) APPROXIMATELY 3,482
RESIDENTIAL UNITS; B) APPROXIMATELY 8,483 PARKING SPACES; C)
APPROXIMATELY 51,146 SQUARE FEET OF CIVIC SPACE; AND D)
APPROXIMATELY 168,287 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE; THE MANA
WYNWOOD SAP WILL MODIFY THE TRANSECT ZONE REGULATIONS
THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE SUBJECT PARCELS, WHERE A SECTION
IS NOT SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED, THE REGULATION AND RESTRICTION
OF THE MIAMI 21 CODE SHALL APPLY; THE SQUARE FOOTAGES ABOVE
ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY INCREASE OR DECREASE AT TIME OF
BUILDING PERMIT BUT SHALL NOT EXCEED 9,719,083 SQUARE FEET OF
DEVELOPMENT; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATING
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; CONTAINING
A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
15-00977ap 09-08-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf
15-00977ap Analysis, Maps & PZAB Reso.pdf
15-00977ap Application & Supporting Docs.pdf
15-00977ap Legislation (v2).pdf
15-00977ap Exhibit A.pdf
15-00977ap Exhibit B.pdf
15-00977ap Exhibit C.pdf
15-00977ap Exhibit D.pdf
15-00977ap-Submittal-Elvis Cruz-Miami21 Article 3 Document.pdf
15-00977ap-Submittal-Edward Prince-Resolution of the Overtown Community Oversight Board.pdf
15-00977ap-Submittal-Albert Garcia-Resolutions of the Board of the Wynwood Business Development District.pdf
15-00977ap-Submittal-Iris Escarra-Proposal Map.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately Northwest 24th Street to the north, Northwest 6th

Avenue to the west, Northwest 22nd Street to the south and Northwest 2nd
Avenue to the east [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5]
APPLICANT(S): Iris Escarra, Esquire on behalf of Manningan Holdings, LLC,

Marcella Realty, LLC, Megan Holdings, LLC, Melanie Holding, LLC Mizrachi
Holdings, LLC, Wynwood Holdings, LLC, 2294 NW 2 Avenue Property LLC,
Mapton Holdings, LLC, Malux Realty LLC, Milana Holdings LLC and Millie
Realty LLC
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval with
conditions.
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval with
conditions on March 2, 2016, by a vote of 11-0.
PURPOSE: This will allow the area to be Master Planned to allow a greater
integration of public improvements and infrastructure and greater flexibility as
part of the Mana Wynwood SAP.


13631
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.1, please see "Planning &
Zoning Order of the Day."
Chair Hardemon: I believe we have now proceeded through our regular agenda, besides the
discussion items. So what I'll do now is bring our attention to our Planning & Zoning items.
We've had our public comment for Planning & Zoning, and I'd like to call PZ.1. So if you' re
listening in TV (television) land and you're here as an applicant or some other interested fellow
for PZ.1, please join us in the chambers. Mr. Clerk -- well, no. No, thank you. Please join us in
the chambers. And while we're waiting for PZ.1 and PZ.2, it's required that I provide a Jennings
disclosure.
Vice Chair Russell: Me, too.
Chair Hardemon: So I'd like to -- for the record to be clear that on 6/29/16, I had a meeting with
-- I'm sorry -- on 7/7/16, I had a meeting with the representatives of Mana in our -- and staff
from the City of Miami, including Francisco, regarding this Development Agreement and zoning.
On 7/28, I had another meeting with Mana and Francisco from the City regarding the same
issues that we have before us today. On 9/5, I had another meeting with Mana regarding -- and I
don't believe Francisco was there -- the same agreement. I had another meeting on 9 -- well,
that was with Wynwood BID (Business Improvement District). I'm not required to disclose
Wynwood BID, because Wynwood BID isn't an applicant to this whole issue, so I don't have all
the meetings as I met with the BID. But then also today, I've also met with the Mana team
regarding the issue that's before us today. So that's my Jennings disclosure.
Commissioner Carollo: I also want to make a Jennings disclosure. On July 18, I met with
Moishe Mana, Axay Patel, Dylan Finger, and Iris Escarra, and just to discuss the overall SAP
(Special Area Plan). Recently, I know I've had a few telephone conversations with Chip Iglesias.
Commissioner Suarez: I also met with a group late yesterday, and just about a five -- 10 minutes
ago.
Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to do my disclosure as well.
Vice Chair Russell: I, Ken Russell, and my staff members, Eleazar Melendez and Kimberly
Bentley, had a meeting on September 7, at approximately 5:30 p.m., with Iris Escarra, Bernard
Zyscovich, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Iglesias, Dylan Finger, and all who represent Moishe Mana in
this item. At approximately 6:30 p.m., Wynwood BID Board member David Polinsky also joined
the conversation. During this meeting, Iris Escarra, Mana's attorney, and Bernard Zyscovich,
the project architect, discussed several ideas to move the SAP forward. In addition, on August
24 and 31, my staff member, Kimberly Bentley, attended the Wynwood BID meetings, where the
Mana special area plan was discussed. Today, Joe Furst, of the Wynwood BID, stopped by our
office and attempted to express potential concerns, but time didn't allow for detailed discussion.
These communications have not swayed me in any fashion, and I continue to be as impartial
about this item as I was before -- prior to the communication. My disclosure will be made part
of the record. Thank you.
Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman, I have the same information. I was informed on the -- of
the plans, and that's about it, about two weeks ago.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. So at this time, if -- well, I'll have the City first make
announcement of what the item is and then I'll allow -- I'll give the floor to Mana Wynwood.
Francisco Garcia: Thank you, sir. Francisco Garcia, Planning & Zoning director, and my
remarks will be brief, as I know the applicants are well prepared to present more in depth. And
I'll simply introduce items PZ.1 and PZ.2 as companion items. They are respectively the special
area plan application for Mana Holdings, an aggregation of properties that roughly span from
Northwest 6th Avenue to the west that is immediately abutting the I-95 highway, east toward
Northwest 2nd Avenue, and roughly from Northwest 22nd Street to the south to Northwest 24th
Street to the north, and there are some parcels excluded from that, but that's generally the area
where this special area plan is proposed. This item's before you on second reading, and just for
clarification sake, it encompasses the entirety of the site, of the special area plan site, as
captioned in your agenda. And then PZ.2 is the Development Agreement, which has been revised
from the time where you heard it on first reading, subsequent to or pursuant to the
recommendations made by the City Commission, and I understand that there will be additional,
albeit, minor revisions that may be proffered, but again, the applicants I think are best suited to
make those presentations. With that said, I think I'll yield to the applicants, and I'm glad to stand
by for any questions you may have. Thank you.
Ms. Escarra: Good afternoon, Chair, Commissioners. Iris Escarra and Carlos Lago on behalf
of Moishe Mana and the Mana Wynwood Holdings. I'm joined this afternoon by Bernard
Zyscovich and also by Dylan Finger. I would like to first take a moment and really thank
everyone. This has been a long journey for us. We've been working with various community
stakeholders for two years. We've been working with the Commissioners trying to get as much of
the Commissioners' input. We've worked with the BID Board relentlessly. We've worked with the
Overtown Oversight Board, which just yesterday passed a resolution supporting our project; and
most importantly, to City staff, because it is really without City staff, we would not be here today
for their contributions and efforts and reading this at all hours , so we appreciate very much all
their efforts. The item before you is the complete SAP. I know that many of you may have heard
recently that we were actually before the Wynwood Board just yesterday, and we're considering --
they adopted a resolution supporting only the west zone and not the east zone . It's my
understanding that that concept is no longer necessarily the preferred concept, and you'll hear
from the board members directly as to their position regarding that west portion , but I wanted to
let you know the item before you is the entirety. One of the things that I wanted to make sure is
clear on the record is that the Wynwood BID Board adopted a resolution on March 2, which we
have fully and completely complied with. We honor every section of this resolution, and I'm
putting it again into the record as part of this item to show our commitment to this resolution . I
know that the board recently took an action to rescind it for other reasons, because they felt we
weren't complying with it, but I want the record to reflect clearly that this resolution, we are
compliance with the language that's included. Secondly, they adopted a letter on May 19 with
regards to their support and temporary uses. We continue to work with them on this matter, and
we show our commitment that this letter is also being introduced into the record as our
commitment to them that we continue to work with regards to the temporary uses at the -- at our
site. Secondly, I need to do some technical reading, and I apologize, but I have to do this into
the record. There are two items, which were scrivener's errors, that I need to make sure are
included in the regulating plan, page 27, Section 5.6.3(F). It reads: "Any building located in the

T6-8b-O transect zone and the 'E' zone, containing 25 percent or more residential uses,
excluding lodging and affordable workforce housing of the total building floor area shall be
limited to a height of 12 stories." Secondly, the other scrivener's error was on page 25 of the
Development Agreement where it talked about 20 -- Section 20, where it talked about temporary
uses. It said: "Shall not be permitted without the consent of the” -- used to say "director"; it now
says, "Members of the Wynwood Business Improvement District Board." So it was not the
“director”; it's the “board.” So where are we and how are we today? The items before you and
the application is -- that is before you is the complete application with regards to the
development thresholds. Most recently, to address some of the concerns raised by the BID, and
at the suggestion of a community stakeholder, we looked at our FPL (Florida Power Light)
burying of the lines. And initially, throughout our whole concept, we've been looking with the
FPL lines anywhere from a relocation to a complete burial. We've had initial meetings with FPL.
We continue to work with FPL. Once we obtain our approval, then the client will be able to
allocate the engineering fees, which is approximately half a million dollars, to have to pay to
FPL to commence this work and come up with the engineering drawings. As such, one of the
things that we discussed this morning was our commitment to bury as many of the lines as
possible. By burying some of the lines, it will remove some of the lines that are along certain
streets in Wynwood outside of our SAP area. So some of our neighbors will be benefiting from
the burying of the lines, as well as the removal of the lines. And there's a map that we're
distributing, which just has -- shows the areas generally of where these lines are and the options
with regards to the burying and the relocating of the lines. And we're committed to burying the
lines as much as possible, removing the lines as much as possible, rather than the relocation
option. In addition to that commitment, we also have a second commitment. One of the things
that was discussed was, we understand that the burying of the lines and the FPL lines has a great
community impact. It benefits several folks that are not within the SAP area. What happens if
you don't do it? -- which is a very valid question. So one of the things that Mr. Mana committed
to was that in the event that the lines aren't completed in five years that we would make a
contribution of $7.2 million for streetscape improvements in Wynwood outside our SAP area. So
we have approximately 31,000,000 in streetscape improvements, water and sewer, all this stuff
within our SAP area. Then this is above and beyond, in order to complete the Wynwood's
perception regarding their benefit's package, and that is they get the benefit of the buried lines,
which is a huge expense, or alternatively, if we -- that doesn't happen, they get streetscape
monies to their transportation fund in order to improve the streets outside of the SAP area within
that -- well, within Wynwood. Those are still our commitments. They're still on the table with
regards to the Wynwood BID. Unfortunately, the BID is -- most of them are here, and they can't
have an emergency meeting, so you'll be hearing from the individuals themselves, but that is our
proffer; what is on the table and those modifications that I've read into the record today.
Chair Hardemon: Is there any other matter of presentation that you want to make or is that it?
Ms. Escarra: No, that is my presentation. I'm available for questions, and save time for rebuttal,
please.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Second, please.
Chair Hardemon: One second, please. Now, you have a question for them?
Vice Chair Russell: Unless they're -- if they're done presenting? The -- yeah, I had a question
undergrounding of the lines.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, please.
Vice Chair Russell: So I thank you for offering the suggestion of the undergrounding of the lines .

I -- this is what we discussed last night, and, you know, when I originally saw the renderings of
the project and we talked about it, I had heard about the potential underground, and then I saw
that option disappear, and I guess that's when the bill came in. It was pretty significant. And I
think in the benefits, it shows between 3 million and 20 million --
Ms. Escarra: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: -- based on whether you relocate versus underground, if I'm not mistaken.
I've been an advocate for the undergrounding all along. I imagine Mr. Mana is, as well, seeing
that he's such a span of Nikola Tesla, whose whole thing is electricity without wires, right?
Ms. Escarra: That's the ideal situation for all.
Vice Chair Russell: Yes. And so this idea was brought about last night to hopefully mediate a
distance -- a gap that we were trying to fill between where the BID's original agreement with
Mana had changed between first and second reading, and they had pulled their support of the
project based on that, that change. I'm a big advocate in business in -- whether it's a handshake
or a signature, that when an agreement is made, that that is honored; that further negotiations
beyond that, you know, are above and beyond, but when an agreement made -- is made, is
honored, and they've really dug in their heels on that, and I -- I understand where they're coming
from. I can sympathized with that for sure. My hope was that with the undergrounding of these
lines and the value of that, that that brings to Wynwood as a whole, because it's not just
undergrounding lines on your property; what we discussed last night is that you'd underground
all the way to the transfer station, which goes through 25th through Wynwood, and this could be
-- it could be a very significant aesthetic and logistic game changer for the developments in the
area. I'm hoping that that is enough of a -- an additional benefit that as we are on second
reading, as it's written with that added in that the Wynwood BID will feel that there is -- there's a
sufficient benefit in there, compared to what was changed from first to second reading. I don't
know if --
Chair Hardemon: I'll let them speak, but I want to be clear. I know there's a difference of
opinion from Mana Wynwood and the BID about whether or not that an agreement has been
changed, and that's what I believe that Ms. Escarra was making mention of earlier, that they've
complied with the agreement as stipulated in the passing of the March --
Ms. Escarra: 2.
Chair Hardemon: -- 2 agreement -- BID resolution and the agreement that was subsequent to
that resolution. But what I'm going to do right now is I'm going to allow the BID to speak for
themselves, or members of the BID to speak for themselves. Now, I want everyone to understand
that this is a bit unusual in the sense that the BID is not a party to this application. And
typically, members of the community, like the BID is; and individually as they are, will be just the
same as the Overtown/Oversight Board or members from Overtown where they speak during the
public hearing section. But I know there's been a significant amount of conversation that's had
-- that's been had between Mana and also the BID, and so I just want to give the BID a fair
opportunity to say some things on their behalf, and I want to -- because I want everyone to
understand who's watching to know that the BID, just like the Overtown/Oversight Board, does
not have any decision-making authority in the -- in these types of items. The BID was referred by
myself -- I'm sorry -- Mana was referred to the BID to start conversations, because I thought that
they were a neighbor, and it would be good for them to have that conversation, the same way I
recommend them to speak to the people from the Overtown/Community Oversight Board. And so
I just want it to be very clear on the record that that's what this is; that this is community
members engaged in what's happening in this process, and they give their recommendations as
they best see it as a group. Sometimes recommendations differ as individuals; but nonetheless,
they had meaningful discussion before it came to us, where we make our final decision, based off

of everything that we've heard and the application that's turned in. So I'll recognize you, sir.
David Polinsky: Thank you, Commissioner Hardemon. My name's David Polinsky, BID
Planning & Zoning Committee chair. So we appreciate the opportunity to address our concerns
in front of the Commission here. Some of you may be wondering, what's all the fuss? Why has
this process taken so long? Why have you heard about so many variations of possible
agreements or renegotiations of agreements since the original March 2? And why is this really
all important? So we as -- we of the Wynwood BID Board wear two hats: As members of the
City of Mi -- as community members in the City of Miami and as representatives of the
commercial property owners in the district of Wynwood. The SAP itself is unprecedented in the
City of Miami's history. It involves a creation of entitlements that will allow the applicant to add
two and a half million square feet of FLR (floor area ratio) above and beyond what's existing in
our NRD-1 (Neighborhood Resource District) today. If you were to translate that -- if the Mana
team were to go out today and try and buy land in Wynwood that had associated with it
development rights of two and a half million square feet, they would spend, based on the most
recent comps in the neighborhood, $220 million. So in a sense, there's a gift being made by this
Commission, if it approves the SAP, equivalent to a check of $220 million. Now, it comes with
certain obligations, and it's around the obligations that we've really been negotiating these past
few months. We thought we were at a workable holistic agreement on March 2, which involved
more than just money, more than just dollar contributions to the Wynwood Public Benefits Trust
Fund, but also a system of sort of checks and balances, as it were, to keep the spirit and methods
of the Mana SAP within the framework of the NRD, you know, our prize zoning, and within the
culture and commitment of -- to collaboration among all developers, which is at the core of what
the BID aspires to be. There's been a lot of twist and turns because everybody's wanted to get it
right. The applicant's done some tremendous creative work, and there are some great ideas and
a great vision behind the SAP. So the concept of the SAP we've always been supportive of, but
since the documents, we could -- when we reviewed them on March 2, we could only review them
with respect to what was there on that day; and what was there on that day, in the concept of the
regulating plan, the Development Agreement, applied a maxed contribution of $10 million; and
in subsequent discussions, following second reading, that changed by a material amount, which
was $7 million. So I'd like to be clear that we have a difference of opinion on what happened.
Iris had said, "We're in perfect compliance,"and I have to take exception with that. I think that's a
very lawyerly way -- no insult intended -- of looking at the situation. $7 million is material, but
you could say in a sense that this -- whether it's -- that the $10 million overall, regardless of how
it's spent -- whether it's split between the Overtown SEP -- SEOPW (Southwest Overtown/Park
West) and Wynwood, or whether there's an additional 7 million, it's still a small number relative
to the 220 million, so we've been very concerned, both as a BID Board and also as residents of
the City of Miami. Is the City of Miami, in totality, getting enough out of this arrangement? I
know we're not chartered with that. You're -- you gentlemen are chartered with looking out there,
but we really do wear both hats at the same time, and we've had lots of disagreements over the
values of public benefits, even to this day. And we viewed this project as having a lot of risks, a
lot of upside, and a lot of downside. If it does succeed in bringing not only the buildings, but
more importantly, the jobs and the residents to the area, it's a wonderful thing for everyone. So
we've been trying very hard to get "yes"-- get to "yes." Now, you've read a lot in the paper. There's
been a lot of back and forth. We've been -- everything we've done has been videotaped, so if you
have the patience, you've seen a lot of heated discussions; always done in in good faith to try and
get to "yes." And I think, in fact, we're very extraordinarily close as of this moment, but at the
same time that the BID's been trying to look after the natural property interests and community
interests of Wynwood, we've also been trying very hard to do so within sunshine and within the
restrictions that apply to us as a board of the City of Miami. So unfortunately, as of yesterday,
when we had to make official notice of the fact that it's our view that they weren't in compliance
with the March 2 resolution, and so we passed a resolution to rescind that with a duly noticed
board meeting with a quorum of board members in attendance. We had no other choice. We
also had no other choice but to withhold our support for the current draft of the legislation ,
which is in front of you, because it was still not in compliance with the March 2 resolution, and

we thought we had a clear path to a very different strategy, which some of you may have read in
the press, bifurcating the east and west zone, but we always had a concern that it was being too
rushed, that doing a radical surgery on the legislation between last night and this hour , 7
o'clock, that it just wasn't enough time. So we've been trying to uphold reasonable principles,
and while we're -- I think -- I can certainly speak for myself, but unfortunately, as a board of the
City of Miami, I can't speak for the board as a whole, because we haven't had a noticed meeting
with quorum to look at the most recent changes. I can say, I strongly support the burial of the
undergrounds [sic]. I commend Commissioner Russell for coming up with this idea as a sort of
last-minute resolution, but I can only speak as a board member, and we can't speak as a whole.
And even to this minute, I don't believe that you've had the chance yourselves to look at the fine
language of how -- what the exact area is where the lines would be un-- buried, what -- where
the dollars would be deposited if they're not buried within five years, and our recommendation --
actually, I can't say “our recommendation.” My recommendation, because we haven't been able
to have a duly noticed meeting, is that we defer this item so that we can work out those final
details and come back to you at the next hearing and get you to support, with our full support.
So that's the ask.
Chair Hardemon: Before you sit down, and before you respond -- you're going to be coming up
next, Mr. Furst? Okay. Is there any way that you can tell us, the board members, what
differences of opinion that you have? Like where it that you think that the agreements -- that
there's a -- the change in the agreements so that we are more knowledgeable of it, and so that we
can have a better response and answer from them?
Mr. Polinsky: So again, I can only speak as the chair of the board -- chair of the committee
that's been running this process for a time. I can't speak on behalf of the board. But some of the
nuances that are up in the air, which are germane, is the exact final path, the start point and end
point of the lines that are being buried. It's actually a very material point, because based on my
calculations from the numbers that the Mana team has graciously provided, it cost -- I don't
know if any of you know this -- but it cost $5,000 per linear foot to bury a transmission line. So
whether the burial section is ending at --
Commissioner Suarez: How much?
Mr. Polinsky: $5,000 a lineal foot, so the distance from me to you --
Commissioner Suarez: The only reason why I ask is because we're in a different issue with FPL
on burying transmission lines and -- that's a whole 'nother --
Mr. Polinsky: That's for the high-power ones, the two --
Vice Chair Russell: -- the big, ugly 240 volts.
Commissioner Suarez: Those are what they call “distribution lines.”
Vice Chair Russell: Right, distribution lines, correct. Trunk lines.
Commissioner Suarez: Actually --
Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry. Distribution lines, not trunk lines.
Commissioner Suarez: -- the transmission are the big ones. Right, right, right.
Mr. Polinsky: That's correct.

Commissioner Suarez: Transmission are the big ones.
Mr. Polinsky: So the distance from me to you is about a quart million dollars at this moment --
Mr. Polinsky: -- if there was a distribution line in between, so it's a material amount of money
for the Mana team, where it ends up. It's also very material to the Wynwood BID, because we're
excited about the notion, which Commissioner Russell put on the table, that maybe the transition
line should be buried outside of the SAP area as part of this process. So I think there's a very
clear path to get to a very finite agreement, which we've had the chance to bless in the proper
way at a noticed hearing of the BID Board, and for you to have the chance to have looked at and
signed off on as well. So it's really that the actual transmission line distances and end points that
are being buried, and it's where in the event that the Mana team finds it impossible to bury those
lines within five years, where and how and for what purpose the money would be deposited,
because there is, as of today, no place -- we have a Wynwood Public Benefits Trust Fund. We
have a Parking Improvement Trust Fund. We don't have an escrow account or escrow account
mechanism that they can just plop the $7 million in, and we might want to review and you might
want to review, once those monies are there, what are the rules for how they're being allocated.
So these are all solvable problems, but worthy of consideration.
Chair Hardemon: Now -- so -- but what I have from you right now are the exact path lines of the
-- the path of the lines being buried and the impossibility of burying the lines provision , if you
may. I'm not -- I don't think that that was a part of the original agreement that, you know, you
all took issue to; so particularly to that agreement, are there identifiable items in what you
believe that Mana has not met its obligation or has changed?
Mr. Polinsky: From -- with respect to March 2, or with respect to our discussions this morning?
Chair Hardemon: March 2. That agreement -- because --
Mr. Polinsky: March 2, so --
Chair Hardemon: -- I'm seeing -- because I'm --
Mr. Polinsky: Okay, so what the --
Chair Hardemon: -- considering what the BID voted on when the BID said, "Look, you're not in
compliance with"--
Mr. Polinsky: Right.
Chair Hardemon: -- "that original agreement.”
Mr. Polinsky: Great question.
Chair Hardemon: So that's what I'm asking about.
Mr. Polinsky: Great question. Okay, so the principle gap and the only gap I think that remains
after lots of discussion is that if you approve the documents as they're written today, minus the
underground commitment, there'd be a deficit in Wynwood public benefits contributions over
time of approximately $7.2 million. In -- and that's what we've been trying to work around.
Now, if the Mana team -- and we've been reminding of this -- reminding them of this -- if they
were willing to just say, “We're going back to the March 2 agreement in the form in which it

existed as of March 2 and restore those $7 million,” but not at the expense of Overtown --
because we've always been very clear on the public record, saying -- first of all, since the
sequence was that they negotiated with us first, we always said, “You need to work with the rest
of the community to the south.” And we believe that every dollar that they have committed to the
Southeast Overtown/Park West Over -- CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) is well
deserved. In fact, we would be happy to see more dollars going there, but we've always said it
shouldn't be at the expense of Wynwood and the commitments they've already made. So a simple
solution for them, which we've reminded them of again and again, is all they have to do is get the
commitment for providing up to that $7 million additional; they could do it right now. I don't
know -- I think we've -- problematically, we've already rescinded that proposal, but I think, in
good conscience, we would believe we'd be fulfilling the will of the BID Board if we said we can
support that move. Unfortunately, the applicant has said it's too much of a burden to bear,
financially. So we're -- so the underground burial is an alternative to the $7 million, which, to
our surprise, disappeared.
Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the lines did not disappear.
Mr. Polinsky: That's right. Exactly.
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Furst, if you will. I'll allow him to speak.
Ms. Escarra: Thank you.
Joseph Furst: Joseph Furst, chairman of the Wynwood Business Improvement District.
Following David is a tough act to follow.
Chair Hardemon: He is very good.
Mr. Furst: He's a master at this.
Mr. Furst: And of course, he's a volunteer and does all this in his free time, so I commend David
for working tirelessly and endlessly with the Mana team. I just want to talk a little bit about
history so you know why me, personally -- of course, I can't speak for the board -- are so -- I'm
so concerned about where we are today. Just last week, the Mana team came with a proposal,
saying that the project was not financially feasible the way that they had phased it and set it up ,
and therefore, they needed to do the west zone first, and they wanted to abandon the east zone.
That was clearly -- it's on the record. You can watch it on video. You could see that it's part of a
discussion. One week later, now we're back to where we were March 2. So when you see the
drastic changes that are happening in the plan, real-time, happening today, happening last
night, happening up until probably 15 minutes before this started, that leaves me with great
concern as a public official, representing 400 property owners, as to what exactly one could be
agreeing to today. A little bit of history on our organization. I am -- I will say, probably put the
most blood, sweat and tears into getting this Business Improvement District formed in this
community. This was something that we worked on really with the premise that we want to
create an organization that was greater than any individual property owner , any individual
person within this district. I, on behalf of Goldman Properties, and my colleagues at the BID
Board, have constantly given up our private property interests, focusing on what's best for the
community. So for me to be here today to try to compromise what I take very seriously, which is
advocating on behalf of the 400-plus property owners, giving those people an opportunity to
discuss the issues in a publicly noticed meeting with appropriate -- in an appropriate forum to
come here today on the last minute to try to kind of accept a new deal that was just proposed to

us, I think is highly irresponsible. And for those of you that are sitting on the dais today, who are
also subject to sunshine in the same requirements, I think you would find the same exact result
that I'm dealing with today, especially, you know, with Commissioner Russell in particular,
who've made it one of his core missions to focus on transparency and process, and this is a
situation that there's just not a whole lot of transparency, so I don't feel comfortable trying to
move this forward today.
Chair Hardemon: Can you explain that? Explain what you mean by "transparency."
Mr. Furst: Sure.
Chair Hardemon: Because I know there's been a lot -- there's been some comments that's been
made. There have been things that have been written in the paper as if there is -- they'll -- they
will compare, for instance, this is a sunshine meeting. I'm due -- I'm under the requirements that
I operate under the sunshine as it regards to these individuals that sit up here with me , so I have
no sunshine requirement with you. You can meet with me personally. You can call me. We can
go have a beer, things of that nature, and talk about this issue. Moreover, I can meet with the
team from Mana to do that same thing. Difference is that with Mana, I have to make a
disclosure, because they're an applicant in this whole thing, that, "Hey, everyone should
understand that I've met with them and we've talked about it,"and which you saw all of the
Commissioners do. So I'm -- I want to understand further when you talk about sunshine that --
or if you will, make it clear that you're not alleging that someone has violated the sunshine laws
that sit here on this board.
Mr. Furst: No. It's actually completely to the contrary. It's me trying to take the same
responsibility that you would take in our process. This is not a publicly noticed meeting for the
Wynwood BID, so typically, our Wynwood BID Board meetings get over 50, 60, 70 people who
want to come and be a participant. So right now, we had been having one-on-one conversations
with the applicant. We appreciate what the applicant's trying to do. We all have been here
before, but I don't feel comfortable in my role as chairman of this board, which is a board of the
City of Miami, allowing something to go forward without an appropriate public conversation of
the Wynwood BID Board so that others can comment on what it is that we may be doing, so that
we can pass an appropriate resolution in the sunshine, so that we can feel comfortable with our
process. I believe, staunchly, that if we do this today, as opposed to deferring this two weeks,
which is all we would ask for -- we already have a BID Board meeting set for next week -- we
are compromising, I think, the strength of our organization, which is why you allow us to have
conversations with applicants before coming to see you, because I believe that you and you and
for the rest of you up here truly value the commitment to the neighborhood that we all possess ,
and doing something like this compromises that to me, and I don't want to be found in a
compromised position where our word and our work is not as valued as it should be for the --
especially for the person who created this thing in the first place, which has created the most
radical and interesting zoning code in the City of Miami, has done countless things for clean and
safe initiatives, and as you probably have noticed over the last six weeks has been on the
forefront of trying to disseminate truthful and honest information regarding Zika . That's
something that we're all doing in our free time, and I know each and every one of you is probably
seeing what we've tried to do in that regard; and we're operating, I think, as great a partner to
the City, and I want to make sure we continue to do that.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Is that all the comments (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? Yeah, I recognize you.

Commissioner Suarez: Look, it's definitely a unique process, because you're talking about two
public boards that are -- have both sunshine requirements, in addition to a private party with
several people, so it's definitely a different dynamic. My issue is -- my concern, to be frank,
because I respect your -- what you said, and I don't want to do anything that diminishes, you
know, what the BID is about, you know. I think the issue is -- and I think what you' re saying is,
this is also a public meeting. I don't know how many of the BID board members are here. I
know you guys are here, but I don't know -- I saw some -- there's a couple more. Is everybody
here or --?
Vice Chair Russell: Is there a quorum?
Commissioner Suarez: Are we missing anybody? I'm sorry?
Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So we have a quorum, technically. I think the issue is, you know,
just utilizing the opportunities to get things done, because of the uniqueness of this situation,
which is that you're talking about two public boards. You know, you have -- you know, I pushed
for a deferral in the last meeting, because we had actually a significant amount of time between
the last meeting and this meeting, because there was a quirk where we had August off, so we had
essentially, you know, six weeks, so I was kind of hoping that we would have some resolution that
we could move on today, you know, and I think there were times where it seemed to me like that
was what we were going to have, and so that's the concern that I have. I do want to vet some of
these details, because I want to make sure that we're not talking past each other. Sometimes we
all have a tendency to do that. I know I sometimes -- you know, it's important, because -- correct
me if I'm wrong and -- you said that -- so I know what's at issue is that on first reading, you were
-- the expectation was that you were going to receive close to $10 million, right? Now it's more
like 2.4, right? So my question is, is there a plan for that gap? Is that what you're proposing
here? Because it seemed like that's what you were saying. I just want to make sure that that's
what you're saying, how are you saying it. Okay, please.
Ms. Escarra: Clear. So one of the things that -- if I can just explain what transpired between
first and -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) their first -- the March 2 and currently, the public benefits, we
have a 44 and a half million dollar public benefit package. I understand the core question is the
public benefits dollars, and it was the trust fund contribution that initially was 9.9 million, as we
discussed with them and agreed to on March 2. Throughout that time, since then, we have had to
take a holistic approach to our project. Our project not only benefits the north, it benefits the
south; it benefits probably even blocks and blocks in each direction. So what we had proposed
currently, today, to bridge that gap, as to answer your question of what you' re asking me for, is
initially and always, we always had the FPL lines included. However, we had it as a range. It
was from 3 million to 25 million, because it was always going to be we either relocated them or
we buried them. We always wanted to bury them, but it's $25 million. That is a lot of money to
bury lines, and it included having to bury lines for other folks to be able for us to bury our lines.
So it's a huge expense. And so in looking at it, this $25 million commitment puts our package at
$69 million in a benefits package, and it -- I'll look it up tonight, but I assure you, this is
probably the SAP with the biggest benefit package, and we're not getting double density; we're
only getting two more million dollars a square feet, so I just want to be clear on that. In
addition, the -- this contribution -- and if we don't do the burying of the lines, let's say something
happens. We all have to deal with FPL. I'm sure FPL is a friend to us all, but we all have to
deal with FPL. And if something happens, we've agreed that the 7.2 million gap, which is the
gap here to here, we would do in public streetscapes, still honoring our commitment to Overtown
for the 7 million --
Commissioner Suarez: Repeat that again.

Ms. Escarra: -- still honoring --
Commissioner Suarez: Time out. Repeat that again, the last part.
Ms. Escarra: Okay. The FPL, if something happens --
Ms. Escarra: -- that in five years, we haven't completed the FPL lines, right --
Commissioner Suarez: Burying them?
Ms. Escarra: -- Burying them, doing the whole project, because we have to do engineering, like
the whole process. So if in five years, we haven't completed that --
Ms. Escarra: -- we are going to be doing streetscape improvement --
Ms. Escarra: -- all this ourself in a value of 7.2 million, which is what the BID was concerned
abou,; was the shortage from the original --
Commissioner Suarez: In your property or outside of your property?
Ms. Escarra: Outside of our property.
Ms. Escarra: In our property, we have $30 million worth of improvements because we're so
large. This is outside and above and beyond our property, and I'm happy to read into the record
proposed language which would satisfy and make it clear those two conditions that would be
added to our Development Agreement.
Chair Hardemon: So particularly, then, can you explain -- well, when you speak in the language
-- because, I mean, I read the different agreements, and in the agreements it does not make
mention that the NRD trust fund contribution is $9.98 million, right? It makes this -- it makes a
statement in reference to a rate; that the BID gets a certain amount of dollars contributed to the
trust fund in a rate.
Ms. Escarra: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: And so -- because -- I'm saying that to you because everyone wants to
understand, why is the number at the end different? And even in the BID -- say, in the BID's
resolution, does it make mention to the 9.968 number, or does it make mention to the rate?
Ms. Escarra: It makes mention of the rate to be charged for bonus FLR. And the $9.9 million
came because we provided them with a square footage that that factor would be multiplied
against.
Chair Hardemon: But that square footage was at the time of the NRD, so -- the reason I'm
saying this, because I want it to be clear. When the BID made an agreement with you all --
because this was -- I want to be very clear to the BID, as well, and I've said this to many of you
personally, and I've said it to Mana. Do not change or alter your agreement with Mana -- I'm

sorry, with the BID, because I knew doing that, of course, would --
Commissioner Suarez: Create this problem.
Chair Hardemon: -- come about -- Yeah, a whole lot of different problems. And so there's a
difference in -- there's a small difference in the height that the BID initially would have
approved, say, for instance, on the west side; even on the east side as well, but on the west side.
You go from -- I believe it's -- off the top -- I can't -- 22 or --
Ms. Escarra: 8/12/16.
Chair Hardemon: -- but the -- with bonus. You go from --
Ms. Escarra: On the win -- on the bonus on the west is 21 to 24 stories --
Ms. Escarra: -- to the bonus -- for the Wynwood NRD, and from 9 to 20 is to the Southeast
Overtown/Park West CRA.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So, basically, the way it was all -- to put it in laymen's terminology the
best that I can, the BID agreed to an increase in the height. The difference is, you're dealing
with an SAP versus an NRD. And because you're dealing with that difference and the language
that was written for the BID -- because the NRD would have had a different bonus structure that
would have given them more --
Commissioner Carollo: Multiplier.
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, a different multiplier, basically. -- you would have more floors in which
to apply the bonus to, and here you have less floors to apply the bonus to, but -- and
accommodations, for instance, were made where on the eastern portion, they would receive some
contributions sooner than they would on the western portion to try to make up for some of these
dollars, but in the end -- so that -- I think, principally, that' s why you have one group saying,
"Look, we didn't violate the agreement." And you have another group saying, "You don't have the
same amount, so you must have violated it." I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Mr. Furst: Can I add a clarification?
Chair Hardemon: Yeah, sure.
Mr. Furst: So the definition -- the rate in the March 2 agreement and in the legislation that's
before you for contributions to the Wynwood Public Benefits Trust Fund didn't change. It was $4
then, and it's $4 now per square foot within the bonus floors. However, the definition of the
bonus floors, i.e., the floors which were defined as being responsible for providing these
Wynwood Public Benefits Trust Fund shrank by a factor of three.
Chair Hardemon: But there -- and there was not a definition, though, in the agreement. I want
to be -- there is -- is there a definition in the Mana -- I'm sorry, in the -- well, yeah -- BID/Mana
agreement of bonus? Like in the actual one, the resolution that they drafted -- that the BID
drafted, and then also in the agreement that you all had together, is there a change in the
definition of bonus, or does it not make --?
Ms. Escarra: No. What was -- no. The bonus floors are still the bonus floors, which is a
concept in the NRD and Miami 21 and in the SAP. What changed were the number of floors.

Mr. Furst: That's correct. That's correct. So that was a change in the -- not in the resolution, or
not in the language in the resolution, but in the documents that were governing. So it was --
Chair Hardemon: So here --
Mr. Furst: That's it. Yeah.
Chair Hardemon: -- I'm saying that to say, there lies the difference in the amount, and I'm not
trying to get anyone to come --
Mr. Furst: Yes. Understood.
Chair Hardemon: -- to a different conclusion about the amount, but that is the difference in what
you hear when people say, "Okay, there is a” -- “one has violated the agreement and one has
not.”
Commissioner Suarez: I don't get it.
Chair Hardemon: Ah, you know you get it.
Commissioner Suarez: I don't get it. I don't get it. I don't under -- I --
Vice Chair Russell: Okay, go for it.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm pretty good at (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Furst: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) technical way. David, jump in if I say anything wrong. The
actual floors that were counted towards the public benefits, there was one set of floors, and it
was $4 per square foot of each of those floors.
Commissioner Suarez: Right. That, I get.
Mr. Furst: That's what we had agreed to in the first round.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, I'm with you.
Mr. Furst: After that, there was a series of floors that counted towards the Wynwood Business
Improvement District public benefits, and then a series of floors that then counted to the
Overtown/CRA.
Commissioner Suarez: Right. That had to have changed.
Mr. Furst: So that changed, yeah.
Chair Hardemon: But it changes because we're going from NRD to SAP.
Mr. Furst: No, it changed -- this was all based on the SAP.
Mr. Furst: We were calculating our math on the total set of floors, because that was the FLR, the
additional floors that were allowed under the agreement; and then after the Overtown, which
we're fully in support of, was the recipient of funds, some of the floors that we were calculating
on vanished to --

Commissioner Suarez: That makes sense.
Mr. Furst: -- Overtown's benefit, which is fine. We're not -- we don't have an issue with that.
But what that did to us is it cut our proceeds drastically and kept the total gross amount that the
Mana team had to pay the same. So our very easy comeback to that was, okay, keep our
proceeds where they were; the additional 7 million -- the 7 million that now is going towards
Overtown, just tack that onto the 10 million that we already agreed to, and we're back to where
we wanted to be. That's the issue that's at hand.
Commissioner Suarez: All right.
Ms. Escarra: And if I can just add one point of clarification. All he said was correct, except that
we also went into the as-of-right floors. So when we created this second layer of bonus structure,
the floors that we would not have had to pay for now we're paying for, and some of the bonus
floors we also added into that, so --
Commissioner Suarez: You can do that in an SAP.
Ms. Escarra: In an SAP we can do that, not in Miami 21. So it was almost a compromise of
both some of our as-of-rights, some of our bonus, in order to make sure all our neighborhoods
were taken care of.
Bernard Zyscovich: Let me try to frame up from a different point of view where I think we are.
Chair Hardemon: Can you identify yourself for the record, please?
Mr. Zyscovich: I will. I'm Bernard Zyscovich, architect. I've been doing the urban design.
We've been working with the Wynwood BID for two years now. We actually wanted to come to
the board nine months ago. We've been continually working more and more details; if you have
the patience, we can take you through it. This has been a very long process. But today we had, I
think, the third agreement in the last 24 hours of where we left the BID meeting yesterday; we
had a resolution from them approving the west to be -- to move forward. This morning it
changed to become something else. Fortunately, we had a very good idea from Commissioner
Russell. And here's why I think this not only deals with what we have according to the BID
promised them in the first place, but it exceeds it, and that's why I think it's very important for us
to be able to move forward with this SAP; because we have, in our point of view, been delayed
for a very long time. There's a dispute of $7 million; you've heard that from many people. It
might not be the lawyerly way of describing it, but in terms of gross dollars, there was a
reallocation of money. That reallocation of money was $7 million, with a very good idea of
saying, "Why don't you guys just ante up and commit to doing underground electrical work, which
will cost significantly more than the $7 million?" We said this morning -- and we've had meetings,
and we agreed actually to say, “Okay, we're going to do that. We're going to commit to that.”
The next logical question is, “What if you don't do it?” We said, “Okay, here's the answer.
There will be $7 million worth of improvements” -- “if we are unsuccessful at getting the
underground, there will be $7 million worth of improvements that we're committing to make
outside of our SAP area.” And the reason that's better than the bonus is because when you set
up a structure for bonus, there is no guarantee that you're going to get the money. It all depends
if we build the buildings, 24 stories. It depends on how many square feet we build. This is a
maximum SAP of the additional two and a half million square feet. There is no guarantee that
we're going to build all those square feet, and there is no guarantee that anyone receives that
bonus money, because the bonus money is only if we build it. This proposal now is we're going
to spend more than the $7 million. We're going to put in the underground park -- the
underground electrical. We're going to have agreed to immediately engage FPL's engineers in
doing it, and if we're not completed in five years, we've agreed to pay $7 million worth of
improvements, not bonus money, but real $7 million worth of improvements that will happen. So

there's actually more of a guarantee that the money will be received than under the bonus
agreement. We initiated all of these conversations because, frankly, notwithstanding all of the
positive things that have been said and all of the desires that we have to work with each other , it
has frankly not been that easy, and we have been at it for a very long time. And we have people
that are interested in investing in the project that we cannot, in good faith, go to and answer a
very simple question: “Do you have the entitlements to do this project?” So when we spoke
with the BID Board yesterday, we said, “Listen, we're willing to even give up the east for now.
Let's defer it for later on. You're fine with the west. We need it to be approved at this
Commission meeting, because we have many things that are already scheduled that we need to
do for business reasons.” This is a very important project. This project is not a project done for
Wynwood BID. This project -- and all of you know about it -- is a project that's going to be
transformational for the entire City. We're talking about significant amount of jobs, tremendous
amount of money coming into the City, and we're being held up basically because of this inability
to finally get an approval to move forward with a very progressive and a very big vision, and
we've gone out of our way over and over again. And we've agreed, notwithstanding what the
paper says, “that we've changed our mind,” but that we don't believe that either side is capable
at this point of saying, with certainty, that we can make a deal, because we've made three deals
in the last 24 hours. So what we've come back to is a very simple proposition. It's exactly all the
documents that's been in your hands for the last six weeks; we're not changing anything. All of
the agreements, except for the $7 million, have been agreed to; and what we're putting up is,
we'll put it underground; we'll go ahead and guarantee the $7 million will be paid back into the
BID if we fail; and therefore, we don't believe there's any gap, and therefore, we don't believe
there's any reason to spend more time analyzing and discussing when what we really need is to
simply move forward and have our approval.
Commissioner Suarez: Thank you. Certainly, my preference would have been that we would
have had -- that we'd have some sort of an agreement, you know, that both parties had agreed to
prior to this, and I think that was what was nice about first reading, certainly. So my question is
this -- and I don't know if the BID board members are willing to entertain any discussion
because, as they've said, it's outside of their normal process, and I don't -- you know, it is what it
is. We can discuss it. But I have a question, because -- first of all, it's like 7.5. It's not 7. Let's
not shortchange them half a million dollars. So it's 7.5 and --
Ms. Escarra: 7.2.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, 7.2. So my question is -- you're saying that if you don't build --
because the range is $17 million, the discrepancy between what you could have done and what
you might have done; correct, on the undergrounding versus not undergrounding?
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So you're saying as -- you're committing to underground, which

could, theoretically, put you at the larger end of that spectrum, right? But if you don't do that,
you're saying you're going to do 7.2 roughly, approximately of streetscapes.
Commissioner Suarez: Right? So my question to the BID Board is, what if -- and to you, I
guess, too, and we wouldn't normally negotiate this in this fashion, certainly, but what if the 7.2
were instead of streetscapes just a cash contribution, like it seemed like this was going to be?
Ms. Escarra: Well, we wanted to make sure that it's allocated to specific items, streetscape
improvements. We're happy, if it goes to like a Transportation Trust Fund --

Commissioner Suarez: But what's the difference? I mean, it's up -- you're going to spend 7.2
million. Whether you spend it on streetscapes or whether you give it to them directly and let
them spend it -- I mean --
Ms. Escarra: If we give it to them directly, they have a whole list of items in the Code that's
codified that they can spend the money on.
Commissioner Suarez: Exactly.
Ms. Escarra: Apart -- exactly. We want to make sure that it goes to that. We want to
participate. We included language that had the Planning director also participating in the
streetscape so that the City, the BID, and us would be participating in these streetscape
improvements. It wouldn't just be an outright cash payment, and I could read that language to
you, if you'd like, and I can put it on the record as I proposed it. It says, "In the event that the
powerline work is not completed within the five years, the developer agrees to contribute to the
Transportation Trust Fund for transportation, streetscape, infrastructure improvements, outside
the SAP area, in the amount of 7.2 million, which shall be approved by the Planning & Zoning
Director, the developer, and the Wynwood Business Improvement District."
Albert Garcia: Can I just interject for a moment, Commissioner, with all due respect?
Mr. Garcia: Albert Garcia, vice chairman of the board of directors of the Wynwood BID. Just
picking up on that last comment -- Iris, don't walk away, because I have a question for you. And
in the spirit of transparency, which is why we're all here today --
Ms. Escarra: Yes.
Mr. Garcia: -- I think you'll appreciate this question. What you just answered to Commissioner
Suarez, that plan that you just read --
Ms. Escarra: Right.
Mr. Garcia: -- when was that presented to the Wynwood BID board of directors?
Ms. Escarra: The Wynwood BID board directors?
Mr. Garcia: Yes. When was that presented --
Ms. Escarra: Earlier today.
Mr. Garcia: -- to the Wynwood BID at their regularly scheduled board meeting?
Ms. Escarra: No, I never presented it to the BID Board. That was something that we discussed
today.
Mr. Garcia: Right. So who exactly -- so can you explain how -- when that came up exactly, and
how you've relayed that information to today?
Chair Hardemon: I want to -- wait. Before we go.
Mr. Garcia: Because here's my point --
Chair Hardemon: Wait, wait. No, no, no.

Mr. Garcia: And I --
Chair Hardemon: Listen (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Garcia: Okay, go ahead.
Chair Hardemon: I try to avoid people talking across each other like that --
Mr. Garcia: Cross talk.
Chair Hardemon: -- so direct it -- the question to me.
Mr. Garcia: I apologize. I will do that.
Chair Hardemon: It's just a little bit more --
Mr. Garcia: Civil.
Chair Hardemon: -- well, less -- there we go.
Mr. Garcia: Duly noted. So before I continue then, there's been a question about these
resolutions. My colleague, Joe Furst, appeared before you during the public comments portion
of the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items and held up four different resolutions, and he commented
today before you earlier saying, “I don't know which one of these resolutions is going to apply,
because quite frankly, I don't know which version of the plan you're going to be presented with.”
So let me add some light is to that. I'm going to introduce into the record the resolutions that
were passed at yesterday's Wynwood BID Board meeting. I'm going to hand them in to the Clerk,
and then I'll summarize them for all of you, as they're circulated.
Ms. Escarra: Could I answer his question in the interim on when this came up today?
Ms. Escarra: So earlier today, luckily, because Mr. Polinsky is honestly the biggest trooper in
reading all our documents, we met with him and started coming up with some potential ideas
when we understood that the bifurcation of the west zone didn't occur. We also discussed it
yesterday afternoon with regards to the FPL lines; however, we did not discuss what would be
the penalty if something didn't happen with the FPL. That actually happened earlier this
morning. We can't meet with all of them, so we had to meet individually with Mr. Polinsky alone,
discuss this as a potential solution; and then, individually, we spoke to the other members of the
board, because they couldn't meet. So we did almost like a discussion item, but like individually
with each one of them. So it was earlier today.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. So I think the proffer of the 7.2 is a good thing, because it gets
closer to making you whole, which is what I think is the objective, obviously. Clearly, there is a
lack of trust between the two parties. I mean, I'm being honest, because, you know, if there was
complete trust, we would not necessarily be in this predicament, right? There's also procedural
complications in terms of constantly going back and forth. I think, on your end, you have a
tremendous impetus to want to get this done. On their end, they want to be made whole, and I
think that's -- So the question is, to me, if you're talking about 7.2 at the end of five years, which

would make them whole, if you're not able to do the undergrounding, okay?
Commissioner Suarez: And what's at issue here is whether you have a stake at in how that
money gets spent or not. I mean, I think -- you know, I mean, that may be something worth
budging on simply to -- let me finish. That may be something worth budging on because it gives
them the discretion on those funds -- it gives them the discretion on those funds. They've proven
themselves to be very good custodians of their properties and of Wynwood, because they created
it. So I trust -- I personally trust them to spend that 7.2 million in the best fashion possible, and
in a way that will benefit you, by the way.
Ms. Escarra: I actually suggested to put it into the Transportation Trust Fund , which I think they
have a Transportation Trust Fund. You have two funds: One is a public benefit one, and one is --
I'm sorry. It's called “parking.” Sorry. It's a Parking Trust Fund, which allows, though, for
streetscapes. So that's the one that I suggested that we put it in, and that we work together on
the streetscape improvements -- not only us, but the Planning Department -- to make sure that
the improvements that are done --
Commissioner Suarez: But honestly -- I get it. But honestly, like -- let's say that there's
something outside of that, right? I mean, what they're going to do with that 7.2 million -- I
mean, is there really a fear that they're -- what they're going to do is not in the best interest of
themselves and of your project, whatever that is --
Ms. Escarra: No, no.
Commissioner Suarez: -- hatever they're statutorily allowed to do?
Ms. Escarra: No, no, it's not that. It's that that is almost equivalent to what we were doing with
the FPL lines. By doing the FPL lines, we're literally burying the lines and redoing all the
streets, right? Because when you go in and you have to dig, you have to leave the sidewalks and
everything new, so that's part of the cost, so the streetscape was an equivalent action without
burying the lines.
Commissioner Suarez: Understood. And I can understand why also they would want some
backend protection, if you will, that if you're not able to do it in five years that something has to
happen.
Commissioner Suarez: Because --
Ms. Escarra: And we agreed. That was fine.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So we're in a very fine point here --
Commissioner Suarez: -- which is, you know, whether that 7.2 will be in some sort of an in-kind
fashion, you know, or whether it can be --
Ms. Escarra: It is an in-kind fashion.
Commissioner Suarez: Well, it's being proposed as an in-kind fashion.

Ms. Escarra: And it's actually Mr. Mana's in-kind fashion.
Commissioner Suarez: Right. But my point is, if he's going to have to spend 7.2 anyways, right,
whether he spends it on streetscapes, or whether he gives it to them and they spend it on -- as
they see fit, right, it's not going to be significantly different from -- I mean, it's going to be done
in a way to enrich the Wynwood BID, which would inure to your benefit. I mean, do you doubt
that? Does anybody doubt that?
Ms. Escarra: It's not that I doubt that. It's -- you know, when we discussed this item, one of the
important issues was -- is that it was really going for streets, and as basic as that sounds, it's --
that's how the discussion was, is that it really had to go to benefit that particular item. It -- like
with that -- if we put it into the trust fund -- into the trans -- into the Parking Trust Fund, it could
go to a garage --
Commissioner Suarez: But let me ask you this question.
Ms. Escarra: -- and not fix the streets.
Commissioner Suarez: But let's -- let me ask -- let's -- because we're -- again, we're having this
debate -- I guess, this is probably the best way to do it anyways, because it's all in the open. So
my question is, if they came up one by one, all four of them, and said, "Look, we're good with that."
The deal is done, we pass this, and we're done. You guys get what you want. You get your SAP.
It's done. They get what they want in the form of a backside protection for a failure potentially --
and by the way, maybe things that are out of your control, because Mayor Lerner will be say that
FPL is not the easiest person necessarily to do something like this with. So there may be things
that are out of your control that don't allow you to do it within that five years.
Ms. Escarra: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: So the question is at that point, you know, you are -- instead of proffering
$7.2 million of streetscapes, you're proffering $7.2 million of dollars?
Ms. Escarra: I can't -- I don't have the authority to do that, and it's because it was very specific
discussion with Mr. Mana, and he was okay doing it for streetscapes, and improving the streets
outside the SAP; because the way he saw, it was either do the lines, which I do the streets
anyways or do the streets, so I couldn't confirm that we could just give a donation or a
contribution of 72 -- 7.2 outright with no allocation as to where those monies were going to go,
because they're supposed to go to what was -- streetscape, infrastructure, and I forget the third
item.
Commissioner Suarez: What other statutory things can they do --?
Mr. Zyscovich: Unless I'm missing something, Mr. Commissioner, the 7.2 goes to a fund. The
fund is administered by the BID. The requirement is that we have a joint agreement as to what
that money would be spent for, so, in essence, it's exactly what you're asking for.
Mr. Zyscovich: But we have asked Mr. Mana about cash contributions, and we do not have the
authority to do that. He does not want to give a cash contribution. He wants the money to be
spent on items that happen within the Wynwood BID or on his own property. And even when we
were negotiating things that we might do for the Overtown community, his preference was to
start a new school of his own as a commitment rather than pay into a fund. His mental makeup
and his attitude is, “I don't mind spending the money. I want to know what the money is for, and
I want to see the result of the money. I don't want to just give somebody a check.”

Chair Hardemon: Vice Chairman.
Mr. Zyscovich: And that is --
Mr. Garcia: Thank you.
Mr. Zyscovich: -- we've had this discussion specifically and directly, and we do not have the
authority to simply give a cash do nation.
Vice Chair Russell: I just want to clarify to make sure we haven't stumbled onto something; that
we're understanding correctly. Let's say, for example, hypothetically, you get 60, 70 percent
done of the undergrounding by the time limit comes up, so you didn't complete the task. Would
they -- would you consider that the streets that you've already repaved in the 60 percent you
completed would go towards that 7.2 --?
Commissioner Suarez: No, because it's outside. It's outside.
Vice Chair Russell: No, no, no. Because part of the undergrounding is outside the SAP as well.
So they're doing streetscape improvements as they go along; and then they don't actually meet
the deadline, would those improvements count toward the 7.2 in improvements? Was that the
intention?
Ms. Escarra: No.
Commissioner Suarez: No
Mr. Zyscovich: It's not just streetscape. The way we understand the fund to work, it could be
infrastructure, it could be transportation, it could be streetscape; it could be many things that
that fund is set up for.
Vice Chair Russell: Where was the original money going to go, the original agreement with the
Wynwood BID?
Ms. Escarra: The original 9.9?
Ms. Escarra: That was going into the standard Wynwood Benefit Transportation Trust Fund ,
which has --
Mr. Garcia: That's not accurate.
Ms. Escarra: I'm sorry, sorry. Wynwood Public Benefit Fund. Sorry, all the funds. Public
Benefit Fund, which goes -- that the BID allocates, as well as 35 percent goes to affordable
housing, the original fund.
Mr. Garcia: And just to --
Vice Chair Russell: Why would it just go in there?
Vice Chair Russell: Because that was the original agreement, actually. So you had approval to
do that at that time.

Ms. Escarra: Correct. Okay, we'll put it into the Benefits Trust Fund.
Unidentified Speaker: Okay, 35 percent comes back in affordable housing.
Ms. Escarra: Right, because what -- part of our deal with the public benefits is that the 35
percent that goes for affordable housing fund, we're building the affordable housing fund, so it
would be an allocation of 70 percent instead of the whole.
Mr. Lago: We would obviously prefer to give it in the improvement, but --
Ms. Escarra: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: Yeah. Can we --
Chair Hardemon: You can add a brief comment, but that's one of those --
Mr. Garcia: Yeah. I mean, I've been patient. I haven't interrupted.
Chair Hardemon: Listen, listen. No, no, no.
Unidentified Speaker: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) words.
Chair Hardemon: That's the --
Unidentified Speaker: No debate.
Chair Hardemon: There's a saying that we've said many times here.
Unidentified Speaker: Visual demonstration of our negotiation.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. We call it --
Commissioner Suarez: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) now. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: -- snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory, but you are allowed to speak.
Mr. Garcia: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I think in the spirit of everything that we've been
discussing today -- and I know that Commissioner Suarez, you eluded to this distrust between the
parties, I beg to differ with that. We've been working for the last 14 months, and I reasonably
believe both parties have genuinely been coming together to work through this honestly. I think
this impasse obviously kind of came to a head yesterday, because as of yesterday, we had a
totally different plan that they had indicated their support of, and we even passed a resolution of
support, which I think you may have a copy of now, speaking to a bifurcated plan, which is now
what we've been talking about for the last hour. So just to illustrate, I think it's disturbing that
Mr. Mana himself isn't present here on a $220 million decision --
Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Garcia: -- and that's been part of the frustration, because with all due respect to the teams
across from me, they, in good faith, negotiate with us, then they run back to Mr. Mana; tell them
what they agreed to with the BID, and then apparently he says, you know, that may not work. So
that's the frustration for us. That's why there are so many variations of the plan. We've been
consistent since March 2.

Chair Hardemon: May I interrupt you for one second?
Mr. Garcia: And just to (UNINTELLIGIBLE) frustration.
Chair Hardemon: When you (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- when you want an agreement -- I

understand you have a frustration. But when you want an agreement, the worst thing you want
to do is insult the person that has the authority to make the agreement, right? There's been a lot
of different people that have representatives speak on their behalf. The one that we most know
famously is Mr. Braman, and that was the time that I walked out because he wouldn't give these
kids internships, and so that was just a jarring moment for me, but I say that to say that many
times, just like in court, you have someone that speaks on your behalf because they're just so
much more eloquent than what you can be as someone who's hired them to do so. That's why
you hire people to speak on your behalf. And so right now, without regard to those statements,
what I'm hearing is that there may be an agreement where the $7.2 million that was in question
will be deposited into --
Mr. Garcia: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) account.
Chair Hardemon: -- a Public Benefits --
Mr. Garcia: Trust fund.
Chair Hardemon: -- Trust Fund as it was before. Is that something that you as an individual are
okay with?
Mr. Garcia: Sure. I think going back to the original resolution of March 2, which you -- was
also entered into the public record at first reading, if they honor that commitment, which
captures the essence of that contribution to that particular destination as an account , then, in
our opinion, assuming all the other items that are a part of that same resolution reflect in the
language, which, by the way, as of right now, currently, there's still some minutia that has to be
flushed through, as Iris acknowledged moments ago -- the spirit and the concept is there. There
still needs to be some fine-tuning that the staff will have to work through after assuming this gets
passed today to ensure that all of those points are in alignment. So I would love to hear from Iris
to acknowledge to this Commission that they have every intention of making sure that if this
Commission passes this resolution with these dollars allocated to the Wynwood Public Benefits
Trust Fund, all the other conditions that they've already today and before first reading
acknowledged would be reflective in the final set of language that continues to be refined before
it's actually formally implemented.
Unidentified Speaker: I believe that's where we are.
Commissioner Suarez: And can I --
Commissioner Suarez: -- re-characterize this, because I think it's down to a very simple
situation. I want to -- I'm going to try to be Joe on this side of the Commission for a second,
which is they agree -- right? -- to underline the FPL lines, okay? Instead of range, they agree to
do it. If it's not done in five years, they agree to make the 7.2, the differential contribution to the
Public Benefits Trust Fund, period. That's it.
Vice Chair Russell: Clarification on the lines, please. We discussed last night undergrounding
from I-95 to Miramar Substation. Is that what we are talking about?
Ms. Escarra: I'm sorry?

Vice Chair Russell: That is what was discussed last night?
Unidentified Speaker: These are two different options.
Ms. Escarra: I'm going to let --
Vice Chair Russell: Just want to make sure we're all on the same page.
Ms. Escarra: I want to let Dylan Finger answer that.
Vice Chair Russell: Because that was my understanding. And I did say that about 40 minutes
ago, and Iris did say, "Yes."
Mr. Garcia: And my understanding as well on behalf of the BID, for the record.
Dylan Finger: Dylan Finger, address 45 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida. I'm the managing
director for Mana Miami. And, you know, we had met yesterday, and we had gone through the
different options on these lines. Today, because we looked into it a little bit further to really
understand what FPL was proposing to us; and it's pretty clear that, you know, going for the
options -- there is three options. The one option which takes 240 volt lines, which are the main
lines running through our property, will bury them from Northwest 6th Avenue to Northwest 2nd
Avenue, and I can come up there and show you on the map, if you like.
Vice Chair Russell: So basically, I-95, correct?
Mr. Garcia: Yeah. So half-way through the district versus the entirety of the district.
Mr. Finger: All right. So I'm going to give you the actual structure numbers.
Vice Chair Russell: What you said to me last night is, "We won't be able to get to North Miami
Avenue all the way, but we'll get to the substation."
Mr. Finger: Well, there's an option -- there's one option that can get to the substation. I just
want to walk you through this, okay? If you look on the -- if you guys have the diagram in front
of you, so if you look at -- on the 95 where the red line is, there's a structure 306A15, okay.
Mr. Finger: From there it could be buried -- if you follow the red line all the way to Northwest
2nd Avenue to structure 307A5, that 240 volt line will be buried there, and that is an estimated
cost by FPL of $10 million just for that one piece. The other, if you look at the -- where the
yellow line is -- where the orange line, you'll see a structure about a quarter of a mile in where
Northwest 5th Avenue in, the south side of Northwest 5th Avenue, there's a structure called 2188
-- 218A16, okay. The -- that line going north will be buried to connect with the -- where the
underground 240 volt line is, which is where the red one is, and they'll be buried together going
to that structure 307A5, so they'll all run together underline over there. So that -- for that option
of burying that 138 volt line, that's seven and a half million dollars, so that puts the total under
that option at 17.5 million. From the structure 307A5, the plan with FPL was proposing was to
then go back up onto the poles and route both lines along Northwest 2nd Avenue, and then going
west -- east -- sorry -- going east towards Edgewater, the 240 volt lines would continue.
Vice Chair Russell: Above ground.
Mr. Finger: And the 138 volt lines would then go south where the existing lines are back to the

Miramar Substation.
Vice Chair Russell: Above ground?
Mr. Finger: Above ground.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay. In that piece.
Mr. Finger: I don't get to the third option, okay. So what that essentially does under this option
-- and we'll get to the third option -- it eliminates all the poles and the lines of the 138 volt line
that go from Northwest 22nd Avenue -- sorry -- Northwest 21st Avenue, which is the -- where
structure 218A16 is, all the way up 5th Avenue; all those (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Northwest 5th
Avenue, okay. All the poles that you currently see there today will be gone.
Vice Chair Russell: All the yellow line that --
Mr. Finger: Correct.
Vice Chair Russell: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) above will all be gone?
Mr. Finger: Yes. And the line that runs from Northwest 5th Avenue all the way along Northwest
25th Street to north -- I think it's northeast -- Northwest 1st Avenue back down to Northwest 23rd
Street -- 24th Street; that whole loop will be gone, so that's the benefit, and that's a huge benefit
to the community, because they're an eyesore right now, and kind of looks like spaghetti right
now. The third option, which is the one that will take it to the Miramar Power Station, or at least
part of the lines, the red line that I indicated before is what it is. The third option is where the
138 volt lines are if you look on -- where structure 218A16 is at the south end of Northwest 5th
Avenue would be to bury it on the south end, which will be Northwest -- I think it's Northwest
21st Street, where there's a orange dotted line right now, where it says “proposed overhead.” It
would bury it in the street, in the City right-of-ways [sic], and basically make the way to the
substation by putting that line underground, and that --
Vice Chair Russell: Instead of -- I'm sorry, I didn't follow that last one. So by doing that in --
but also doing the red line --
Mr. Finger: No. The red line is what it is. It doesn't change. It's the $10 million line that would
put the high-powered transmission lines underground to Northwest 2nd Avenue. The third
option, which I'm talking about, takes it from the south end -- the 138 volt line, which is the
orange line, from 200 -- from the south part of Northwest 5th Avenue from structure 218A16 all
the way along the backside. You'll see there's an orange dotted line. It will be taken in the city
street to the Miramar Substation, and that is $15 million to bury that piece.
Vice Chair Russell: The Miramar Substation is not in the picture, is it?
Mr. Finger: Yes, it is.
Vice Chair Russell: It is. Which one is it?
Mr. Finger: Yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: Which one is it?
Mr. Finger: I can come show you.
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): I'm sorry, sir. If you want to speak, can you just speak in

the microphone?
Mr. Finger: Sorry. It would basically take it along the orange dotted line here, and then to the
substation, and that piece cost $15 million.
Vice Chair Russell: To underground that by itself.
Mr. Finger: Correct, by itself.
Vice Chair Russell: But if I understood correctly, once you underground here, you could tie them
together, and that eliminates the need to underground here, right --
Mr. Finer: Well --
Vice Chair Russell: -- as one option?
Mr. Finger: -- we would -- the second option would be to underground it from this structure
here, which is 218A16, at Northwest 5th Avenue, and then put them both underground from --
this would join underground of the 240 volt and run to there, and then they would both come
above ground; they would both follow the poles along here, and then this one would break off
there and go back to the substation, and this would all be eliminated.
Chair Hardemon: So --
Commissioner Carollo: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) cost?
Mr. Finger: Second option is seven and a half million, so it would be --
Unidentified Speaker: Seventeen (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Finger: Seventeen, correct.
Chair Hardemon: So we know --
Chair Hardemon: -- that there are a number of different ways that you can underground this
thing, and we have agreed that there will be undergrounding. Now, which pole is a matter, I
think, for later discussion, but --
Unidentified Speaker: Engineers.
Chair Hardemon: Right, for engineers, et cetera. So what I want to get to is the agreement at
hand. It sounds like we have an agreement, and so what I would love to entertain is a motion to
pass this with the arrangements that were decided upon today.
Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and second. Is there further discussion?
Chair Hardemon: Yes. Commissioner Gort.

Commissioner Gort: Question I want to have. You also going west all the way to 7th Avenue,
Northwest 7th Avenue, according to the map that you got here?
Mr. Finger: No. It would jump -- the poles would basic -- they jump 95 right now, those
transmission lines.
Mr. Finger: So we would start our burials on Northwest 6th --
Commissioner Gort: 6th Avenue.
Mr. Finger: -- on the 240 volt line, which is the red line.
Mr. Finger: And the -- I mean, the -- and the 138 line would start -- what's being proposed by
FPL -- and we've made -- you know, changed it to make it more efficient -- would be -- they
proposing that it start at the bottom side of -- the south side of Northwest 5th Avenue.
Commissioner Gort: Okay, thank you.
Chair Hardemon: All right. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Mr. Chairman.
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair, the only reason I feel it's important to specify the lines is because
that's very contingent on whether or not they've met their agreement at the end of five years. And
if after this meeting, after we approve, that undergrounding plan can change in scope, then it's
hard for the Wynwood BID to tract whether the goal was met or not.
Chair Hardemon: Well, if they bury the lines -- my personal belief, if they bury the lines, either
of these options that are selected, they've met their duty in that sense. And the contribution now
is not going towards public street improvements; it's a contribution directly into the Wynwood
BID Trust Fund. I'm sorry if I butchered that one a little bit, but -- so I'm saying to you all, I
don't expect there to be some huge disagreement about whether or not there was a public benefit
when you buried lines and it amounts to 10 to $15 million, or whatever it would amount to. And
so that's why I'm just asking to move forward through all of this. I don't think we should get
wrapped around the axle about which line should be buried today.
Vice Chair Russell: The only logic with it, and why I proposed it, because I felt it was a mutual
benefit to the Wynwood BID, as well as their own project. If the majority of the burying only
happens on their project, the Wynwood BID doesn't experience the benefit that I was hoping to
fill in that gap. It seems like it within these options, and that's why I was really just trying to
understand to make sure that there's gray area, that we're all on the same page as we move
forward, even though there are a couple options here. Why could the 240 line not be buried all
the way to Miramar?
Mr. Finger: 240 line can't be buried all the way because it doesn't actually -- Miramar's not its
substation. It's the substation for the 138 line.
Vice Chair Russell: It keeps going east.

Mr. Finger: It keeps going east.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Carollo.
Commissioner Carollo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to take into consideration the
value of money due to the passage of time, in order to maximize the benefits, the public benefits
to the City.
Chair Hardemon: Oh, yeah.
Commissioner Carollo: So -- and listen, it's a concept that is not usually used in government. I
had a hard time in the last SAP because the developers, point blank, told me, "Commissioner, we
never do this. This has never been done."What I was able to do it in that SAP -- and I think we
need to include it in this one -- and that is a CPA limited to --
Chair Hardemon: CPI.
Commissioner Carollo: A CPI, I'm sorry. -- a CPI -- from a CPA; I'm sorry -- a CPI limited to 3
percent per year, to be compounded annually until all public benefits is either paid and/or
provided. And in other words, you have there $44 million, up to $69 million, but that's in today's
dollars --
Commissioner Carollo: -- you know. That's not all going to be paid into or provided today. It
depends which phases you're in; that's when you're going to be provided. Well, that passage of
time, you know, goes to the value of money. So I want to make sure that we incorporate as a
CPI, you know, to make sure that what is promised now is also promised in the future at the same
value of money in today's value.
Mr. Zyscovich: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) can I answer that?
Mr. Zyscovich: I think that we need to make a distinction between the dollars that would apply
to bonus money versus the dollars --
Commissioner Carollo: You (UNINTELLIGIBLE) -- yes.
Mr. Zyscovich: -- that apply to construction, because if we were to agree to the CPI increase to
all of the public benefits related to construction --
Mr. Zyscovich: Okay. So as long as it's strictly related to a payment for bonus dollars, we
agree. But if it's related to the requirement to construct, then that would be a penalty on top of
the cost of construction increase.

Commissioner Carollo: Do you all understand that?
Chair Hardemon: No. We -- I understand. I think the mover and the seconder --
Commissioner Carollo: You okay with that?
Chair Hardemon: -- agree and understand.
Commissioner Carollo: But you're okay with it?
Commissioner Carollo: You understand where we're going?
Commissioner Suarez: Not to be the economist in the room, but CPI can be negative, so why
don't we say the CPI floor is zero? In other words, you can have deflation. Yeah.
Mr. Zyscovich: We're willing --
Chair Hardemon: I mean, but --
Mr. Zyscovich: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that's a bonus dollar amount be the floor.
Commissioner Suarez: No. What I'm saying is that -- that's fine. That works.
Mr. Zyscovich: Yeah. It's a minimum of the --
Chair Hardemon: So the statement was the --
Chair Hardemon: -- the statement was that -- just so everyone heard on the record -- that the
minimum contribution guarantee is the floor --
Commissioner Suarez: Got it.
Chair Hardemon: -- so that there's no negative. There's --
Unidentified Speaker: Correct.
Mr. Zyscovich: That's fine.
Commissioner Carollo: And maximum of 3 percent.
Chair Hardemon: So the mover and the seconder agree to that, correct?
Vice Chair Russell: Yes, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. The current motion on the floor is to approve PZ.1
with said accommodations [sic]. Is there --
Mr. Min: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.

Commissioner Gort: Ordinance.
Mr. Min: May I clarify --
Chair Hardemon: Oh, there we are.
Mr. Min: -- only because there's been a lot of discussion. PZ.1, I believe, is limited only to the
SAP. A lot of what we've been discussing deals with the development agreement, which is PZ.2.
What -- assuming that you vote on PZ.1, it's the legislation that was printed on April 18, 2016,
with no modifications.
Ms. Escarra: Only those that I read into the record earlier. I had two scrivener's errors that I
needed to put on the record.
Mr. Min: And that would be in the exhibit.
Mr. Min: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Ms. Escarra: And then I had the one addition for the FPL and the penalty.
Mr. Min: Very good. And the concept book that's attached dates from November 2015 to
February -- I'm sorry -- July 2016. There are no other modifications, other than what's been
discussed.
Commissioner Carollo: Wait, wait. Sorry. Can you --
Chair Hardemon: Repeat that for (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Mr. Min: That's in the background. That's in the attachments --
Mr. Min: -- which is being voted on by the Commission today, includes documents from
November 2015 all the way through July 2016. There are other -- no other modifications, other
than what you've discussed. I only ask because there's been a lot of back and forth.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, but I can keep it very simple. It's -- they are now required to
underground the lines. In lieu of them undergrounding the line within five years --
Mr. Min: That's just for PZ.2.
Chair Hardemon: 2.
Commissioner Gort: That's PZ.2.
Chair Hardemon: PZ.2.
Mr. Min: So I'm on PZ.1, and that's what I'm trying to clarify.

Ms. Escarra: Yeah, correct.
Commissioner Gort: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So seeing no further unreadiness --
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item PZ.1. Commissioner Gort?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes, as amended.
Mr. Hannon: Commissioner Suarez? Chair Hardemon?
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on second reading, 5-0, as amended.

15-00977da
ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT,
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES, BETWEEN THE MANA
WYNWOOD APPLICANT ENTITIES, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A",
ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, AND THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,
RELATING TO THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PARCELS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 23.46 ± ACRES FOR THE MANA
WYNWOOD SPECIAL AREA PLAN ("MANA WYNWOOD SAP"), COMPRISED
OF SELECTED PARCELS, BOUND APPROXIMATELY BY NORTHWEST
24TH STREET TO THE NORTH INCLUDING SPECIFIC PARCELS FRONTING
NORTHWEST 24TH STREET TO THE NORTH, NORTHWEST 6TH AVENUE
TO THE WEST, NORTHWEST 22ND STREET TO THE SOUTH, AND
NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE TO THE EAST, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "B", ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SELECT PARCELS FOR
MIXED USES; AUTHORIZING THE FOLLOWING USES INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO: RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, LODGING, CIVIC,
EDUCATIONAL AND CIVIL SUPPORT, PARKING GARAGE AND ANY OTHER
USES AUTHORIZED BY THE MANA WYNWOOD SAP, AND PERMITTED BY
THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN - FUTURE LAND
USE MAP DESIGNATION AND THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI; AUTHORIZING A DENSITY OF
APPROXIMATELY 150 UNITS PER ACRE; AUTHORIZING A BUILDING

HEIGHT OF BETWEEN 1 AND 24 STORIES BASED ON THE TRANSECT

ZONE, INCLUSIVE OF AVAILABLE BONUSES; AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IN
SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM, FOR SAID PURPOSE;
EFFECTIVE DATE.
15-00977da 09-08-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf

15-00977da Legislation (v1).pdf
15-00977da Exhibit A.pdf
15-00977da Exhibit B.pdf
15-00977da Exhibit Development Agreement.pdf
15-00977da-Submittal-Elvis Cruz-Miami21 Article 3 Document.pdf
15-00977da-Submittal-Edward Prince-Resolution of the Overtown Community Oversight Board.pdf
15-00977da-Submittal-Iris Escarra-Proposal Map.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately Northwest 24th Street to the north including specific

parcels fronting Northwest 24th Street to the north, Northwest 6th Avenue to the
west, Northwest 22nd Street to the south and Northwest 2nd Avenue to the
east. [Commissioner Keon Hardemon - District 5]
APPLICANT(S): Mana Wynwood SAP applicant entities as described in Exhibit

"A" and the City of Miami.
FINDING(S):
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT: Recommended approval.
PURPOSE: This will allow the area to be Master Planned to allow a greater
integration of public improvements and infrastructure and greater flexibility as
part of the Mana Wynwood SAP.

13632
Note for the Record: For minutes referencing item PZ.2, please see item PZ.1."
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PZ.2, please see "Planning &
Commissioner Suarez: Move PZ.2, subject to the following conditions: The Mana Group agrees
to bury the transmission lines or the FPL lines as specified in the prior agreement, in the first
reading agreement, right? If they are not able to complete that project within five years, they
will make a seven point -- approximately $7.2 million more, or a total contribution of nine point
--
Chair Hardemon: Well, no (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --

Iris Escarra: No.
David Polinsky: It doesn't matter what the total is.
Chair Hardemon: -- because it's a rate.
Mr. Polinsky: It's separate.
Chair Hardemon: You know, the first part is a rate, so 7.2 contribution.
Commissioner Suarez: $7.2 million contribution into the Public Benefits Trust Fund of the
Wynwood BID (Business Improvement District).
Mr. Polinsky: So just to -- clarification, I think you said the -- it's, in fact, a different extent of
undergrounding than what was in the original agreement. I think what's been offered today by
the applicant is to extend the burial of the lines outside the SAP (Special Area Plan) area, which
is an additional benefit --
Mr. Polinsky: -- so we appreciate it. So just -- I just was clarifying --
Mr. Polinsky: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Yes.
Commissioner Suarez: As clarified by Mr. Polinsky.
Mr. Polinsky: Though I -- we would ask that the -- what's recorded in the legislation is the final
start points and end points that are being undergrounded, because this is -- has been the source
of confusion --
Mr. Polinsky: -- that you were trying to clarify a while ago, and I think we need that legislated.
Commissioner Suarez: With a CPI (Consumer Pricing Index) increase.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah, that is subject to the CPI.
Mr. Finger: But can I just clarify -- can I just correct something that David just mentioned? The
-- it's not the burial as proposed by FPL and what we've just gone through. It doesn't actually
extend outside the bounds. The option one and two doesn't.
Mr. Polinsky: Yes.
Mr. Finger: Option three does, so.
Vice Chair Russell: But one and two, even by burial up to the 307A5, which is the edge of your
property, would eliminate all of the lines; not underground them, but eliminate all the lines, the
yellow ones.
Mr. Zyscovich: That's the whole key. The key is that it eliminates them, correct.
Chair Hardemon: So we have a motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded --

Chair Hardemon: -- by Commissioner Carollo.
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): And -- sorry -- also, just to clarify, the five years from the
effective date of the development agreement?
Ms. Escarra: Effective date of the development agreement, and the 7.2 payment would be in
accordance with Section 3.14.6 of the regulating plan.
Mr. Min: And the development agreement we're speaking about is one drafted as of August 23,
2016 --
Mr. Min: -- subject to the modifications that were discussed on the floor today.
Mr. Polinsky: I apologize for interrupting. We would ask you to consider requiring option three.
I mean, I think it's the one that provides the greatest public benefit and --
Ms. Escarra: We can't get -- I mean, if -- I mean, we have to go back to FPL. We can't -- it's our
preferred option. We could say it's our preferred option, but it has a lot of other stakeholders
that have to approve that plan.
Mr. Polinsky: If you can't do it, you pay into the fund.
Ms. Escarra: Right.
Mr. Polinsky: So there is an option -- all of these things are contingent on cooperation from
FPL, which we all know is very difficult. So --
Ms. Escarra: Yeah. No, we can't pick the option --
Chair Hardemon: But I think we'll achieve -- we've achieved an agreement --
Mr. Polinsky: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: -- as we are with the motion and the second. Is there any further discussion
from the board members?
Commissioner Carollo: I just want to verify that that amount will be subject to the CPI
compounded annually for a maximum of 3 percent?
Ms. Escarra: Yes, correct.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item PZ.2. Commissioner Gort?

Commissioner Carollo: As amended.
Mr. Hannon: The ordinance passes on second reading, as amended, 5-0.
Ms. Escarra: Thank you very much, Board.
Ms. Escarra: And thank you very much to all the folks.

16-00655lu
ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE
FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PURSUANT TO SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT
PROCEDURES SUBJECT TO SECTION 163.3187, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY
CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE
APPROXIMATELY 8.58 ACRES DESCRIBED HEREIN OF REAL
PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 34, 35, 44, 49, 50, 58, 63, 65,
66, 73, 74, 82, 83, 91, 92, 97, 98, 103, 104, 108, 109, 120, 125, 127, 130, 142,
143, 151, 152, 160, AND 165 NORTHWEST 27TH STREET; 34, 35, 39, 40, 50,
51, 58, 62, 65, 73, 74, 80, 83, 84, 91, 101, 108, 111, 116, 121, 122, 129, 135,
136, 143, 144, 152, 153, 160, 161, 168, 169, AND 179 NORTHWEST 26TH
STREET; 2520, 2521, AND 2601 NORTHWEST 1ST AVENUE, MIAMI,
FLORIDA, FROM "MEDIUM DENSITY RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL" TO
"RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL"; MAKING FINDINGS; DIRECTING
TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

16-00655lu 09-08-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf

16-00655lu Analysis, Maps, PZAB Reso & Addt'l Docs.pdf
16-00655lu Legislation (v2).pdf
16-00655lu Exhibit.pdf
LOCATION: Approximately 34, 35, 44, 49, 50, 58, 63, 65, 66, 73, 74, 82, 83,
91, 92, 97, 98, 103, 104, 108, 109, 120, 125, 127, 130, 142, 143, 151, 152, 160,
and 165 NW 27 St, 34, 35, 39, 40, 50, 51, 58, 62, 65, 73, 74, 80, 83, 84, 91,
101, 108, 111, 116, 121, 122, 129, 135, 136, 143, 144, 152, 153, 160, 161, 168,
169, and 179 NW 26 St, 2520, 2521, and 2601 NW 1 Av [Commissioner Keon
Hardemon- District 5]
APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami
FINDING(S):
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Recommended approval on
May 18, 2016, by a vote of 7-0.
PURPOSE: Change the land use designation of the affected area from
"Medium Density Restricted Commercial" to "Restricted Commercial".

13633
Note for the Record: For public hearing comments referencing item PA.3, please see "Planning &
Chair Hardemon: We have PZ.3.
Iris Escarra: Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Bernard Zyscovich: Thank you.
Commissioner Suarez: Move PZ.3.
Francisco Garcia (Director, Planning & Zoning): Yes, sir. Item --
Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved --
Chair Hardemon: -- and seconded to move forward with PZ.3. Is there any discussion?
Hearing none, Mr. Assistant City Attorney.
The Ordinance was read by title into the public record by Deputy City Attorney.
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Roll call on item PZ.3.

PZ.4 ORDINANCE First Reading

16-00659zt
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED ("MIAMI 21 CODE") BY AMENDING
ARTICLE 3, SECTION 3.3.1, ENTITLED "LOTS AND FRONTAGES";
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
16-00659zt 09-22-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf

16-00659zt PZAB Reso.pdf
16-00659zt Legislation (v2).pdf
SPONSOR(S): Commissioner Francis Suarez
FINDING(S):
May 18, 2016, by a vote of 6-1.
PURPOSE: This ordinance will amend Article 3, Section 3.3.1 entitled, "Lots
and Frontages" of the Zoning Ordinance.
Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Chair Hardemon, that this matter be

Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved and seconded by the Chair. Any further discussion?
Seeing none.

PZ.5 ORDINANCE First Reading

16-00657zt1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE MIAMI
21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
AMENDED, BY AMENDING APPENDIX J: NEIGHBORHOOD
REVITALIZATION DISTRICTS TO MODIFY REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE
NORTH MIAMI AVENUE SETBACK, ON-STREET LOADING, PARKING
STANDARDS, CROSS-BLOCK PASSAGES, STREET TREE PUBLIC BENEFIT
CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, AND TO
REFORMAT THE ORGANIZATION OF THE REGULATIONS; CONTAINING
THE REGULATIONS SET FORTH THEREIN; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT
AND STATING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; PROVIDING FOR BINDING
EFFECT;CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
16-00657zt1 09-22-16 CC SR Fact Sheet.pdf
16-00657zt1 PZAB Reso.pdf
16-00657zt1 Legislation (v3).pdf
SPONSOR(S): Commissioner Francis Suarez
FINDING(S):
June 15, 2016, by a vote of 10-0.
PURPOSE: This ordinance will amend the adopted NRD-1 portion of Appendix
J entitled, "Neighborhood Revitalization Districts" to modify regulations related
to On-Street Loading, Parking Standards, Cross-Block Passage Regulations,
Street Tree Public Benefit contribution requirement, Notice Requirement and to
reformat organization of the document in efforts to improve intent and
effectiveness.

Chair Hardemon: Been properly moved and seconded to accept PZ.5. Any further discussion?

END OF PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS
MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
CITYWIDE
HONORABLE MAYOR TOMAS REGALADO
END OF CITYWIDE ITEMS
DISTRICT 1
COMMISSIONER WIFREDO (WILLY) GORT
END OF DISTRICT 1
DISTRICT 2
VICE CHAIR KEN RUSSELL
D2.1 DISCUSSION ITEM

16-01219
District 2 - DISCUSSION ON FUNDING AND ACTIVATING VIRGINIA KEY.
Commissioner Ken
Russell
DEFERRED
Note for the Record: The City Commission, via unanimous consent of the members present on the
dais (present: Hardemon, Russell, Gort, Carollo, Suarez), deferred Item D2.1 to the September
22, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
Chair Hardemon: And then we have D2.1.
Vice Chair Russell: That's a big discussion, so I could save that.
Chair Hardemon: Okay, so we'll defer that one also to the next meeting, without any objection.
D2.2 DISCUSSION ITEM

16-01220
District 2 - DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE MIAMI-DADE
Commissioner Ken COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD IN DOWNTOWN AND BRICKELL.
Russell
DISCUSSED
Chair Hardemon: And then D2.2.

Vice Chair Russell: 2.2, we don't need to go into it, but I did want to ask that we direct our
Manager to consider the potential of a school in any applicable RFP (request for proposal) that
he's considering in downtown and Brickell area that that play a part in their decision -making
process on the RFP.
Commissioner Suarez: And the Omni area.
Vice Chair Russell: And the Omni area, sure. All of downtown and Brickell.
Chair Hardemon: I know that one of the big issues about schools in the downtown area is that
Booker T. Washington, which is not at its capacity, services the --
Commissioner Suarez: Under-enrolled.
Chair Hardemon: -- downtown area, and so I know that that --
Commissioner Suarez: It's under-enrolled, yeah.
Chair Hardemon: Yeah.
Commissioner Suarez: It's under-enrolled, yeah.
Chair Hardemon: So, you know, that's something that that community is very, very --
Commissioner Suarez: Sensitive about.
Chair Hardemon: -- sensitive about.
Chair Hardemon: Because to them, it's a death blow to that school. If in the greater -- in the
core of downtown, they're not able to attract students from there.
Vice Chair Russell: And I believe Superintendent Carvalho has expressed that of the 70 million
that he's willing to invest of both below and -- above and below the river that a -- he's portioning
part of it for new schools in the core, and a good portion of it for improving the schools that are
outside the core, so that there is no imbalance in terms of where the money is spent.
Commissioner Suarez: By the way, Mr. Chair. Do you know if they rank number one after
beating St. Thomas? That was a heck of a game. I've never seen a --
Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). There's a -- my --
Commissioner Suarez: -- (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Chair Hardemon: -- chief of staff is in my ear. He's -- not about the game, but about the
Overtown issue with Booker T. Washington.
Commissioner Suarez: Are they number one?
Chair Hardemon: I mean, it's a big issue. I'm not sure if they're number one or not, but
(UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Suarez: Because they were number six, and they beat number one.

Commissioner Suarez: They should be number one.
Chair Hardemon: But you know (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Suarez: And they beat American Heritage before that.
Chair Hardemon: Ratings are a little funny.
Unidentified Speaker: Number two.
Commissioner Suarez: They're number two?
Chair Hardemon: See?
Vice Chair Russell: So we're at least in agreement that they would consider and at least bring to
us any potential developments that they're interested in, because the School Board is looking to
partner with us on something, and I just want to make sure that all options are on the table, and
we know anything that the Administration is working on has that at least in mind .
Chair Hardemon: I know that I'm -- I wouldn't be in favor of including a new school there,
because there hasn't been any proof that's been shown that there's a need for a new school, and I
know that this is a land mine, if you've ever created one. If you look at the last report that came
out about the schools in the district, a lot of the schools in the City of Miami, for instance -- well,
in D5, happen to be schools that are underperforming, and so we've had schools that have closed
down within the D5 area, and so this is not a issue that will be taken lightly. So I know I couldn't
support the inclusion of additional schools in the downtown area , because I know that it's going
to take away from that school.
Vice Chair Russell: Okay. Is there at least a majority that would be willing to at least have the
Manager consider and bring to us any potential developments he's working on that would -- it
doesn't mean we're going to do it.
Commissioner Carollo: I think he will anyways.
Vice Chair Russell: Well --
Commissioner Carollo: I don't think we need a vote.
Vice Chair Russell: All right. I withdraw.
END OF DISTRICT 2
DISTRICT 3
COMMISSIONER FRANK CAROLLO
END OF DISTRICT 3
DISTRICT 4
COMMISSIONER FRANCIS SUAREZ

END OF DISTRICT 4
DISTRICT 5
CHAIR KEON HARDEMON
END OF DISTRICT 5
FUTURE LEGISLATION
FL-PZ.1 ORDINANCE Second Reading

15-00924zt
ORDINANCE NO. 13114, THE MIAMI 21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4, ENTITLED
"STANDARDS AND TABLES" AND ARTICLE 5, ENTITLED "SPECIFIC TO
ZONES", TO REVISE LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH MINIMUMS AND
MAXIMUMS FOR T4, T5, AND T6 TRANSECT ZONES; CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
15-00924zt Exhibit.pdf
15-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: August 30, 2016 - September 14, 2016
FINDING(S):
September 2, 2015, by a vote of 7-1.
PURPOSE: This will modify minimum and maximum lot area and widths in
order to encourage appropriate development based on density and intensity
regulations.
NO ACTION TAKEN
FL-PZ.2 ORDINANCE Second Reading

16-00315zt
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION AMENDING THE MIAMI
21 CODE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS
AMENDED ("MIAMI 21 CODE"), BY AMENDING ARTICLE 1, ENTITLED
"DEFINITIONS", MORE SPECIFICALLY TO ADD SECTION 1.5 ENTITLED,
"DEFINITIONS OF ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM"; AND ARTICLE 3,
ENTITLED "GENERAL TO ALL ZONES", MORE SPECIFICALLY TO ADD
SECTION 3.16 ENTITLED "PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENTS"; AND ADDING A
NEW ARTICLE 11, ENTITLED "ART IN PUBLIC PLACES PROGRAM";
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN

15-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: August 30, 2016 - September 14, 2016
APPLICANT(S): Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, on behalf of the City of

Miami.
FINDING(S):
March 16, 2016, by a vote of 8-0.
PURPOSE: This will amend the zoning ordinance by specifically adding

language related to the Art in Public Places Program.
NO ACTION TAKEN
FL-PZ.3 PZAB RESOLUTION

16-01066zt
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION TO AMEND
MIAMI, MORE SPECIFICALLY BY AMENDING ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1.2,
ENTITLED "DEFINITION OF TERMS", TO ADD MICROBREWERY; AND BY
AMENDING ARTICLE 6, TO ADD SECTION 6.3.6, ENTITLED
"MICROBREWERIES"; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND
60-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: August 30, 2016 - October 29, 2016
FINDING(S):
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Scheduled to be heard on
September 7, 2016.
PURPOSE: This will modify Article 1 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code, more
specifically by adding the definition of "Microbrewery" in Article 1, Section 1.2.
This will also amend Article 6 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code to establish
supplemental regulations for Microbreweries, to be permitted as Alcohol Service
Establishments, only in Cultural Specialty Districts.
16-01066zt 09-09-16 CC FL-PZ Microbreweries Legislation - DRAFT.pdf

16-01066zt 09-21-16 PZAB Supporting Docs.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN

16-01061zt


MIAMI, MORE SPECIFICALLY BY AMENDING ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1.2,
ENTITLED "DEFINITION OF TERMS", TO ADD CREW QUARTERS; AND BY
AMENDING ARTICLE 6, TABLE 13, ENTITLED "SUPPLEMENTAL
REGULATIONS"; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Miami.
FINDING(S):
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Scheduled for September 7,
2016.
PURPOSE: This will modify Article 1 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code, more
specifically by adding the definition of "Crew Quarters" in Article 1, subsection
1.2. This will also amend Article 6, Table 13 of the Miami 21 Zoning Code to
establish supplemental regulations for Crew Quarters, and to permit them
through the Warrant process.
16-01061zt 09-09-16 CC FL-PZ Crew Quarters Legislation - DRAFT.pdf

16-01061zt 10-05-16 PZAB Supporting Docs.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN

16-01159zt
MIAMI, FLORIDA, AMENDING ARTICLE 3.6, ENTITLED "OFF-STREET
PARKING AND LOADING STANDARDS"; ADDING SUBSECTION 3.6.1 (f);
CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.

Miami.
FINDING(S):
PLANNING, ZONING AND APPEALS BOARD: Scheduled to be heard on
September 7, 2016.
PURPOSE: This will amend Article 3, adding Section 3.6.1 (f) to the Zoning
Ordinance, in order to allow a T3 property to satisfy some of the parking
requirements of a T6 or T5 property, through the Exception process, presuming
certain criteria are met.

16-01159zt 09-09-16 CC FL-PZ Ancillary Parking Legislation - DRAFT.pdf

16-01159zt 09-21-16 PZAB Supporting Documents.pdf
NO ACTION TAKEN
NA.1 DISCUSSION ITEM

16-01321
CHAIR HARDEMON DISCUSSED CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD FOR CITY COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS.
DISCUSSED
Chair Hardemon: We had a guest that was coming that's a bit late. But before I do that, I want
to bring our attention as Board Members to our agenda plasma. And Mr. Clerk, if you can hear
me for a second. So if you read the agenda plasma, we've made a few different changes on the
agenda plasma. You see that there are public comment sections that appear before each
substantive section of the agenda. So you see it under PH (public hearing) items; you see it
under SR (second reading) items, FR (first reading) items, et cetera. And as you saw, the first
public -- as you see, the first public hearing section is after the personal appearances, which
comes after the consent agenda. So I want to move this around a little bit so -- to make it more --
to make -- to give the public a better expectation of when they can speak. And just in case, for
instance, if we have a personal appearance item that they won't be speaking on, then they don't
have to necessarily sit through it. They can make their comments and then go about their way if
they have jobs and businesses that they need to get to. And so what I'm considering to do is to
move the public hearing section after the mayoral vetoes so that it will read mayoral vetoes, then
public hearing, and the public hearing will come -- and after public hearing will be consent
agenda. So then that would eliminate the public comment for the other sections, so that now the
public has a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the beginning of the meeting , so that you
know that you can come in the morning, you can give your public comments, and then you can
move on with your day, so that you won't be here for the entirety of the night, like we've had
before. And then, additionally, something I want the Commissioners to start thinking about right
now, because I would like to do this today, the same way we handle our consent agenda, if you
think in concept, the consent agenda is a section where we've anticipated there's not much
discussion about each item, and so therefore, you can pass the consent agenda items, say C1
through C6. If there's an item that you feel like you want to have discussion about, or if there is
some unreadiness about -- you need more questions about, we've pulled those items from the
consent agenda and then voted on the rest of the consent agenda, and then discussed each one of
those items individually. I'd like to do that also for each section that we're in, so for the public
hearing section, for the first reading section, the RE (resolution) section. So to give you an
example of what that would look like -- and it's without debate. So if someone says -- okay, we're
in the public hearing items section. If someone says -- item PH.4, which today is the Battersea
Woods -- if you say that you want to have discussion about that item, and say PH.6, as well as
PH.12, you would say, "Pull PH.4, 6 and"-- I'm sorry -- yeah. "PH.4, 6 and 8." It's 8, actually.
PH.4, 6, and 8, those would be pulled off. If no one else has any other item to pull off, you can
move -- and that way, we can move items 1, 2, 3, 5, and get going. And so that way, the public
has made their comments about the items. If we don't have any further discussion, if we don't
have anything to be pulled, we can move forward with the agenda. So I'm doing this in a way
that makes a -- it's very simple. I know you're a little --
Chair Hardemon: No, I'm talking to the Board at this time. That's fine. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
So I'm saying that in a way where -- so we can move through the agenda --
Commissioner Suarez: More efficiently.

Chair Hardemon: -- more efficiently. That's what my task is as Chairman, and I'm trying to
really get that going better, and that's why I've been thinking through this. So for the public, all
you need to understand is this: The public hearing section will be in the morning. You'll have
your opportunity -- your reasonable opportunity to be heard on each and every agenda item by
speaking in the morning during your public hearing time. So how does that work? It works very
similarly to what you see in Miami-Dade County when you have an opportunity to come and be
heard. We've had some issues where sometimes the public is here, many times at 11 o'clock at
night, 10 o'clock at night, waiting for an item to be called. And sometimes, that item is
continued, because it's so late in the night, and people had to go home, and I want to keep that
from happening, because I believe that that's not a reasonable opportunity to be heard. So that's
the comment I wanted to make.
Barnaby Min (Deputy City Attorney): Just to be --
Mr. Min: -- safe with the City Clerk's Office, the City Attorney's Office and the City Manager,
and pursuant to Section 2-33 of the City Code, can we --
Chair Hardemon: I want --
Mr. Min: -- have that turned into a resolution?
Chair Hardemon: Yes, yes. But that's why I'm telling you now, so that we know what the
expectation will be, and then you come back with the proper --
Mr. Min: So would you like our office then to draft that proposed resolution for it to come back
on September 22?
Chair Hardemon: Yes, but I want to -- and I want it to be the way that I --
Mr. Min: Sure.
Chair Hardemon: -- established it.
Mr. Min: Okay.
Chair Hardemon: The resolution, of course, is one thing. The procedure, yeah. You want to say
something?
Vice Chair Russell: Just a question --
Vice Chair Russell: -- Mr. Chair. And thank you. I totally understand what you're working on
here, so that we're not here at 2 a.m., eating cold pizza; and residents, as well. So that'll make it
much more efficient. I just -- I don't fully choreograph what my comments may be throughout the
day, so if I understand correctly, you're asking us as Commissioners to look as we get to each
section and almost treat it as the consent agenda, in the sense of, "I know I'm going to comment
on there, so let's pull these; the rest, let's move through them quickly."
Vice Chair Russell: I just ask for your indulgence and flexibility that there may be additional
comments as we go along, as we get into each item that may not be as intended on the schedule.

I just can't fully foresee what my comments will be throughout the day, but I am certainly in favor
of trying anything that'll make us as efficient as possible. My question is about public
commentary. Let's say somebody knows their item isn't coming on until late in the afternoon.
It's a Planning & Zoning item, or whatever.
Chair Hardemon: Well, Planning & Zoning items are different. Planning -- and I didn't -- that's
why I didn't go that far.
Vice Chair Russell: Oh, okay. I understand.
Chair Hardemon: The Planning & Zoning items are heard -- what is it? After 2 o'clock, I think
that's the way it is.
Commissioner Gort: 2 o'clock.
Chair Hardemon: Planning & Zoning items are heard after 2 o'clock. And so, for those items,
the public will have an opportunity to be heard before that section. So they come in at 2 o'clock
when we come back from lunch, and we open up the Planning & Zoning. They'll be the first ones
that'll have an opportunity to be heard on the items in the Planning & Zoning.
Vice Chair Russell: All right. And would still as a Commission reserve the ability to ask for a
specific public commentary from someone who is related to the issue, for example.
Chair Hardemon: Who's (UNINTELLIGIBLE) involved.
Vice Chair Russell: Yes; who may want to go back and forth a little with --
Chair Hardemon: Yes, that's still the will of the body.
Vice Chair Russell: Of course. Thank you.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner Gort, you had something?
Commissioner Gort: My understanding, we Commissioners can also speak. These new rules is
mainly for the public hearing. My understanding --
Chair Hardemon: Yeah. I mean, the Commission --
Commissioner Gort: -- it doesn't apply to the Commission.
Chair Hardemon: No, no, no, I mean the -- no. The Commissioners -- we have that time for
discussion as we've always had.
Commissioner Gort: Right, right, okay.
Chair Hardemon: It's just so that the public has an opportunity to speak, be heard --
Commissioner Gort: Yeah. No, I understand, yeah.
Chair Hardemon: -- know when to come, and move then forward with the agenda. All right.

16-01322
VICE CHAIR RUSSELL DISCUSSED A NEWLY CREATED SECTION ON
THE CTIY COMMISSION AGENDA CALLED "FUTURE LEGISLATION"
AND ENCOURAGED THE PUBLIC TO COMMENT ON THESE ITEMS BY

EMAILING THE ADMINISTRATION AT
FUTURELEGISLATION@MIAMIGOV.COM.
DISCUSSED
Vice Chair Russell: Mr. Chair, could I make a comment as a moment -- for a moment?
Vice Chair Russell: I wanted to commend the Administration and direct the public to a
brand-new portion of our agenda, which has never been done before. It was something that this
Commission agreed that would be a good idea for the public and the City. It's called the "FL
Section"of our agenda. Every month now, every Commission meeting, the agenda that's
published for that meeting will include a section at the end called "FL,"future legislation, so that
the public will see what's coming down the line 60 days from now, and you can have a full two
months to study major changes to our City Code, our ordinances, Planning & Zoning; you name
it. And so as we shift into a new system, there will be a public commentary section on the
agenda, where you can read the item and actually say what you think about it, and then the
Administration and we can absorb that, so it's not just two minutes on the day. In the meantime,
before that website's ready, you can send an email to futurelegislation@miamigov.com
<mailto:futurelegislation@miamigov.com> once you've reviewed the future legislation on the
agenda, and give us your comments. Tell us what you think about it, and the Administration will
basically summarize those comments for us in our backup documentation when it comes to vote.
So thank you to the Administration, thank you to the Clerk's Office, and have fun with it.
Chair Hardemon: And ladies and gentlemen from the public, I would like to add that the best
way to insert your comments for legislation especially is to email the Commissioners, meet with
the Commissioners, because you will have a lot more time with every single Commissioner to
address what your likings are for legislation. So when we get emails from our constituents, those
are -- many times, the comments that'll be taken, we pass on to the Administration so that we can
include those types of details into whatever the item is.

16-01311
VICE CHAIR RUSSELL DISCUSSED A REQUEST FOR EMAIL FROM HIS
OFFICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY INVOLVING THE BATTERSEA
WOODS PLAT.
16-01311-Submittal-Commissioner Ken Russell-Back-up Documents RE Battersea Woods and Victoria Mendez.p
16-01311-Submittal-Commissioner Ken Russell-Letter to Commissioners RE Battersea Woods and Victoria Mend
16-01311-Submittal-Commissioner Ken Russell-Email for IT Search for research purposes.pdf
16-01311-Submittal-Commissioner Ken Russell-Email to City Attorney Victoria Mendez.pdf
16-01311-Submittal-Commissioner Ken Russell-Miami21 Article 7-Procedures and Noncomformities.pdf
16-01311-Submittal-Commissioner Ken Russell-Emails RE Battersea Woods.pdf
DISCUSSED
A motion was made by Vice Chair Russell, seconded by Commissioner Carollo, which passed by
the following vote: AYES: Russell, Carollo, Suarez, Gort; NOES: Hardemon; to place a
discussion item on the September 22, 2016, City Commission agenda regarding the selection of
an independent attorney to study the issues related to the documents requested by Vice Chair
Russell's office from the City Attorney and the Planning and Zoning Department involving the
Battersea Woods plat.
Chair Hardemon: PH.5.

Vice Chair Russell: If I were to -- like to continue the discussion that I began before this, would I
need -- would you need for me to make a motion?
Chair Hardemon: I would need for you to make a motion and there needs to be a second so we
have a direction in which we're going, and not us just having to talk and there's no support for
that discussion moving forward. So if you'd like to make a motion, it would require a second for
us to continue that discussion, because, as I understand, the motion would be to remove the City
Attorney from her position.
Vice Chair Russell: That is my motion. I move that we remove the City Attorney.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. That's the motion. Is there a second?
Commissioner Carollo: Second for discussion. And I wish the motion would have been to
discuss and --
Chair Hardemon: But this is what I'm -- the reason I said it is this: You don't want to spend two
hours discussing something that you have no intention of doing. If there is an intent -- clearly,
there is an intent by the mover. I'm hoping that there's some genuineness in the second so that
we have a discussion. And I'm assuming that the discussion would not be just to talk about a
lawyer's reputation, because we have to understand that when you make implications about a
lawyer, which is why he's standing the way he is today, it goes much deeper than the job that that
person has today. It goes into the Florida Bar status. You have a lot of different people who
watch these types of events, and Bar complaints that could significantly deter, if you will, that
lawyer's path. And sometimes, remove them from practicing the law. So being a lawyer is a
privilege, and so I want to ensure that we protect that privilege by giving us an opportunity to
have a serious discussion, if we're going to move towards this way, but I don't want to have any
discussion about something that none of us -- if there are some of us -- are not serious about
having. So I think this is a very serious matter, and so if we want to have that discussion, then I
want the movant to be sincere, and then we go into our discussion about the matter that I'm sure
each of us will be arguing from our points of view.
Vice Chair Russell: My motion is very sincere. I do, of course, reserve the right, upon further
discussion and understanding where my fellow Commissioners are, to amend that motion.
Chair Hardemon: All right.
Commissioner Carollo: Mr. Chair.
Chair Hardemon: There is your motion. Do you stand on your second?
Commissioner Carollo: If I may? I want to begin by saying that I don't have any predetermined
outcome of any of this, so I don't know, as far as intent, what intent I have, other than if one of

my colleagues has an issue, and I think we all can reach consensus that it's an important one, I
think I -- we should hear him out. I have a --
Chair Hardemon: If -- sir --
Commissioner Carollo: -- I can tell you this: I haven't even had the chance to read all the -- all
these documents that he presented.
Chair Hardemon: That may be another reason --
Commissioner Carollo: So I have no intent to do one thing one way or another, other than listen
to my colleague that obviously has an issue.
Chair Hardemon: No, no. Listen to what I'm saying. So, I mean, you can take that in two ways.
The fact that you haven't read the documents could mean that maybe you don't want to have the
discussion today, because you want to be prepared for the discussion. Or you can say, "No, I'd
rather go through the discussion right now,"and so you have a second. If you have a second, you
have a second. I'm not going -- as the Chair, I can't take away your ability to make a second.
It's either --a motion and a second, and then we go for discussion.
Commissioner Carollo: Right. And I --
Chair Hardemon: It's there, so do you have a second?
Commissioner Carollo: I did mention a second, and that's when you started mentioning as far as
being sincere.
Chair Hardemon: So you --
Commissioner Carollo: And I'm saying that --
Chair Hardemon: -- so listen --
Commissioner Carollo: -- the only reason --
Chair Hardemon: -- so listen a second.
Commissioner Carollo: -- the only way that we could discuss this, if I make a second. Therefore,
I'm making a second so we could discuss it.
Chair Hardemon: So it's been properly moved and seconded. Discussion.
Commissioner Suarez: Can I make a recommendation? Whoever wants to make any decisions
on something of this severity needs to read the documents that Commissioner Russell kindly
distributed to all of us prior to the lunch session. That, you know -- thank you. I think -- because
that provides context to some of the -- to his letter, first of all. It really should be sort of a -- an
addendum to your letter, an attachment to your letter, or whatever the case may be. The other
thing, I never got -- and this may be it, I'm not sure. Is this the --?
Vice Chair Russell: This is further documentation that was --
Vice Chair Russell: -- meant to be included this morning.

Commissioner Suarez: Because I did ask prior to lunch --
Vice Chair Russell: That's what this is.
Commissioner Suarez: -- is that what this is?
Commissioner Suarez: Because prior to lunch, there's a reference in number one of the letter
that says, "Ms. Méndez intervened and properly,"blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. All the way to the
end, it says, "In opposition to our City Code." And so I was trying to figure out which part of the
City Code you were referring to. So I haven't had a chance to look at this.
Vice Chair Russell: I understand.
Commissioner Suarez: I just got it, so, you know, I respectfully suggest that any decision of this
magnitude be done fully informed, but, you know, it's up to you guys.
Vice Chair Russell: There is one issue that is not in dispute from the City Attorney or myself, and
that is that I did request public documents that were under her care that were not delivered to
me. Whether the intent of that is that it was a mistake or intentional is not even being measured
or discussed here. The fact is that I made a public records request to her office. A huge majority
of very important documents wrapped into this case were held from me, and I found them later
through an IT search. And she admits that those were not given to me, but says that it was a
mistake, rather than intentional.
Commissioner Suarez: Can I ask a question?
Chair Hardemon: Of course.
Commissioner Suarez: Another thing, I'm not -- Was that a verbal public records request --
Vice Chair Russell: No.
Commissioner Suarez: -- or was that a written form?
Vice Chair Russell: It was absolutely written, and it's in the first page -- "Madam City Attorney"--
this is July 25. "In anticipation of hearing this item on Friday"--
Commissioner Suarez: But I don't know where -- hold on. I don't know where you're reading
from.
Vice Chair Russell: I actually don't -- I don't believe this -- my request to her is in your
documents. I can copy that right now for --
Commissioner Suarez: That's something that I would want to see, as well. I mean --
Vice Chair Russell: Well, let me read it to you right now. "We will be meeting with the owner of
the property. Can you please provide us with the email exchanges between your office, the
Planning Department, and the property owner's attorney that have to do with whether a warrant
was required or not in this re-plat?" And the response I got were these five emails. When I did
the IT search on this same basic criteria, emails between the attorney for the developer --

Vice Chair Russell: -- our City Attorney's Office and the Planning & Zoning Department, we got
back 1,600 emails, which we went through, and several dozen were very relevant to this case,
and actually showing the relationship on how the City Attorney's Office injected themselves into
this situation; in my opinion, incorrectly. The main reason that I'm asking for her removal is not
for the opinion that was given, which further documentation will show that even though the final
opinion that was given by Dan Goldberg, he even says, "I don't agree with my own opinion early
on,"and his mind was changed, that's not the reason. The reason I'm asking for his removal --
her removal -- is with regard to my trust for her to provide documents to me that I need to do my
job; much less public records from a resident or a constituent. Within our offices, when we ask
our City Attorney to give us the documents we need to do our job and to tell me -- not only the
documents -- tell me the story, so I'm up to speed. And she leaves out everything up to the final
decision that coincides with the decision -- with the opinion of the developer. There was a lot
leading up to that that I needed to know, and I was not given that information.
Commissioner Suarez: And the question I'm asking is, I haven't been given the information of
your request, and that's the question I have, because -- not that I don't agree with your
characterization of your request, I just haven't seen it and haven't read it. It wasn't part of the
package, so I'd like to see it. Thanks.
Commissioner Suarez: I think we should make a copy of that.
Commissioner Gort: Let me tell you, one of the things that I heard from lawyers all the time, and
especially from our office is everybody's entitled to due process. I think that this motion here is
not a due process. I think a lot of the information you have received, and the one advice I give
all of you: Any time I have anyone asking for public information, I send them automatically to
IT, because I don't have that many information in my computer, so I make sure they get it all
from IT, to make sure that if I miss something, they already have it. So I understand to your
motion, you got to be very upset, and I agree with that --
Vice Chair Russell: And you want time to --
Commissioner Gort: -- but I think that due process should take place. I don't think this is the
place right now to do that, personally.
Commissioner Suarez: He's making a copy of that --
Commissioner Suarez: -- email.
Chair Hardemon: So I stated before there's a motion and a second on the floor to remove the
City Attorney from office. We are in discussion. Of course, there's some unreadiness; the
unreadiness being stated on behalf of Commissioner Gort and also Commissioner Suarez , and so
we're just --
Commissioner Carollo: I mean, I could tell you I have unreadiness on voting on removing her
right now. I mean, we still haven't fully -- at least I haven't fully read this, and we haven't fully,
you know, even done due process. I haven't even heard from Ms. Méndez, and I don't know if
now this is the right time or not, but like I said, at the very least, one of my colleagues wants to

have a discussion on this. Absolutely.
Commissioner Carollo: And in order to do that, you wanted a second, so that's why I did the
second.
Vice Chair Russell: That's why I made my --
Vice Chair Russell: -- that's why I made the original motion --
Vice Chair Russell: -- instead of simply having a discussion.
Vice Chair Russell: And I understand. Recognizing the unreadiness amongst the Commission --
and I see that. And I do understand, due process is important. I only -- I made the motion
simply to begin the conversation, I am very sincere in it, and I believe that you will see my side of
this once you review all the documentation. I'd like to hear from my fellow Commissioners on
what they think might be a proper process to move forward. We could ask for an independent
investigation to review the documents or we can do it ourselves, as Commissioners, and
reconvene -- I can put a discussion item on the next City Commission agenda to take this up at
that time. Which way would you like to do it?
Chair Hardemon: This is interesting. It's interesting, because, typically, there's a -- you know,
there's a lawyer/client privilege. And so when you ask about an independent investigation into
your lawyer/client relationship, that's just a very unusual thing, in my eyes, that you're asking
for. In regards to the motion on the floor, there's two ways that you come to a vote. When you
have discussion, you influence other Commissioners to see things your way, and you have a vote.
The unreadiness comes because someone's not ready to vote, so there's more discussion that
needs to be had. And the question really comes to: Will -- after all discussion that we have
today, if we sat here for four hours and discussed this, or three hours or two, would we be ready
to vote at the end of it? And so I think that's the question that we really have to ask ourselves. Is
getting the information, as you have it today, enough time to come through and make a decision
that you think is wise in this case?
Commissioner Suarez: I mean, I think there's also -- and I don't know if this goes to the
independentness [sic] of some of the information that's needed -- but there is a -- The City
Attorney, unlike the City Manager, has a Charter-mandated period of time, her office time, and
so I don't know -- even though the contract is very clear, because I did ask for the contract in the
break, and the contract is very clear that there is a provision for term -- essentially, termination
at will or for convenience. I'm not sure how that interplays with the Charter provision that
requires the City Attorney's Office to be -- There's a term, in other words, so I don't know
whether we would need an independent person to give us some legal advice on that issue,
because that's an issue that -- you know, I'm not a constitutional scholar, per se, even though you
guys put me on the Charter Review Committee, but that's certainly, I think, an issue that needs to
be -- we need to get some advice on, because you definitely have language in the contract that
says one thing, and the Charter says something else. And, you know, typically, Charters and
Constitutions trump documents, so -- you know, contractual documents -- so there has to be some
determination that -- or some, I think, analysis of that issue, because that's a -- I think that's
negotiated.

Chair Hardemon: There may be differences of opinion on that; on, you know, what's right.
Vice Chair Russell: I have reviewed that, and the Charter does -- and the resolution appointing
Ms. Méndez absolutely says exactly what Commissioner Suarez says; that she will serve until the
first City Commission meeting following the next general municipal or runoff election, which
implies a term.
Vice Chair Russell: But I don't believe -- and especially as termed in her contract -- that any of
us, understanding the position of the City Attorney and the other positions , they serve at the will
of this body, and three votes is all that would be needed to remove them. The contract even has
severance package stipulations, which --
Vice Chair Russell: -- obviously imply the possibility that they could be fired.
Chair Hardemon: Well, one of --
Commissioner Suarez: I think the contract clearly contemplates it. I don't think the contract -- if
I may, Mr. Chair?
Chair Hardemon: Please.
Commissioner Suarez: I think the contract clearly contemplates that for the Manager and for the
City Attorney. I'm just saying -- and I think this is -- is this Section 21 of our Charter?
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. This is Section 21 in the Charter, and that says: "The City
Attorney shall be a full-time government employee; shall not engage in the"-- you know, yada,
yada, yada -- "and shall serve until the time for the election of the City official specified in Section
4, which follows the next general municipal election." So I'm not so sure that that provision of the
Charter can be trumped by some subsequent either resolution or contract. So that's what I need
clarity on. And obviously, it's hard to get clarity in a -- You know, you walked away. You said --
there was 13 minutes left. It was like 12:47, and you said, you know, "You think we can get a
couple things done before lunchtime?" And you left, and this --
Chair Hardemon: Watched it on --
Commissioner Suarez: -- sort of happened after. So, you know, these are issues that sort of
flood in as you try to get up to speed, because I don't know -- I didn't know where this was going
to go, post-lunch. So I wanted to get as prepared as possible, but simple things like -- obviously,
the statute that I asked for -- and also your request, which I think is important. Your request is
very important. The request that you made in terms of -- because that's really what you're basing
a lot of your issue with, which is the -- because I take public records very seriously; I think we all
do. But I'm saying I know that when I get a public records request, I try -- to the extent that I
can, I try to provide it as quickly as possible. And you have some people that are very critical of
us and me; sort of acknowledge that. But -- so that, I take extremely seriously, and that is a big
deal for me. That's why I wanted to see where your request was, specifically.
Chair Hardemon: I mean, I know there's a lot of information for us to digest regarding the issue,
and because I know that I have so much unreadiness about it, the only thing -- the only way that

I could vote would be against, because there's no way that, in the time that we have here allotted,
and with the agenda today and how this popped up that I would be able to make a decision. I'm
still getting more information about what's happening. So, I mean, I have an unreadiness, as
well.
Vice Chair Russell: And Mr. Chair, I do apologize for dropping so much on our Commission at
one time, with such a surprise, so to speak. This is all quite new for me, as well. The -- and so,
obviously, not being able to speak with you before today, most of this was collected in the last
few days. I would be willing to withdraw or defer my motion, based on a solid concept that we
have moving forward on how we're going to handle this. If we can at least address that today,
whether we believe we should have a special Commission meeting for this issue, specifically;
whether we should just put it as an item on the next agenda; and whether or not we should have
external help in analyzing this. That would be my opinion, because I really think a fresh pair of
eyes looking at our Charter, for example, as well as the trail of information and the accusation
that I've made, whether it's warranted. After that, they will advise us, and we will make our
independent decision, if the Charter allows it.
Chair Hardemon: You know, for me, personally, you know, I depend on my City Attorney to give
me an opinion about things. And sometimes, she gives me an opinion that I don't necessarily
agree with and I push back, and I give her the reason why I think that it is different. Every day
that we handle a Planning & Zoning issue, there is an attorney that says one thing and then
another attorney, who has the exact same facts that says something else. And it happens all the
time in criminal court, as well. One attorney says that they've met a burden; the other one says
they did not. And so -- it goes all the way down to motions -- and so, you know, having -- even
having -- you know, I trust that even without Ms. Méndez being the attorney who gives an
opinion that her office could handle giving an opinion in this whole matter, and I don't think it is
necessary that you go outside to inter -- for someone to interject themselves in that lawyer/client
relationship, because at the end of the day, that's one of the things that I think about. What
information are you now putting out to the public? Not saying that the public isn't due the
information, but you have to understand that when you have a lawyer/client relationship and
your lawyer represents you that you have a special relationship that's not shared with other
people. And so, you know, for me, I think it would probably be best if you put it -- if you're going
to have a -- if you wanted this to be something that we address on an agenda item, put it on the
agenda and put all your support, attached to it, rather than hiring some outside counsel -- this is
my opinion -- hire outside counsel to do the research themselves.
Vice Chair Russell: With all due respect, Mr. Chair, I really don't think that we can get an
unbiased opinion from our own Attorney's Office about whether or not we should fire our own
Attorney.
Commissioner Gort: No, no --
Chair Hardemon: How about that -- that's a conclusion that you've come to.
Vice Chair Russell: But even the analysis of the documents.
Chair Hardemon: Well, that's what I'm saying. So -- this is what I'm saying to you: The
conclusion that you've come to is that the City Attorney needs to be removed of her duties. The
opinions that were differing, as I understand, were: One, does -- do they need a warrant process
or do they not need a warrant process? And in the City Attorney's Office, where you have I don't
know how many hundred -- you probably have about at least -- how many attorneys you have?
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): 28.
Chair Hardemon: 28 attorneys. If you have 28 attorneys in the City Attorney's Office, you got

30 different opinions, because a couple different attorneys may have two opinions, depending on
which way the tide, you know, comes in. And so I say that to you to say even in a judge's
courtroom, when a judge has given an opinion about something, his law clerks may say, "Judge,
it's this; this is the opinion that you should come to." And the judge may say, "No, it's that, and so
write an opinion on that." And so I'm saying that to say it doesn't surprise me that lawyers have
differences of opinions about the same issue. And when a lawyer gives you their advice, their
legal advice, that's all that it is. You know, it's us who come, and we make the decision, based off
of the lawyer's advice. And so, for instance, I'll give you -- so that's -- for instance, when I would
get a little frustrated, when I don't feel like I got the advice that I was asking for, if I get that,
"Well, it depends,"well, I'm not asking you for, you know, "it depends." I'm asking you for an
opinion. But it does -- it truly does depend. And so what I'm saying to you is that when there's a
difference of opinion in attorneys, it's not surprising to me, and it doesn't jump to the -- it doesn't
move me to the part where you say, "Okay, well, this person needs to be removed from office."
Vice Chair Russell: My point is that no attorney should have been working on this unless they
were requested to by a member of the City. And they were not. And so the -- when the attorney
for the developer asked the attorney's involvement -- this was a decision of the Planning &
Zoning administrator, and they issued an opinion. And the Legal Department was brought in --
our Legal Department was brought in by another attorney to overrule that decision or change
their mind. And in the end -- and one of the latest emails that I've just brought to you that was
just passed out with that one part of the Code is where Attorney Goldberg from our office is
saying to Victoria Méndez that she can't seem -- he can't seem to convince our own Zoning
administrator to change his mind. He says, "I can lead a horse to water, but I can't seem to make
him drink." The pressure was on our --
Chair Hardemon: Well, that's not really --
Vice Chair Russell: -- Zoning administrator to change his mind. And that was coming from our
Law Department, who was not invited to participate in this, other than their relationship with the
attorney. I'm not saying that relationship is inappropriate. They can ask, they can be friends,
they can go to lunch, everything. But at some point, this is the purview of our Zoning
administrator. The fact that they got involved, they got multiple opinions, they kept moving until
they got the opinion that matched with the attorney for the developer, this all speaks to the fact
that it was done incorrectly. I believe that the Zoning administrator should have been left alone
on their decision. And if they wanted to appeal that decision, they should have sent it to PZAB
(Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board).
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Mr. --
Chair Hardemon: -- I'm going to call you, but Mr. City Man -- we're going to get to you. Mr.
City Manager, Mr. City Manager, Danny, is there an attorney from the City Attorney's Office
that is put on the -- what -- I'm say -- at the time -- what was the --?
Ms. Méndez: Planning and Zoning & Appeals Board.
Chair Hardemon: At Planning & Zoning?
Ms. Méndez: PZAB.

Chair Hardemon: Is it -- Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, is there an attorney from the City
Attorney's Office that sits on there that gives opinions towards things?
Ms. Méndez: Yes.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. Now I'm -- I was just asking that because I wanted to know if the City
Attorney or the City Attorney's Office was actually involved on a board helping to making
decisions. Francisco, Commissioner, and then I'll let this gentleman.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay, you can go now.
Francisco Garcia: Thank you, sir. Francisco Garcia, Planning & Zoning director. There is an
attorney and there has been over the years -- there have been a number of attorneys, but the City
Attorney's Office does designate an attorney, and sometimes it's two attorneys that alternate to
assist us with us, the Planning & Zoning, with questions pertaining to items going before the
Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board, and that attorney also -- or those attorneys also serve in an
advisory role to the Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board.
Chair Hardemon: So it's not unusual for an attorney -- or the City Attorney's Office to have an
opinion about an issue that's before PZAB?
Mr. Garcia: Upon request, of course, they have always provided us counsel.
Chair Hardemon: Commissioner.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I guess there's a couple things here that merit further investigation
and further -- sort of understanding. One of the things is, in my -- again, obviously, we got this
right before lunch. I obviously tried to look at the documents during lunchtime. I noticed that
most of the documents predate you as Commissioner. And so the relationship between the
Administration and the City Attorney and the Commissioner, for example, it's a different
relationship, as far as I know, constitutionally. In other words, we, as Commissioners, do not
have the authority to direct a member of the Administration or a member of staff. I believe that
relationship is different with the City Attorney, because the City Attorney responds directly to the
Commission and is responsive to the Commission. So, for example, I believe that a City
Commissioner could ask the City Attorney to get involved in something, and that would not be
direction. I don't know whether to ask her or not, because, you know, clearly, this is something
that involves her, and which highlights sort of my second concern, which is I do, unfortunately,
agree, unfortunately, that we do need independent advice. I do, because, you know, I think the
question that I came up with, with relation to the Charter issue, and if I want to ask somebody a
question on an interpretational issue of the Charter, who am I going to ask? I mean, I have a
question -- that was the question that I had.
Chair Hardemon: You would ask your counsel.
Commissioner Suarez: Well, right, but, in essence, that's the person who we're talking about. So
I think that's sort of the inherent problem that the Commissioner has an issue with, and that is
understandable. I mean, we do that -- she does that and I -- we respect her when she does that --
on a variety of issues when there's potential conflict. So, you know, that's -- that part, for me, is
something that problematic.
Vice Chair Russell: Well, I think we can really go into the weeds on whether or not a warrant
was necessary and whether or not the Law Department should have injected themselves, but I
don't think there's any dispute on the fact that I requested documents, and they were withheld
from me and for several months, and to me, that's enough in itself.

Chair Hardemon: Madam City Attorney. I'm sorry.
Ms. Méndez: Yes. I need to respond to that, because, basically, nothing was withheld.
Absolutely nothing was withheld. What happened was on July 25, Eleazar Melendez asked me
for information, which you have in a document before you. "In anticipation of a hearing on this
on Friday, we will be meeting with the owner of the property. Can you please provide us with
the email exchanges between your office, the Planning Department, and the property owner's
attorney that have to do with whether a warrant was required or not on this re -plat? I'd like to
have it ready beforehand. Thank you. Eleazar Melendez." So I called Eleazar, because your
meeting was the next day. This was at 8:02 p.m. I think your meeting was at Tuesday or
Wednesday with the developer. And I asked him, "Okay, what is it that you're looking for?
Because if I have to do an IT search on all these things, you're not going to have it by tomorrow
or the next day." That's when he told me he wanted the opinion that my office had drafted to
opposing counsel on this issue, because I believe he was meeting with the developers or
opposing counsel. And please interject whenever. At that point, I gave him -- I did a search,
Danny Goldberg did a search, and we got our emails that we found on that issue, and we
submitted those to you. What should have done -- probably what I should have done is written
back and say, "I'll give you whatever preliminary documents I have. You have to run an IT
search"; that's what probably I should have done. But I gave him the documents that I had, the
documents that I remembered; the ones that you ran a more expansive search, giving terms on
Javier Vazquez, Victoria Méndez, Palm Corper (phonetic) -- I don't know -- Carlos or -- you
know, all these different -- And then, you got a really expansive search, because it was an IT
search, which is what I originally mentioned should have been done. So -- and it's really -- it's
an odd situation, because the way I understood it is, "Give me what you have,"and I turned over
what I had, in anticipation of the meeting that you were going to have on this issue. So nothing
was withheld. These emails took place a year before. I deal with thousands of issues on a daily
basis for this City. Thousands. If you thought that I remembered who handled this issue a year
and a half ago -- I didn't remember if Amanda was on it, Danny Goldberg, myself. So, you know,
I'm sorry that you feel this way, that I've withheld something from you, but that is not my
intention. I know the public records law, I know how many people sue on the public records law,
and IT doesn't lie. So whatever is placed, you know, in a document, that's nothing that I would
withhold. And the same way that you did this research now, which you have asked for a full
comprehensive one, that could have been done back then, but I was just giving you the
information that you needed immediately for your meeting; which whatever documents you found
would not change my opinion. And I know you don't like my opinion. It would not change my
opinion, and I'm sorry about that.
Chair Hardemon: I want to recognize first the gentleman, because he's been waiting to speak.
Carlos Tosca: I'm going to be incredibly brief, and I'm not even going to talk about PH.4. I only
want to say something because it's relevant to what's occurred --
Chair Hardemon: Can you state your name for the record, please?
Mr. Tosca: -- and has been repeated many times.
Chair Hardemon: State your name.
Mr. Tosca: Carlos Tosca, 6844 Sunrise Court. The City Attorney's Office did not inject
themselves into this decision. The Zoning Department, which initially said we did not need a
warrant -- and we went through the T-plat process without a need for a warrant -- later on added
the warrant. We questioned the Zoning Department, and they said, "Look, this is already a matter
of interpretation of law." They sent us to the Legal Department. The Zoning Department --
exactly what you said should happen is what happened. They sent us to the Legal Department,
and the Legal Department vehemently defended the City's position against us, like they're

supposed to do. And we did our part. This is what cities and attorneys do; they argue until
somebody convinces the other one. So while there's been an incredible interpretation of
impropriety, there was no impropriety, whatsoever, and unfortunately, that's not going to be able
to be settled now. A lot of people left. A lot of things were said that won't be cleared up, but
that's the reality. We were sent by Planning & Zoning, and I'm sure that they'll confirm that.
That's a matter of record, as well.
Chair Hardemon: Vice Chairman, do you want your staff member to speak?
Vice Chair Russell: In just a moment. I just simply want to respond to that, because if that's the
case, my records are completely incorrect, because my email was from Javi Vazquez to Ms. Ellis
and Mr. Cejas, saying, "Thank you so much for meeting with us about the above-referenced plats,
whether or not they need a warrant. We have respectfully asked for the opportunity to discuss
the warrant requirement with your Legal Department." That is you requesting our Legal
Department's involvement; not you being sent to our Legal Department.
Mr. Tosca: Okay. We had a meeting with them, and in the meeting, they said, "If you want a
different interpretation, you've got to go to the Legal Department,"and we sent a formal request.
They were in the meeting. I don't think that anybody's going to dispute that they told us that.
And by the way, it's not the first time. It's normal for the Zoning Department to send tricky issues
to the City Attorney's Department for interpretation. It's not a unique event. There was nothing
sinister that we went to seek out --
Vice Chair Russell: Nothing sinister is implied on your part.
Mr. Tosca: -- this is normal.
Vice Chair Russell: Absolutely not.
Mr. Tosca: I mean, this is a normal process of the City. The Zoning Department sometimes
needs the City Attorney's interpretation on tricky matters, which this obviously is. So, you know,
we didn't do what you're saying we did; we just didn't do it, that's the bottom line.
Vice Chair Russell: That's all I have in the record, but I would let -- I believe you wanted to
respond to --
Eleazar Melendez: Yes.
Vice Chair Russell: -- Ms. Méndez.
Mr. Melendez: Hi. Good afternoon. Eleazar Melendez, office of Commissioner Ken Russell. I
just want to respond to that, because, unfortunately, the conversation that's described by the City
Attorney did not occur in that manner. I asked for all the documents that her office had related
to this issue. I did express that it was because I was meeting with the developers on the issue of
the plat, but I asked for everything that her office had, and she only gave me the documents
where Dan Goldberg was essentially the person that was involved. So there was no reason why I
-- I don't know why she didn't give me the ones where she was involved doing the same thing.
Chair Hardemon: Mr. Melendez --
Mr. Melendez: Sure.

Chair Hardemon: -- you're an experienced journalist, right?
Mr. Melendez: Yes, sir.
Chair Hardemon: And you've done public records requests to the City Government before,
correct?
Mr. Melendez: Yes, sir.
Chair Hardemon: And when you made those public records requests to the government, you had
-- you used probably very specific language in that request to note that it was a public records
request, correct?
Mr. Melendez: Yes, sir, so that it would draw your attention.
Chair Hardemon: Right, because you want to be able to get that public records request; or if
not, be able to have some actionable way of saying that the City did not respond correctly to
your public records request, correct? In this email that you sent where you said, "In anticipation
of hearing this item on Friday, we'll be meeting with the owner of the property, can you please
provide us with the emails exchanges between your office and Planning Department and the
property owner's attorney that have to do with whether a warrant was required or not on this
re-plat? I'd like to have it ready beforehand,"you didn't use any language in here that talks about
public records request, did you?
Mr. Melendez: No, sir.
Chair Hardemon: Right. And so, if you did not use that -- I'm not going to ask you a conclusory
statement as if, "Why would you think that someone would give you a public records request type
answer?"because I'm saying this for all of us to note -- to make a note that when you ask your
attorney a question, your attorney is going to give you an answer. And if you want a specific
answer, I just suggest that you use very specific language, the same way you would use it if you
were a member of the public asking for public records request. And I'm saying that to you
because the City Attorney is the Commissioner's counsel. And so, I wouldn't expect to trick my
counsel up. I would expect for my counsel to try to help me with my decision-making. And when
I see the facts, that's what it seems like from your email. Now, had you written -- like we get from
many other places, "Pursuant to Florida Statute such and such, such and such, I hereby request
that you give me all public records information regarding this issue and that issue , these words
and those key words within a reasonable time." And then, of course, our office is -- I tend not to
try to get involved with the nitty-gritty of that, because this kind of stuff, I send mine to the City
Attorney's Office, I send it to the Clerk's Office, but I haven't quite mastered the IT. I think they
usually bring in the IT, the City Clerk's Office. And so that's what I tend to do when someone
sends a request to me. And I'm saying that not to say to you that what you did was wrong. I'm
saying what you did was normal, it was what I would have done to ask for information from my
City Attorney. But it's much different than a public records request.
Mr. Melendez: Wait. Mr. --
Chair Hardemon: The Vice --
Mr. Melendez: I'm sorry.
Chair Hardemon: -- Chairman.

Vice Chair Russell: I do respectfully disagree, both with that statement, as well as what Ms.
Méndez said with regard to this request. I don't think it could be any more clear and in plain
English, and thorough. And the request that was made through IT was simply the IT version of
this exact email. The question is: "Can you please provide the email exchanges between your
office"-- the Law Department -- "the Planning Department and the property owner's attorney?"
And when we did the IT search, we simply used the addresses of the people -- actually, we didn't
use the addresses of the attorneys, did we?
Mr. Melendez: Correct.
Vice Chair Russell: But we did list the addresses that we know to be the addresses -- I mean the
email addresses of the property owner's attorney. So there was no difference between the IT
request we made, which we only made months later, realizing that we felt there was -- there were
holes in this story, because beyond the records request, I've had many meetings with the City
Attorney where I wanted this story from the start, and there were many opinions leading up to
this. There was a whole story going on. And she just kept saying, "You just don't like our opinion."
If I --
Ms. Méndez: The only opinion that matters is mine at the end of the day.
Vice Chair Russell: Please, Madam City Attorney. If all of this that happened before I came into
office, if you had taken me on this journey when I said, "Walk me through this story, I'm voting on
this at City Hall, I need all the information,"and you walked me on a journey, "Well, here's where
Planning & Zoning was and here's where the other attorney was and we had some disagreements
within our office, but this is the opinion we came out with. Planning & Zoning eventually went
this way,"we would not be here today, because I would know the whole story. I may disagree,
absolutely; wouldn't be a problem. The fact that I was not given the story that I asked for is what
I have a big -- the biggest problem with.

Chair Hardemon: Before we start calling Commissioner Suarez, I do want to make one
statement. The only person that can come and clarify to what they searched for would be the IT
director. That person -- or whoever it was working on the --
Vice Chair Russell: I've got that request, actually --
Chair Hardemon: No, no, no. What I'm saying is from the IT Department to say, "This is what I
did, how I did it,"things of that nature. And all that I was trying to make very known is that any
time I get -- any time I have asked for a public records request, or someone has asked from -- for
it for me, I mean, they send it very -- and this is a copy of it. This is Stephen Herbits. I believe
he is an attorney that asked for a public records request from the City. I mean, and the emails
are very specific as far as Chapter 119 and what he's asking for and then et cetera, and it's much
longer than that email that was there. And all I'm saying is this: Is that if you have an IT
director here to say, "Listen, I did a more expansive search"-- your testimony was that you pulled
up thousands of emails and a couple dozen were related. So that means -- it has to mean, I
would think -- that the search would have been more expansive than what was done, of course,
by the City Attorney. Commissioner Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. I guess my question is -- and again, this is obviously getting
information in pieces -- this search, this -- I'm sorry -- this question that was presented to the
City Attorney and to her (UNINTELLIGIBLE), was this also -- did you make a request in writing
to IT? Is there also a request --?

Commissioner Suarez: -- Because I don't have that. Is there --?
Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Suarez: Is there? Yeah. Thanks.
Vice Chair Russell: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). It shows the exact search terms.
Commissioner Suarez: Got it.
Vice Chair Russell: And the reason it was more expansive, it didn't limit it to the word, "warrant,"
where my email to her, it was that whether a warrant was required or not. So we got other
emails where they were going to lunch or working on a panel or completely unrelated that I
didn't include in this package, because they're obviously not relevant.
Mr. Vazquez: Mr. Chairman, if I could, just one more point of clarification. I just went through
the emails. Every time an email is included, the entire chain before it is included. There is a
repetition in that package that, if we were to eliminate the repetition side of it, that package
would be reduced by 200 percent. It would be --
Vice Chair Russell: You would find a couple dozen.
Mr. Vazquez: -- it would be --
Vice Chair Russell: My statement was "a couple dozen." There's a couple dozen email exchanges.
Mr. Vazquez: Yeah. And there's not 1,600 emails in there. I just want to make it -- again, all
tone, that's what this is all about, and that's what, you know, concerns me. I' m thoroughly
disappointed that this was deferred --
Vice Chair Russell: 1,600 does not imply impropriety.
Mr. Vazquez: Okay.
Vice Chair Russell: That simply is a --
Mr. Vazquez: No, no, I know. But it's still an exaggeration beyond --
Vice Chair Russell: It's no -- that's actually the specific number of what was --
Mr. Vazquez: Yeah, but you're putting repetitions. You're counting emails over and over again --
Vice Chair Russell: That was --
Mr. Vazquez: -- many times.
Commissioner Suarez: What he's saying is that in the 1,600 number, that's the chain --
Mr. Vazquez: Yeah.
Commissioner Suarez: -- of every single email, because someone -- if somebody replies, then it's
the whole chain and then --
Mr. Vazquez: At least seven times --

Commissioner Suarez: It's a multiplication --
Mr. Vazquez: Right.
Commissioner Suarez: -- you're multiplying.
Vice Chair Russell: Right. So when I said there's a couple dozen here versus the five separate
emails that I got, the couple dozen is the relevant number, and it may look like more, because
when you stack it, because of the threads, each time somebody responds --
Mr. Vazquez: Right.
Vice Chair Russell: -- their emails from before --
Mr. Vazquez: That is correct.
Vice Chair Russell: -- there are a couple dozen emails in here that I was not given --
Mr. Vazquez: Okay.
Vice Chair Russell: -- to make my decision on.
Ms. Méndez: When you say, "couple dozen,"is that six? Is that 12? Is that --?
Vice Chair Russell: "Couple dozen"is 24.
Ms. Méndez: 24 emails.
Chair Hardemon: So --
Commissioner Suarez: A couple dozen, 24.
Chair Hardemon: Is it a baker's dozen?
Commissioner Suarez: No, no. A baker's dozen is something else, but "a couple dozen"is 24.
Chair Hardemon: So -- but I'm -- I mean, we're still having this discussion, and the question is:
Is there enough discussion today that would make us come to a decision? I think that's what, as
a Board, we have to come to a conclusion about. I know I expressed my unreadiness because of
the things -- and we're still learning more information. And Commissioner Gort has expressed
some unreadiness; Commissioner Suarez has, as well. And so the question is: Are we going to
continue down this path of discussing this, or are we going to allow our unreadiness to signify
that we're not ready to take a vote on this matter and we should move on with other business?
Vice Chair Russell: I will withdraw my motion and move that we hire an independent
investigator to study this, whether it's a third-party attorney, without conflicts, and that we set an
item on our next agenda to discuss it.
Chair Hardemon: There's your motion. Is there a second?
Commissioner Carollo: Second for discussion.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. So we know the initial motion was withdrawn. We have a motion that
has been moved and seconded. For clarification, when you say, "study this issue,"particularly

what issue do you want that attorney to look into?
Ms. Méndez: If I may, I have a suggestion that'll save the City money and -- Submit this
impropriety, as you describe it, to the Commission on Ethics. They have an investigator. Let
them do it; saves the City money, you get your investigation.
Vice Chair Russell: I'd prefer an independent legal opinion. I think there are ethics issues here,
but that's -- you know, what we're dealing with is with regard to the Code, and who should be
involved in Planning & Zoning matters. At the end of the day, our decision will be made.
Regardless of whatever that person says, if the four of you truly believe that I was not given the
information that I requested, specifically; and months passed and I still didn't and I had to find it
on my own,"and that's enough to warrant replacing Ms. Méndez, then our decision would be
made. If you all feel that that's not a serious enough infraction or that it was just a
misunderstanding or mistake, I will be over -- I will be outvoted. But I'm telling you now that my
trust in this system is broken. And so whatever method that you all would like to work together
to come to better understand the points that I've raised and go through these documents -- and
I'm sure you're going to do it on your own, as well -- I am open to. So that is my motion. I'm
open to an amendment, whether it's the Commission on Ethics or an independent attorney who
would probably be more versed in the specifics of what's put before them. It's not simply an
ethics issue.
Chair Hardemon: That means there's discussion, of course.
Commissioner Suarez: Well, I mean, he seconded it. I don't want to get -- jump in front of him.
Vice Chair Russell: He seconded for discussion.
Commissioner Carollo: Yeah. I mean, it's open for, I mean, for all of us to discuss.
Commissioner Carollo: It's the will of this Commission, but I want to make sure that at the very
least -- and listen, it's nothing new. Since the first day that I've come here, I've always said, "You
know what? Discussion, debate is good, it's healthy." And whether you vote it up or down, you
know, I think we should have debate and we should have discussion. Something that I want to
mention is, as far as independent, what will be the cost? What will be the cap? We need to put
some type of cap to it, so it's not, you know, a fishing expedition, either, and so forth, so I want to
make sure that we have some parameters in what you're requesting for.
Commissioner Suarez: There --
Vice Chair Russell: All they would look through is a couple dozen emails, a timeline of history of
how we got to where we are, and give us their opinion on any impropriety.
Commissioner Suarez: I think it's a little more than that.
Chair Hardemon: It's a lot more.
Commissioner Suarez: Because you're going to have to interview witnesses. You're going to
have to interview people, right? Because there's been some --

Chair Hardemon: Take dep -- yeah, depositions.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah. You're going to have to interview people. You're going to have to
take statements from people to see who said what, you know. We're also going to have to decide
who that person is. I think we had hired -- at least once, in fact, I think we hired your firm once
to do an independent -- to be our independent counsel. We hired Berger Singerman one time. I
forget what it was, whether it was something --
Ms. Méndez: Pro bono.
Commissioner Suarez: I'm sorry?
Ms. Méndez: It was pro bono, Berger Singerman provided that.
Commissioner Suarez: It was pro bono.
Ms. Méndez: That was before.
Commissioner Suarez: We've had a few. That -- was that on something with the Mayor?
Commissioner Carollo: Actually, I'm the one who made that request --
Commissioner Carollo: -- of them and Mr. Berger. So I was the one who made that request --
Commissioner Carollo: -- if he would act pro bono. But as far as I know, I don't think the Vice
Chairman is making any implication with regards to the firm.
Commissioner Suarez: No, no, no, no, that's not what I'm saying. That's not what I'm saying,
either. What I'm saying is that we need to pick the person, whoever that person is. That's
another decision that we have to make.
Mr. Vazquez: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to clear -- just crystal clear that that was a pro bono
representation. The other issue is, in the meantime, we're talking about due process. I'd like to
know -- the one that's getting dragged in this process is my client --
Vice Chair Russell: I agree.
Mr. Vazquez: -- on an application that got deferred again, unnecessarily today. What -- where
-- what does this conversation do with regards to my client? When do -- when does our item get
heard? We are confident -- you were saying that your Zoning Chief -- official was prepared to
give an opinion. We're confident that that opinion is going to be in our favor. But now, what I
need to know is, when do we get heard? We've been deferred twice now over an issue that,
unfortunately --
Chair Hardemon: No.
Commissioner Carollo: Three times.
Mr. Vazquez: -- it's not their -- you know, it's an issue with the Commissioner and his attorney,
and I respect that, but in the -- my client's getting dragged --

Chair Hardemon: Right now --
Mr. Vazquez: -- and I think we need to talk about due process.
Chair Hardemon: -- well, right now, your item has been deferred to the next Commission
meeting, so that's the date that it's on to be heard.
Mr. Vazquez: What is that date, please?
Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): September 22.
Chair Hardemon: So the discussion on the floor right now is the motion that was made and
seconded; made by the Vice Chairman and seconded by Commissioner Carollo. And I just want
to be very clear about the motion. The motion is to -- as -- is it more proper to play it back?
Because I don't want to mess this one up.
Commissioner Suarez: But can I -- I needed some clarity on the motion because --
Chair Hardemon: That's what I'm asking for now.
Chair Hardemon: Can you repeat -- can you play the Commissioner's motion so we're very
clear? Oh, you don't have play back?
Mr. Hannon: We would have to stop the meeting and then --
Commissioner Suarez: No, no, no, no.
Mr. Hannon: -- transfer the audio --
Commissioner Suarez: You can rearticulate --
Chair Hardemon: Notes, did you take notes of it?
Commissioner Suarez: No. He can rearticulate his motion.
Chair Hardemon: Okay. I just wanted to be clear. I don't -- you know, I didn't want anybody to
stumble over the motion.
Chair Hardemon: That's all.
Commissioner Suarez: So my -- but I have a question on the motion, because there's -- I think
there's two aspects to this. One is there are some legal questions that I have. For example, some
of the ones that I have articulated, I don't know who I would go to if it wasn't an independent
lawyer; so that, I agree with. An independent investigation is a different -- it's a whole different
story -- that's what I was trying to get at -- which is -- that involves an investigation. That's not
just we need a different lawyer that we can ask legal questions to. We could either do the
investigation -- in other words, we could ask all the relevant actors to come up and testify as to
what was said and what was done, right?
Vice Chair Russell: Mm-hmm.

Commissioner Suarez: And then we can have an independent lawyer that we can ask questions
to, like, "Hey, how does this interplay with the contract?"and this and that and -- you know, that
kind of stuff. So there's two things at play here, and that's the part that, for me, is a little bit
complicated and a little convoluted.
Vice Chair Russell: For me that -- I would amend my motion to the latter.
Vice Chair Russell: If -- that would actually save a lot of cost to the City, make it a lot less
rigorous, and we would have access to an independent lawyer who can help us interpret what
we're looking at here.
Commissioner Suarez: Okay. So, okay, that's a different thing, because to have an independent
investigator and investigation, like a special prosecutor or something, I mean, that's very
involved.
Chair Hardemon: So can you repeat the motion so that the mover and the seconder are clear?
Vice Chair Russell: Sure. My motion is that we hire an independent attorney to help us five
Commissioners weigh this information. It would not trigger a full investigation in which this
attorney is going carte blanche to do, you know, subpoenas and such.
Chair Hardemon: When you say "this information,"I want to be clear. Are you talking about the
emails that you received --
Vice Chair Russell: Yes, the -- yes.
Chair Hardemon: -- the law?
Vice Chair Russell: The information I presented to you all today. And the --
Chair Hardemon: Now, but I think -- personally, I think that even an email -- if you got an email
from someone, you still would need to question the person that sent the email, the person that did
the search, those things of that nature. I don't think just an --
Vice Chair Russell: If they have that ability at our request, for example, right?
Chair Hardemon: -- and I'll give you an example why, because, for instance, when the City
Attorney received the request, she stated that she called Mr. Melendez and there was a
conversation. So that's not captured in an email, so that I think there are a lot of things that you
also have to add to it if you're going to really get to the bottom of what you're searching for.
Commissioner Suarez: I have another question, which is also a legal question. I've never taken
the position, personally -- and everybody has their own way of doing their business -- that
someone has to formally ask me for a public records request with like Chapter 119 and with all
that citation just to get a -- like for me, if anyone asked me a question that relates to a public
record, to me, I've considered that a public records request. So I'd love to have some legal
guidance on that issue, too, because I don't have any guidance on that issue.
Vice Chair Russell: We're not citizens approaching a governmental office. We're working with

our Attorney --
Vice Chair Russell: -- and it doesn't matter whether I said, "pretty please,"or what format I put it
in. I made a request and it was clear, and that information wasn't given to me.
Commissioner Suarez: Well, yeah, but what I'm getting at is, you know, again, legal guidance on
whether or not a public records request has to be made formally or not. I've never taken the
position that it does, but I'd like to --
Chair Hardemon: Sure, it does. But (UNINTELLIGIBLE) --
Vice Chair Russell: Hey, if she has a legal reason she didn't need to give it to me, fine, fair
enough. I still wouldn't want to work with her after that, plain --
Commissioner Suarez: Understood.
Vice Chair Russell: -- for withholding.
Commissioner Suarez: And you're entitled to that, and you're entitled to that. I get it. I just -- I
think -- again, that's -- that goes to some of the questions that I have in terms of what happened
here.
Vice Chair Russell: This is the IT request.
Commissioner Suarez: I got it.
Chair Hardemon: And so even from here -- I want to call on you, Commissioner Gort. Even
from here, you have to ask the IT director did he do anything more expansive than this.
Vice Chair Russell: Commissioner Gort, go ahead.
Commissioner Gort: I don't have to right now. I'm okay. Call the question.
Commissioner Suarez: Yeah, and my --
Commissioner Gort: How are we going to assign the -- how are we going to select the individual
that day?
Commissioner Suarez: But that's what I was going to ask. I mean, we have to pass this at the
next Commission meeting?
Commissioner Gort: We got to pass this first in order to -- yeah.
Vice Chair Russell: I'm sorry?
Commissioner Suarez: How are we going to choose this attorney that is going to be the one that
helps us and guides us?
Vice Chair Russell: I'll be glad to participate in that, and I think it should be someone
independent, without conflict, who can -- you know, not necessarily have an existing relationship
with the City.

Commissioner Suarez: No, can't have an existing relationship with the City.
Vice Chair Russell: Exactly.
Vice Chair Russell: So it'll be someone maybe from a little bit out of town. I don't know.
Commissioner Carollo: I want -- I also want to follow up on the question that I originally had.
Parameters with regards to cost, I don't know if we're going to try to seek pro bono, or what
would be the cost and then from what fund in the current budget will we get the money from? So,
in other words, I want to see a cost cap, number one; and then number two, from what fund. And
I'll yield to the City Manager for that.
Daniel J. Alfonso (City Manager): I'm sorry, Commissioner, did you say that -- what did you say
about me?
Commissioner Carollo: I said that I want a -- I want parameters, a cap --
Commissioner Gort: How much money?
Commissioner Carollo: -- on the expenses, and then from what fund will we receive those
monies from.
Mr. Alfonso: The money would be coming out of the general fund.
Commissioner Carollo: Understood. But within the general funds, we have various accounts.
As a matter of fact, we have a legal account for outside counsel.
Mr. Alfonso: Right.
Commissioner Carollo: Will we get it from there? Except I don't know what currently is that
amount for this current year.
Mr. Alfonso: Yeah. I don't know what's left in there. We've paid a lot of legal settlements, but
even if it was already exhausted, that line item was already exhausted, if the will of this
Commission is to hire an outside attorney, then we'll hire an outside attorney and we'll have to
pay them whatever their fees are out of the general fund. It would just input their fund balance
in the other year.
Vice Chair Russell: I'll tell you what's expensive is if we make a wrong decision, based on
having wrong information, and we get sued by the developer -- we may end up anyway -- it's
going to cost a lot, a lot, and that's part of why we are where we are in this potential issue. So
there will be a slight investment here, for sure, to get to the truth or at least to the point where
you all are comfortable with your decision. And even if this was unintentional from Victoria's
side, is that good enough that these documents were withheld and the story was withheld? It's
not just the documents. I mean, other attorneys gave opposing opinions. Even the attorney that
gave the final opinion agreeing with the attorney originally didn't agree with the attorney, and
opined with the Planning & Zoning Department. This, to me -- I spoke with Victoria this
morning, because I didn't want to completely blind side her from the dais with this, and talked

with her. And one of the things she said struck me; that this is -- these are very fluid situations.
When developers are approaching the Planning & Zoning Department, the attorneys get
involved, everybody starts discussing; things can get misinterpreted. One thing she said is, "This
is the way things have always been done,"and that's part of my problem. We do have a process.
We have a process for public appeal for the developer so that they can get the "no"they need and
move on and do the warrant, and not even be in this situation now; or the "yes"at appeal. But for
us to work it out like this is why we are where we are, and that's what's got to change. And I
think this sends the statement that this needs to change; that our Law Department works for the
City; it works for us, as Commissioners, and we direct them once they give us the advice. They
don't work for the developers, they don't work for the land use attorneys. They are our
representation. First and foremost, they need to give us the tools we need to make the right
decisions and move forward properly, and I don't feel that was done here, and that's why I'm
asking for this.
Commissioner Carollo: Whether we vote this up or down, realistically, it's going to come to the
next Commission meeting to -- for us to actually choose someone; is that correct? That's my
understanding.
Vice Chair Russell: No. My intention was that the discussion item on the next agenda would
actually be the future of the City Commissioners.
Commissioner Carollo: Say that again.
Vice Chair Russell: I mean of the City Attorney's Office. My intention was that we would
actually come to a decision at the next meeting.
Commissioner Carollo: Okay. And at that time, make a -- we could come into some
determination with regards to cost and caps and --
Commissioner Carollo: -- hourly rates?
Commissioner Suarez: I think you guys are not understanding each other. He was saying put on
the next Commission meeting the decision, itself.
Commissioner Suarez: And I think what we're saying is --
Vice Chair Russell: It may take a lot longer and we will need to discuss.
Commissioner Suarez: -- well, no. What we're saying is if you want to hire someone to represent
the -- independently to represent the Commission, we need to choose that person, and that should
be probably done at the next Commission meeting, because we all need to figure out who that
person's going to be.
Chair Hardemon: And then that person will need time to actually go through the information,
because I'm sure this isn't the only case that they have, if they're worth anything.
Commissioner Carollo: And Mr. Chair, at that time, we could discuss regarding to caps and

what's it's going to cost and so forth?
Chair Hardemon: Let's -- if -- that's -- yes, if, I mean, if you -- if we're going down that road. Is
this the only -- I just want to make sure I have all the information. Is this the only -- I have two
different sheets of paper: One from September 2, where Eleazar Melendez wrote Kevin Burns,
who is our IT director. "Kevin, in advance of an item to be considered next week, I need to
research any communications between City staff and several lobbyists. Can you help us by
running a citywide email search for 2015 and 2016 for the following addresses? Please let me
know." And he lists one, two, three, four, five email addresses.
Chair Hardemon: And then he comes back on the 7th --
Vice Chair Russell: Correct.
Chair Hardemon: -- and says, "Thank you for the information. It was a very helpful search. Can
you help us again by running a citywide email archive search for 2015 and '16 for the following
addresses?" And he adds in three more email addresses.
Chair Hardemon: So he doesn't --
Vice Chair Russell: The initial search revealed the specific names of the attorneys that had
worked on the case.
Chair Hardemon: Mm-hmm.
Vice Chair Russell: And so the secondary search was to expand on emails from -- to and from
those specific attorneys, with the certain key words.
Chair Hardemon: So you never -- he never asked for the exact same information that he asked
from -- for -- from the City Attorney?
Vice Chair Russell: I believe this first email does do that. And then we asked for further
information once we had specific email addresses in the result.
Commissioner Suarez: I have a question.
Chair Hardemon: Suarez.
Commissioner Suarez: I have a question/somewhat of a concern. Sorry. I have to look in your

direction because you may be the only person I can ask the question to, which is, like, for
example, as we've been having this discussion, we've realized that there were documents that you
possessed that were relevant to this discussion. And so, as we talked about it, you know, we --
you had the search document --
Commissioner Suarez: -- of what you requested. Then, you know, we later found out that there
was another document that was requested. So my question is, if we need to request documents in
terms of our figuring out what happened here, who do we make the request to do it?
Vice Chair Russell: Send a formal public records request to my office, but word it correctly.

Commissioner Suarez: Is that something that we can do? Or do we do it through -- because of

sunshine, is that something that we can do, or do we have to go through the Clerk? Because now
we have a different legal obligation --
Vice Chair Russell: Understood.
Commissioner Suarez: -- which is sunshine, because it won't be in a meeting. It'll be -- because

we're in a meeting now, so I can ask you anything. But outside of a meeting, even though I'm
also a taxpayer, I'm also a citizen of the City of Miami, I'm also entitled to public records, I have
an additional obligation, which is I can't talk to any of you outside of a public meeting about
public business. So my question is, do we -- if we have records that we're -- you know, we want
to ask for, who do we ask them of?
Vice Chair Russell: IT.
Mr. Hannon: You can certainly submit them to me, and then I can --
Mr. Hannon: -- forward them along to the appropriate --
Commissioner Suarez: Great.
Mr. Hannon: -- entity.
Commissioner Suarez: Fantastic.
Vice Chair Russell: So at the next Commission meeting, our intention would be then to choose
this independent person. That'll be the item I'll put on the agenda.
Ms. Méndez: And so I'm clear, the independent person is supposed to review my opinion, or
review the fact that you feel that I withheld documents from you or review --? I'm just -- I think
that needs to be placed --
Vice Chair Russell: All of the above and whatever the --
Ms. Méndez: Okay.
Vice Chair Russell: -- Commission would like to ask of that attorney.
Chair Hardemon: That's the motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion or unreadiness
about the motion on the floor?
Mr. Hannon: Can you clarify the motion -- sorry -- just to be perfectly clear?
Vice Chair Russell: Yes. I move that we put an item on the next agenda to select an independent
attorney to report to this Commission and work with this Commission on the issue at hand with
regard to Battersea Woods, Victoria Méndez, and the Planning & Zoning Department.
Chair Hardemon: Motion has been clarified. Any further discussion?
Commissioner Gort: Call the question.
Mr. Hannon: And Commissioner Carollo, I'm going to have you as the seconder still for this

motion; is that correct, sir?
Commissioner Carollo: Yes. But I stepped out for a second. Could you just repeat that? I'm
sorry, Vice Chairman.
Vice Chair Russell: Todd, you can do it now, right?
Chair Hardemon: No, probably be best --
Vice Chair Russell: Okay, I'll do it again. I move that we put an item on the next City
Commission agenda to select an independent attorney to study the documents and the situation
with regard to Battersea Woods, their development attorney, their land use attorney, our Law
Department and the Planning & Zoning Department.
Commissioner Gort: To do what (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
Vice Chair Russell: Would you like to add a cap as an amendment?
Commissioner Carollo: I think we could actually do it in the -- at the next Commission meeting
when it comes before us.
Chair Hardemon: All right. Any further discussion on that? It's really not -- any further
discussion on that? Any unreadiness? So all in favor of that motion, say "aye."
Commissioner Gort: Aye.
Vice Chair Russell: Aye.
Commissioner Carollo: Aye.
Commissioner Suarez: Aye.
Chair Hardemon: All against? Include one name. Motion passes.
Chair Hardemon: And that's unanimous, sir?
Chair Hardemon: No. I'm "no."
Chair Hardemon: Motion passes, 4-1; Commissioner Hardemon voting "no." Understood.

16-01316
UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES,
THE PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING
WILL ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT
SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING
THE PENDING LITIGATION CASE OF 1000 BRICKELL, LTD., F/K/A 1000
BRICKELL, INC., AND KAI PROPERTIES, LTD., V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE
NO. 14-11755 CA 23, PENDING IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY. THIS PRIVATE

MEETING WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 2:00 P.M. (OR AS SOON

THEREAFTER AS THE COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND
CONCLUDE APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE
ATTENDED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN
KEON HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL, AND
COMMISSIONERS WIFREDO "WILLY" GORT, FRANK CAROLLO, AND
FRANCIS SUAREZ; THE CITY MANAGER, DANIEL J. ALFONSO; THE CITY
ATTORNEY, VICTORIA MÉNDEZ; DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS JOHN A.
GRECO AND BARNABY L. MIN; DIVISION CHIEF FOR GENERAL
LITIGATION CHRISTOPHER GREEN AND DIVISION CHIEF FOR THE LAND
USE/TRANSACTIONS RAFAEL SUAREZ-RIVAS. A CERTIFIED COURT
REPORTER WILL BE PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY
TRANSCRIBED AND THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE
CONCLUSION OF THE ABOVE-CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION, THE REGULAR
COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON
CHAIRING THE COMMISSION MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE
TERMINATION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION.
DISCUSSED
Vice Chair Russell: I see Chair Hardemon is back.
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): Vice Chairman.
Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) my appearance (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Ms. Méndez: Vice Chairman, do you mind if I read two requests for attorney-client session --
Ms. Méndez: -- while we --? Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission,
pursuant to provisions of Section 286.011(8) Florida Statutes, I'm requesting that at the City
Commission meeting of September 22, 2016, an attorney-client session, closed to the public, be
held for purposes of discussing the pending litigation in the case of 1000 Brickell, LTD
(Limited), formerly known as 1000 Brickell, Inc. and Chi Properties, LTD versus City of Miami,
case number 1411755 CA 23, pending in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in
and for Miami-Dade County. The subject of the meeting will be confined to settlement
negotiations and strategy discussions. This private meeting will begin at approximately 2 p.m.,
or as soon thereafter, as the Commissioners' schedules permit, and conclude approximately one
hour later. The session will be attended by the members of the City Commission: Chairman
Keon Hardemon, Vice Chairman Ken Russell, and Commissioners Wifredo "Willy"Gort, Frank
Carollo, and Francis Suarez; the City Manager, Daniel Alfonso; myself, the City Attorney,
Victoria Mendez; Deputy City Attorneys John Greco and Barnaby Min; Division Chief for
General Litigation Christopher Green, and Division Chief for Land Use and Transactional
Rafael Suarez-Rivas. A certified court reporter will be present to ensure that the session is fully
transcribed, and the transcript will be made public upon the conclusion of above-cited ongoing
litigation. At the conclusion of the attorney-client session, the regular Commission meeting will
be reopened, and the person chairing the Commission meeting will announce the termination of
attorney-client session.

16-01317
UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF SECTION 286.011(8), FLORIDA STATUTES,
THE PERSON CHAIRING THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION MEETING
WILL ANNOUNCE THE COMMENCEMENT OF AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT

SESSION, CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC, FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING
THE PENDING LITIGATION CASES: VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE V. CITY
OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 15-200 AP, BEFORE THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, APPELLATE
DIVISION; VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE V. CITY OF MIAMI AND NATIONAL
MARINE MANUFACTURER'S ASSOCIATION, CASE NO. 3D15-2824,
BEFORE THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, AND VILLAGE OF KEY
BISCAYNE V. CITY OF MIAMI, CASE NO. 15-02997 CA 09, BEFORE THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY. THIS PRIVATE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT
APPROXIMATELY 2:00 P.M. (OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE
COMMISSIONERS' SCHEDULES PERMIT) AND CONCLUDE
APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR LATER. THE SESSION WILL BE ATTENDED
BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION: CHAIRMAN KEON
HARDEMON, VICE-CHAIRMAN KEN RUSSELL, AND COMMISSIONERS
WIFREDO "WILLY" GORT, FRANK CAROLLO, AND FRANCIS SUAREZ; THE
CITY MANAGER, DANIEL J. ALFONSO; THE CITY ATTORNEY, VICTORIA
MÉNDEZ; DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEYS JOHN A. GRECO AND BARNABY L.
MIN; DIVISION CHIEF FOR LAND USE/TRANSACTIONS RAFAEL
SUAREZ-RIVAS, AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS KERRI L. MCNULTY
AND FORREST L. ANDREWS. A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WILL BE
PRESENT TO ENSURE THAT THE SESSION IS FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND
THE TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE PUBLIC UPON THE CONCLUSION OF
THE ABOVE-CITED, ONGOING LITIGATION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION, THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING
WILL BE REOPENED AND THE PERSON CHAIRING THE COMMISSION
MEETING WILL ANNOUNCE THE TERMINATION OF THE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION.
DISCUSSED
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): Also requesting, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Commission, pursuant to provisions of Section 286.011(8) Florida Statutes, I'm requesting that at
the City Commission meeting of September 22, 2016, an attorney-client session, closed to the
public, be held for purposes of discussing the pending litigation in the following cases: Village
of Key Biscayne versus City of Miami, case number 15-200 AP, before the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, appellate division; Village of Key
Biscayne versus City of Miami and National Marine Manufacturers Association, case number 3D
15-2824, before the Third District Court of Appeal; and Village of Key Biscayne versus City of
Miami, case number 15-02997, CA 09, before the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit,
in and for Miami-Dade County, to which the City is presently a party. The subject of the meeting
will be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy discussions. This private meeting will
begin at approximately 2 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the Commissioners' schedules permit, and
conclude approximately one hour later. The session will be attended by members of the City
Commission, which include Chairman Keon Hardemon, Vice Chairman Ken Russell;
Commissioners Wifredo "Willy"Gort, Frank Carollo, and Francis Suarez; the City Manager,
Daniel Alfonso; myself, the City Attorney, Victoria Méndez; Deputy City Attorneys John Greco
and Barnaby Min; Division Chief for Land Use and Transactional Rafael Suarez-Rivas; and
Assistant City Attorneys Kerri McNulty and Forrest Andrews. A certified court reporter will be
present to ensure that this session is fully transcribed, and the transcript will be made public
upon the conclusion of the litigation. At the conclusion of the attorney-client session, the regular
Commission meeting will be reopened, and the person chairing the Commission meeting will
announce the termination of the attorney-client session. Thank you.
City of Miami Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.

Page 230 Printed on 10/24/2016

16-01381
THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION WISHED DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
BARNABY MIN HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
DISCUSSED
Chair Hardemon: Seeing no further items on the agenda, I'll conclude the meeting at 8:27.
Thank you very much.
Vice Chair Russell: I would like to have a sunshine meeting with you at some point about that.
Vice Chair Russell: I'd like to (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): Mr. Chair, if we can sing Mr. Min happy birthday; it's his
birthday today.
Chair Hardemon: He's in the papers, his birthday, he's getting elected to boards, and all kinds
of stuff. Can we do it in --?
Note for the Record: The Commission acknowledged Deputy City Attorney Barnaby Min's
birthday.
Chair Hardemon: You know I'm singing to you. Nobody knows that song? Okay. Stevie
Wonder's out?
Commissioner Gort: Barnaby, I want you to know --
Chair Hardemon: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Commissioner Gort: -- today's Frank Castaneda's birthday also.
Ms. Méndez: Whoa.
Commissioner Gort: Now we know about the emails.
Ms. Méndez: What's funny is the fact that they're both born on the day of Our Lady of Charity.
That is what's funny.
Chair Gort: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) being blessed.
Chair Hardemon: Well, happy birthday to everyone.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m.

2016-09-08 City Commission - Full Minutes-1467

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2016-09-08 City Commission - Full Minutes-1467

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Miami

Thursday, September 8, 2016

City Hall Commission Chambers

PR - PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS

SR - SECOND READING ORDINANCES

FR - FIRST READING ORDINANCES

BC - BOARDS AND COMMITTEES

PZ - PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM(S)

MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS

9:00 A.M. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Commissioner Gort entered the Commission chambers at 9:07 a.m.,Commissioner Suarez

Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager

Invocation and pledge of allegiance delivered.

Chair Hardemon: May you all have a seat?

PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS

Switchboard Mayor Regalado Proclamation

Michael S. Gordon, M.D. Mayor Regalado Proclamation

25 Olympic Athletes Mayor Regalado Certificate of

Alison Thompson Mayor Regalado Salute

16-01245 Protocol Item.pdf

City of Miami Page 3 Printed on 10/24/2016

Presentations and proclamations delivered.

Mayor Regalado: Mr. Chairman.

Chair Hardemon: So I recognize the Mayor. Yes, sir.

Mayor Regalado: Thank you.

APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING MEETINGS:

Motion by Commissioner Suarez, seconded by Vice Chair Russell, to APPROVE PASSED

Commissioner Suarez: So moved.

Vice Chair Russell: Second.

The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

Chair Hardemon: Motion passes.

END OF APPROVING MINUTES

City of Miami Page 4 Printed on 10/24/2016

Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): Chair, there are no mayoral vetoes.

Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much.

ORDER OF THE DAY

Mayor Tomás Regalado: Thank you.

Chair Hardemon: CA.6, as well; and then DI.4?

Commissioner Gort: Could you repeat it again, please?

Mr. Alfonso: Yes, Commissioner.

Chair Hardemon: To the October 13, you said?

Mr. Alfonso: Mr. Chairman.

Chair Hardemon: Yes.

Commissioner Gort: I want him to repeat it again; do it over again.

Chair Hardemon: You want him to repeat the numbers.

Commissioner Suarez: Yes, sir.

Vice Chair Russell: Not 1 and 2.

Commissioner Suarez: So moved.

The Commission (Collectively): Aye.

Chair Hardemon: That motion passes.

City of Miami Page 6 Printed on 10/24/2016

Commissioner Suarez: Mr. Chair, if I may?

Chair Hardemon: Yes.

Commissioner Suarez: Oh, okay. So this is going to include all PZ items --

Chair Hardemon: No, this won't include PZ items.

Commissioner Suarez: I'm sorry. -- all PZ items --

Victoria Méndez (City Attorney): The regular agenda, I believe.

Chair Hardemon: The regular agenda items.

Chair Hardemon: Correct.

Chair Hardemon: Well, typically, no one will.

Commissioner Carollo: Thank you.

Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman.

Chair Hardemon: Ladies and gentlemen, please remember to --

Commissioner Gort: Mr. Chairman.