Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]
Do you want to [Music] heat? Okay. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music] [Music]
Heat. Heat.
[Music]
Hey everybody. [Music] [Music] [Music]
Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music]
[Music]
yellow. [Music] Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] Are you
[Music] [Music] [Music] I'm crazy. [Music] [Music] [Music]
Hey. Hey. Hey. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music]
[Music]
Heat. Heat. [Music]
[Music] Hey, hey, hey. [Music] Heat.
Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music] Heat.
[Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. N. [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music]
[Music]
Oh yeah. [Music]
[Music]
Are you
[Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] Heat. Heat.
[Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] [Music]
[Music] [Music] I can't do
[Music]
Oh, [Music] how [Music]
[Music] You feel it.
[Music] Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat.
[Music]
[Music] [Music] Wow, go.
[Music] Down. Down.
[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] [Music] Heat. We're we're uh back for our afternoon meeting.
Uh Chairwoman King could uh not be with us this afternoon uh even though we don't have many items left in the agenda. Uh these were the basic uh controversial items that we
have that the commission pulled earlier in the day for discussion. Uh I am not going uh to take any of the items that we would need uh the full five members of the commission for.
uh we will wait uh on those for the next available commission meeting uh in July. U there's a couple of uh items maybe that we might be able to do. I don't know.
But if there's a lot of questions on them, we could leave them also for the following meeting. That's uh RE 9 and RE10. I don't know if these were yours, Commissioner Ross. They they are uh I don't know if uh I mean you put him
down. You're the one that asked to take him out. If u you want to leave them out, then No, we we we can leave these in. Okay. So, these these are the only two that I see that uh uh are not um
controversial. uh whereas you are not going to need a full commission uh to deal with it. Uh out of respect to the um chair uh my item and discussion item
um in regarding DDA I will leave for uh next week uh also even though uh to be blunt um I wasn't intending for a lot of uh
discussion uh on this at all just uh an up or down vote not getting in if the DDA has done wonderful work or not or partial uh just having a vote not of voters but of
property owners the ones that should be voting one in the residential side and one in the commercial side because they're each uh different uh and for them to have a vote if uh they want to keep paying to
the DDA or that I personally feel that the DDA um is something that if the city of Miami wants to keep, it can by bringing dollars directly from the city's uh
funds. After all, downtown Miami and Bickl is for the whole city, not just for them. uh so they shouldn't have to be um uh left paying the full amount for for
the whole city and that's the way that it it should be but uh that's all that I wanted to do but I won't bring this up until we have a full commission so that u five of us can u uh go ahead and uh
deal with it. Uh I don't see uh anything else that was pulled unless um that we could that we should uh deal with it with five. But obviously uh
that's my position. So if we could deal with item R9 then commissioner. Sure. Chair. Sir, you could have I'm sorry. I didn't I didn't see you. Usually, uh, the chair will let us vote on the
amount of things we'd like to hear. Uh, in the moment, there's some other things I'd like to hear. I don't know if the other commissioners have certain items that they would like to have voted today. Well, what uh what additional items did you pull out? In my case, I definitely would like PC2
just to have uh voted Okay. Well, that's not too controversial, I think. Did you pull that out or No, we we can go ahead and just vote on it, though. Okay. That Yeah, that's u uh HEPA decision appeal. That one we you know,
it's probably not that much of a controversial one. Uh that we might not need the five votes. I think that's one that maybe we might be I mean, I I would be willing to hear everything. Well, I don't think so.
Well, can we have the other commission? Well, I'm going to tell you why I I take that position because there are items here that obviously are going to end up uh being at 32 one way or another. And
uh Commissioner and Chairwoman uh King deserves the respect uh for her to be here for those items. Well, normally she would put it up to the vote of the body of what we would like to hear. No, it's not normal. She had an
emergency that she had to deal with and uh she deserves to be here when we handle items that are critical. What are we talking about? because I just got here to I just got here to the park. But Commissioner King uh not being able to join us,
we have a series of items that has been my position that those that are going to be controversial that will probably end up in a 32 in one way or another that we should give her the courtesy of uh
dealing with them when she's here. Uh I'm not in agreement with it. I I didn't think you would be. Right. But let's take a vote on it and see who wants to uh hear the items and who doesn't want to hear the items. You want to go item by item or how do
you want to do it, gentlemen? No, you it's fine. Uh Commissioner Rossado said he wanted to take up RE9 and RE10. Uh those were his items that uh he's the one that decided to take them out
originally. So I don't see that there was a controversy in those uh PC2 uh is one that I don't see as controversial at all. The commissioner part of uh talked about the the rest of it for the most part
uh I think will be items that uh will be requiring a 32 vote. And that's why um I'm taking the position that they should be left when we have a full commission. I think the issue is whether we're okay
listening now to the controversial items. I'm okay doing that. Commissioner Gabella is okay doing that. I don't know about Commissioner Rosado. And it's obvious that you're going to be okay doing that because you two guys are tied from the hip and what one votes the other's going to vote. So, there are
some items here that if they end up 2-2 and not 3-1, uh, then you win. Well, that's how it work. It is what it is. I mean, it is what it is. I mean, no, it's not what it is because if you
want to give the chairwoman the courtesy like we've always have done here, if someone cannot be here in critical items for her to be here, then we bring it in for the next meeting. You guys have to push something to get it through. Now, lots of things. Let me let me give you my reasoning for
doing, for example, SR3. Okay. In SR3, I need to know what exactly that we're doing. So then, yeah, I think the employees deserve an answer because they're in limbo. Okay. Listen, the employees there are not in limbo. The employees there know that whatever decision this commission takes,
uh, they would have in jobs that are left for them. So, let no one's in limbo. Let's not play games. No one is in limbo. If you don't want to play games, then you should say what this is about. This is about You're upset that I took over to Bayr. This is what's being This is about put in there to weaponize
fully Bayfront Park to create defamation on me. And I'm going to tell you here once more, if you have any evidence that I committed any wrongdoing, committed any crimes, took a penny,
bring it up now and I'll be the first one to make the motion that we bring it and I'll take you by the hand till we can bring it to the FBI, any other agency that you would like. Otherwise, stop your games. You going to let me talk?
Go ahead and talk. Okay. Number one, deviation of funds. There were that because I got a picture of of you assembling bags for district 3 underr. Are you going to do the the whole talk? There there's no deviation of any funds,
sir. Let me come with something solid. Come on. That is not solid. That is a picture of You know what's solid? Are the pictures that were shown of your house with five up to five illegal speedboats parked next to it. Illegal speedboat. Okay. Well, your own
property of 11 to 12 cars in a residential lot with all kinds of other stuff. I got you. You're trying to illegal. I know what you're trying to do. You gentlemen, you're trying to this state have not gotten anyone from code 2 and 1/2 months later to go. You want to talk
about cool. Let's talk about your house and how you covered up your eight violations that you have. There's no cover up there. Clear. So don't talk crap. They're talking crap. Okay. You're talking crap. Gentlemen, gentlemen. See, I came here to do this peaceful and he takes it out.
You two guys. Gentlemen, you two guys, the game that you play is going to stop with me here. Oh, I'm scared of you. I'm scared of you. What are you going to do to me? Okay. Gentlemen, gentlemen, I'm not going to do anything to you, sir. But if you get up again, threaten me like you try to do before. I'm not
going to I'm not going to melt down in you. Oh boy. You know how to muddy the waters, huh? You know how to really muddy the waters to get away from if you want to. If you want to really be transparent, then show what your arrest record is for. Show it.
Well, the only arrest talking about arrest record. The only arrest record arrest. This is his only arrest record. You have a steal for rest here. If you want to talk about arrest record what happened to me 20 plus years ago, what
happened to me 24 years ago? This is his arrest. This is the only guy that hasn't and I was innocent. I didn't commit. Okay. Nor was I convicted of anything. This is what you love, man. This is what you The residents of Miami have known him that for 20 plus years.
Gentlemen, I'd like to make a motional. I would like to I would second that sir. I don't know what you're talking about. You know I don't know what is you know what I'm talking you sir have been the one arrested here that's not you
commissioner I was not convicted of anything sir make a motion. What's this? The guy that won. The guy that was convicted was a crooked police chief and city manager that we had
that pushed for me to be arrested. Then the was not convicted. I would like to make a motion to hear the following items and exclusively the following items. Upon further reflection, I realize there are some items sponsored by the chairwoman that I
actually asked to pull because I wanted to discuss them because I do have questions. So out of fairness for her, I'm going to make a motion that we not discuss those items and perhaps several other that are just not time-sensitive. So I would like to move that we hear exclusively RE9, RE10,
DI1, if the board is here. I'm not sure they're not here. So that also can be moved. Uh DI6 and PZ2. I have questions on each of the other ones and I I can support uh a
motion that would allow the chairwoman to be present when I'll second that. I want I want us to motion. There's a second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. I. Okay. No. Passes three to one. Okay. So, we'll focus just on those now in R9.
Yeah. R9 is very short. So, it's something that I added on uh and I have some additional good news. So the title is not the most exciting title ever, but a joint use agreement is essentially agreement that MDCPS County Public Schools has with different
cities to allow residents access to school fields uh after school hours typically from about 5 to 9 uh p.m. and on weekends often from 8:00 a.m. to about 10:00 p.m. at night. And so in a in a past professional life, I
negotiated one of these. takes a few months, but suddenly your residents have access to ball fields, football, soccer, basketball, playground equipment, etc. that they might not otherwise have access to. And I know that as a district and as a city, our recreational opportunities are very limited in many
neighborhoods. And so what I wanted to do uh when I began my role here as commissioner is to inquire which of the schools in district 4. We have seven schools that are located within district 4 and then we also have two schools that are located outside, one in Coral Gables, one in West Miami, but that
serve large numbers of children in district 4. And so I reached out to the school board and I said, you know, could I have copies of the joint use agreements for those schools? And out of the nine schools I just referenced, only one has a joint use agreement, which means the neighborhoods surrounding the
other eight don't have access to basketball, softball, you name it. And so what I was bringing forth originally as an item is to go ahead and uh, you know, work with the manager, work with our attorney to negotiate one joint use agreement per school. What has happened
since we put this item on the agenda is I have some additional good news. I think that was good good enough news by itself. But what the school board has realized, it's going to be so labor intensive to negotiate with me or any of us on each of these individually that they are offering to do a master joint use agreement for the entire city of
Miami applying to all public schools citywide. And so residents in dozens of neighborhoods should now be able to have access to these recreational facilities. And given that we are park poor in many places, I think this is a big step forward in providing our residents the
quality recreational amenities that they very much deserve. So, I'm very excited about that. That that's a very positive um resolution. Uh up to now, the few uh contracts that we have with the school board is the opposite. We're letting the
school board use some of our playgrounds and facilities instead. So this will just uh expand on that but open it up much bigger because many of the schools we have uh in our city or maybe in the
surrounding areas like you mentioned uh have uh big parcels of land that could be used. Some of them uh have a baseball field, soccer field uh that a residents could use. So I would be very much in
favor of that. Do you have a motion for that? Absolutely. I would move to work with have the administration and all interested parties work with MDCPS to bring forth a master joint use agreement um for ultimately for our vote a few
months down the line. And I would just say the each of you knows your districts better than than I do and then each other may. And so, uh, obviously you'll each be chiming in on the specific schools that are in your districts in terms of what are the right hours given the immediate neighbors, what are the
right kinds of amenities. I mean, this isn't something that comes with no cost. They there we are likely to be asked to pay for two things. One would be interior fencing. That is very important to them because they want to make sure that if somebody can go onto a basketball court at 6 p.m. that they somehow don't also have access to go
inside the building, classrooms, and bathrooms and all of that. And certainly, I think we're all in agreement. We don't want that either. Maybe cover that. That That's reasonable. Yeah. And and perhaps lighting in schools that don't have lighting at night. There's some motions. There's a second by Commissioner Partardo. And chair, my apologies. It'll be as
amended because it's now citywide. Yeah. As amended. Seconder. It's amended. Uh all in favor signify by saying I. I. It passes. Okay. Uh RE10. RE10 is something that I
talked about as well on the on the campaign trail, which is we all know that Miami is a very expensive place to live. You know, South Florida, Miami date, city of Miami, it's all very expensive. And one of the things that we have most direct control over is the land that is owned by the city. And and
I know that the school board, the county, large cities, we we often sit on on land that's very valuable, would be very valuable to the public, except it's not being developed. And and so part of this me putting forth this item uh is because I said on the campaign trail,
but I also want to like revise it a little bit. Uh my request to the administration was to come forth with a list of every city parcel uh and and with recommendations for which ones could be mixed income housing particularly. And I I I thought of mixed income housing because if ultimately
what I'd like to see done is is an RFP that puts them out to the development community, both for-profits and nonprofit builders to build housing that includes a range of incomes. And the reason for that is for it to actually be competitive and desirable for for private companies and nonprofits to
build to bid on is you would want to make it so that they they can make money off some market rate units as part of the projects and then the other units be subsidized. I I wanted to modify my own motion because upon further consideration, we may have parcels in neighborhoods where the zoning is
exclusively single family and and so obviously you can't have mixed income in a single family home or duplex or or a duplex. So the idea would be if by the next meeting we could have or rather within 60 days if we could have a full report of all city-owned parcels
that could be developed for housing of some sort and recommendations of how to move forward and a priority order also for moving forward. It it could be one RFP that puts out every single city parcel or it could be going neighborhood by neighborhood or some variation
thereof. Uh, and and I know that there may be parcels where we actually have other things we want to do with them, whether it's a standalone fire station or something else, but I want to move forward if we're sitting on land where we can be providing it to get people into quality affordable housing. I I I
just can't think of any good reasons to not make it available. Very good. There's a motion and I I absolutely there's a motion, but I think also our our CFO uh may want to speak to the item there. You still around? Yes, sir. Go ahead. Um uh thank you through the vice chair.
Uh commissioner, um we do have a I would call it a perpetual list of those properties. We make them available to the public currently. Um typically through uh housing community development. So we we have had in the past where developers will come to us
and say we like this parcel and we've done transactions that way. I just want you to have that information available um associated with your directive but okay we will follow but I just want to put that on record. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion a second part of all in
favor signify by saying I I I passes uh unanimously. All right. Next one. Uh do we have any on DI1? Any any reports from boards and committees? Uh Mr. Fl. Uh so um which
item are you going on to next commissioner? DI1 committee chair is not here so we can just skip that item. Okay. So there's none. Go to the next. Uh I think you said DI6. DI6. Okay. DI6 redevelopment of the Miami
Police Department headquarters. Do you want anybody from the police department to address this or do you just want to deal with it? It's up to you. I think we have our CFO and our assistant city manager here to answer questions, but the idea is the Miami Police Department is sitting on very valuable downtown land. The
building is not in great shape. I had the opportunity to to tour it. I know that it's got infrastructure issues. I know that it has more concerningly when I say infrastructure issues, I know they've had like sewer backups and things along those lines. So, those are things that can definitely be resolved, but I know we've got the chief here as
well. Um, uh, I know that we also have, which is more concerning to me, we have issues with the parking garage, and there we're talking about structural issues. That is very expensive to resolve. That's very concerning. Uh, and more recently, I know we had a sinkhole in the parking lot, which
I mean, we're starting to get to the point where the building is I I'm not going to say it's in an im imminent danger of any sort of collapse. I don't want to make that seem like that's the case. But this the situation seems to be getting worse, but it we don't have a clear um directive yet. There's no clear
direction from the from the commission in conjunction with the administration to to do something with that land. I think we need to dispose of it. Uh we need to obviously need to make sure our police officers are safe. We need to move in the direction of disposing of it. We need to identify a site at which
a the Miami police headquarters could be constructed. And given that all of that is is a process that's going to take some time, I'd like to see a start now by identifying a location. You know, if we have like a range of locations, I think we need to bring those to the table soon and and have your your expert
recommendations as to where it may make sense for a variety of access reasons, space reasons, etc. But we've got to move forward on this already. Absolutely correct in this. And I've been telling the manager that I've had
conversations with the police chief. Let me explain to you some of the issues that we got to sort our ways. The manager would like to have a police and fire administration building
built together. Um, coming from the law enforcement side of the world, uh, I have a lot of doubts on that, you know, that might work fine in smaller cities that don't have a large police
department or a large fire department, but in a city that we're just approved a couple of meetings ago to go to 1,700 or more police officers in the next three years, that we're going to have some over 800
firefighters. It's not the best solution uh in mixing both forces together and all the that goes involved with each separate department and their needs and emergencies and so on. That's one.
Secondly, which I think you hit the nail on the head, we have to identify which is the best and most centrally located area. Our s our city while comparison comparing it to other cities, it's not
that big in land mass. It's very stretched out and the location where it's been now has been pretty centrally located. So we need to find something maybe not right there but that is still centrally
located. One that has been mentioned uh and we had always looked at that was the new site on the freedom part. My concern with that side is the following. Um one is too far away from
the rest of the city. Uh two, once we have soccer games that you know stadiums are full, once we have the mall, the hotels, office buildings that are operating down the road, this
could become, you know, troublesome in getting police services in and out of that building. Likewise, fire. So that's why I'm not so keen in that area even though I I I don't think we should cross anything out. We should
look at everything. We have a at least that I know of maybe there are more I don't know a couple of other areas that might be more feasible more centrally located than that over there. But I think what we need to do is what you're suggesting
that we start looking at all the sites and looking at the plus and cons of of each uh site u and and moving forward. Commissioner Pardo, do you have anything to say on that? No, I think it's good. Okay. Uh Chief, would you like to add anything
since you're here? So, good afternoon. Manny Morales, chief police 400 Northwest Second Avenue Commission. Uh I appreciate you bringing up this discussion item is something that's been obviously near and dear to my heart not only to myself but to uh fire chief heavier uh as he is
experiencing some infrastructure challenges himself. Um we have been working with the administration for quite a while doing the studies to see what space is needed, what type of facility would best serve the citizens of Miami. Uh and and one of those
exercises was to try to figure out where do we put it. As Vice Chair Coroyo said, the city is uh at a premium when it comes to land space. So, it's been one of the decisions that we made yesterday. Uh we had a meeting just kind of discussing the options and some of the
proposals that the the company have put forward uh on the sites. But um let's we can we can overcome whatever challenges might happen. And I know that the police department, the fire department didn't have the best of relationships in the past. We've kind of transcended that in
and we have a very good working relationships. So if it's something that it it can be more efficient, more cost effective to move us together, we're we're definitely on board with anything that can be, you know, what what makes
the city dollars go further. Mhm. So, we're we're definitely looking forward to being able to put Do you have any idea, Chief? And I know that the figures could be very high or very low. Whatever you give us, it's a guess.
But based upon what numbers that you've all been looking at, do you have any idea how much it might cost to build you guys a new building? Sir, I would refer that to our our CFO. I have no idea about the money. Larry's got uh make it
in one pocket uh the cost and the other he's got the money, right? I'm going to throw No, no, don't don't don't throw a number out because because we we we have a size of the building, but we have a price. Yeah, I was through the through the vice chair. What's the size of the building? Through the vice chair, Larry Springs,
chief financial officer. So, the city has been doing a significant amount of analysis on uh public safety relocation. Um to your point, we we we we are cleanly aware of the the garage issue. In fact, we've already put money to
demolish the garage and do a surface parking there. Um the plan that we've kind of been skeleton structuring around with regards to the sale of those is to sell them, use proceeds to then reinvest into How much are you figuring, Larry, that
we could get estimate on the land if we sell it? I don't want to be so secure, but probably the sale of the two locations somewhere 40 50 million bucks at the end of the day. The two locations, the fire administration building and the police headquarters
will be how much? I haven't I will I I'd have to do some more. You and I, you know, I put real Yes. I'm But you know, it's 4050 million spitballing. Spitballing. Yeah. But you know, it's 4050 40 50 million probably. But I think we get more than that, Larry.
Yeah. Well, we may get more, but again, the plan was almost like a P3 structure. So, we will sell and then reinvest um into the building. We do have a a presentation that we could probably share with the commissioners individually that that shows all the
analysis that we've done to to to that would be good if you could do that. We um for purposes of of just an update. So, we literally had a meeting yesterday um between fire, police uh internally uh to review the various sites. Conversation
you and I had a long not that long ago um to do the analysis because we've already done the analysis in terms of um the variables for for three different sites, three different potential locations. Um they've done a programming analysis for each. Um we've done pros
and cons for each. So, we're we have a follow-up meeting that we're going to do subsequent to yesterday's meeting. Um, and then the idea was to come back, brief each of you individually and um and make some recommendations. And last but not least, uh once you do that, you should come back and let the commission
know what is the condition of both substations. Uh how much more dollars might we have to put in bringing them up to date? Uh and how many fire station need the same?
We we have all of that analysis and or how many additional fire stations do we need with the growth that we're having. Yes. So that is so important because you know I see that we're spending here a lot of money in many different ways
like if we had it to you know spend and I'm just seeing that we don't we have a tremendous amount of uh monies that we have to spend uh and just police and fire alone without going
anywhere. So um any further questions that you might have? Uh Mr. Manager, so this is the we only have one more meeting in July and then we don't reconvene again until the essentially eight weeks from now. Could we have a recommendation like a priority order of
sites at that first September meeting? is my my concern is and I have the image that I have on the screen so that folks understand that's the sinkhole from just a couple of weeks ago in the parking lot, right? And the reality is if we said we're going to craft an RFP and and we've got a site in mind, etc. It's
we're talking about probably four years before before there's a new police department with a with a CEO, right? We got procurement was probably going to take 9 months or so then you know design u then um permitting then construction I
mean it's we're four years away and there's a sinkhole now well well your argument is very valid if my if I may suggest with the upcoming budget coming in the first readings the manager might need a little extra
time to get by the budget before he could put this together. So, what will be the first meeting after we're done with the budget, Mr. Manager? October 9th. Would that be sufficient for you to give him the time so we get through budget?
Okay. But in the but in the interim ahead of that, we'll come meet with each of you individually ahead of that so that when we're presenting on October 9th, you've already been briefed and you're you've given us feedback and so that we can incorporate that into whatever presentation we make. Okay.
Okay. And I I like to get feedback also when you come to us from both uh chiefs, police and fire. Yeah. On both ideas whether they're inclined to have one location together or
separate locations and their preference one, two, and three or uh whatever the amount of locations we might have for all of them. Uh that would be their preference where to go. Is that okay? Commissioner.
Okay. So, there's a motion. There's a second by Commissioner Partardo. It's just a discussion item. Yeah. Well, I I thought he wanted to bring it back by October 9th. So, Oh, I think that was more just a direction for the manager to come back with um the the the information being
requested from Commissioner Rosado at the October 9th meeting. Yeah, we'll we'll accept the directive. I mean, we don't need to make put on the record. Is that a resolution? Just for my own clarification, is that does that a company with a resolution that prioritizes the potential sites and we take you can make that that would could
certainly be part of it. I'll I'll let that be dependent on how those individual briefings go whether we really have uh you know the votes there to agree on one particular location or it needs to be done further. But if but if we feel like we've narrowed down to one location and one concept, whether
it's a joint public safety building or independent structures, you know, we'll we'll present both. Okay. All right. And we're down to the last item, PZ2, uh the HEP decision appeal. Um this is u
a resolution of the Miami city commission granting or denying the appeal filed by Burke or Adal Fernandez Larkin and Tapus on behalf of the property owner. Mr. Vice Chair, this is an appeal. So it's a quasi judicial hearing. If the um
team is ready, they could I think Carly's there. Yeah. And in the interim, could I just read the shape meeting notice? So yeah, this is the district two, correct? Uh, Commissioner Partardo, District Two.
District two. Okay, that's fine. Um, Mr. City attorney Have we had everybody sworn in that wants to speak? I believe we did that in the beginning of the meeting.
Um, you know, if there are people that are here that weren't here in the beginning, we can do that again. The clerk can can do that again to ensure that everybody is sworn in. Besides the uh lady that I see here that I I'm assuming is going to represent
uh the uh appellant Is there anybody else from the public that's here uh on this item? Okay, there's none. So, can uh we hear from you?
Good afternoon, commissioners. Karly Koshell with Burkow offices at 200 South Biscane Boulevard. I wanted to let you know that I do have a full presentation that I'm prepared to give you, but where I would like to start is by emphasizing that the instant property is a
non-contributing property within the Morningside Historic District. And you say non-contributing. Yes, sir. Can you clarify that? Absolutely. So, the property is located at 5935 Northeast 6th Court. It's on the east
side and it is located within the Morningside historic district. So it is included within the historic district but what is really important to understand is that it is non-contributing which means that it does not add to the
historic architectural qualities of the district because it w in this case because it was not present during the period of significance for the district. The Morningside District era of significance is 1922 to 1941.
This particular property was built in 1946. So while it is within the historic district, it is not in and of itself a historically a it does not have historical value. And so when you are considering what can be done on such a
property, the standard is inevitably lower than what it must be for contributing properties. And that's acknowledged in the Morningside District Designation report. And so what's before you today is a two-story addition at the
front of the home. And what's important to understand is that this twostory edition complies with zoning regulations. It went before the HEP board and and the historic preservation department because it is in the historic district, but the standards for review
are general compatibility with the district and not the historic value of the home itself. And so when you're evaluating what is compatible with the historic district, it's important to understand that the Morningside Historic District does contemplate twotory
volumes specifically in the district regulations for a variety of architectural styles. In fact, just two houses to the left of this property are two-story houses and the two houses to the right are twotory houses.
when you put it in context, you can see that the volume is compatible with its street face. And so when you're evaluating compatibility, you do so based on chapter 23, which are the historic preservation regulations, and on standard 9 of the Secretary of Interior
standards, which determines compatibility is size, scale, color, material, and character of the neighborhood. And here we believe that all of those standards are satisfied. uh the the the proposed home complies with zoning regulations. And what's important
to understand about this particular location of the two-story volume is that it was not accidentally placed at the front of the home. There is a specimen size live oak on the neighbors property that whose root system extends into the
rear yard of our property. And if we put the twotory volume in the rear of the home, it would impact the root zone of that specimensized live oak tree, you can see that the existing pool for this home is on the south side of the property for exactly that reason. And so
with that in mind, we respectfully request a upholding of our appeal and overturning of the Historic Preservation Board's uh denial and specifically on the premise that this home is non-contributing, which is misstated and
and confused throughout the record up to this point. Uh we would clarify and point out that there is no Morningside specific dominant setback. So while this property is while this addition is proposed to be at the front setback at
the 20 foot setback that it is compatible with zoning's requirements for single family residences and there is nothing in the Morningside Historic District that says that it must be placed further back. And with that we respectfully request your approval.
Thank you. Um any questions from the members of the commission? Okay. Is there any um statements that any commissioner has to make as far as since this judicial
I have a question. Having having met with anyone, I have a question. Go ahead. Uh are you advocating for the uh I'm sorry phone call. Uh are you advocating for the uh the the people that own the
house? Yes, sir. Okay. And uh so the headboard came back, but you're uh what you're saying is that it's not uh the house wasn't uh part of the historic uh scene, if you will, because I missed some of the uh
the home is part of the historic district and that is without question. However, this home is non-contributing, which means that it doesn't add to the value or the character. The home that exists there today does not have historic value and it's on record that
this is non-contributing. So the standards of what can be built on this property are different. This home can be demolished. The instant owners are a family. They've lived there since 2019. They have two kids. They have a third on their way. They're looking to expand the home so
that they can continue to use it. This is not a speck home. This is not a modern construction in a historic district. It's respectful and it's for it's to accommodate a family that of residents in this district. Thank you. Yeah, I fully support granting the
appeal. I mean, this family has done everything possible to stay and I think second I and I also have a motion as amended. As amended as amended. Can we can we make a clarification? Um,
so the the motion was to grant the the appeal. That's what it said. It was to grant the appeal. Is that with the the recommended staff conditions because remember the posture of this is that there was a recommendation of approval with conditions from the the city staff. It
went to HEP. HEP did a straight denial. And so um any approval could you go through the staff recommendations? Yeah, I think staff is prepared to go through their their analysis and recommendations so that way
it's clear what what the conditions are. Yes. Yes. Savan Savan Steiner, assistant director of planning. Um so the there was originally a staff recommendation of denial. the hut board um deferred the item and said
that the addition did not need to necessarily be subordinate to the main structure which would have pushed it to the back. Staff then made a recommendation of approval with um conditions. Three of those conditions included um the roof line and the eve line that you see in the picture before
you. So the applicant has already incorporated that condition into their into their drawings. The second one was to mimic the um openings uh windows and doors of that's found in the historic district. They've also complied with that. That's what you see in your um in
your rendering. The third one was to use either the dominant setback or the average setback of the block phase which would push the addition back from 20 ft to either 27 or 30 feet. And that's the one that the headboard um agreed with
and um thought that the addition should be pushed back. And and so the applicant is willing Oh, okay. I'm getting is not willing to push the structure back an additional 7 ft beyond what the zoning district requires for every other single family home that is non-contributing.
You would have to tear the structure down to do that. Correct. Um basically, no sir. uh because it is a addition it is not affecting the existing structure. It is possible for the addition to be it is theoretically possible for the
addition to be 7 ft back. However, it would severely impact how the addition is placed and it would require the enclosure of a courtyard that exists on the property. If you look at the site plan, you can see that there is there is
theoretically room to shift it back, but that would greatly decrease its utility for the family. I see. So, how many conditions were there? Were there three? Just the three. That's correct. There were several Those were the three that were at issue.
The the remaining conditions are are typical conditions that you would see on in any application. Those were the three that were pertinent to this application. So the motion was to grant the appeal. To grant the appeal with all the staff conditions in place or with none of I'm trying to figure out
which commission really contention. Your motion included the staff's recommendations or not? There's one apparently that they have not complied with and so my motion included moving forward without compliance of that last recommendation. So they're in compliance with three out of the four.
We would request to strike condition seven of the staff report. do that one which has to do with the the actual setback. Correct. Yes. And be able to My apologies chair. Then you really need to reconsider this motion because I didn't capture to me it was just
granting the appeal had nothing to do with any conditions. So then you want to reconsider. What can it be clarified what I would prefer essentially this is quasi judicial. Okay. So okay. So let's reconsider the motion. Is there a motion to motion to reconsider
and second? Second. Okay. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Okay. So the motion is back to reconsideration. How? Make a motion with the exception then. Right. So I make a motion to grant the appeal with the exception of striking
condition number seven as submitted in the staff report. Okay. And you second. I I will I will second that. I I realize we did not give our Jennings disclosures on this item. I just wanted to mention that I Yeah, I did. I did give Jennings.
Okay. Um, all in favor signify by saying I. I. I. It passed unanimously. And I have a motion as well. As amended. When you're done. When you're done. Well, we're we're done. Uh, that's No, I mean, I have one motion because
there were some items that I want to hear and they were the controversial ones. I just didn't I wanted to do it with cooler heads prevailing in the room. We we voted uh already that these were the items that were going to be listened. So chair the meeting. Yes. It was my understanding that
Commissioner Rosado's motion was for the items that he wanted to hear. Those are the items that he wanted to hear. Well, this were the items that we voted to hear, but there are still other items remaining on the agenda. Okay. The the two items and I'll explain why chair.
Okay. A lot of people have come here many many times. They're both very controversial items. I think we can make our statements. Both everybody here on this day is on these items and get past them. But personally, I would like to hear
both of them are your items, not Commissioner King's items. Chairwoman King's items. Apologize. One is the discussion item on the DDA and the other one is I believe SR3. Uh both of these items are controversial
items that require uh in my opinion the courtesy to have Commissioner King here. Um and they might be items that might be three to two. I don't know. Um, the
people that account for the DDA for the most part, like was stated here by somebody, they're people that either are getting funding from the DDA or work in the DDA or have something to do with the DDA. Uh, and and the other one, it's the
same people that you're sending up here all the time, sir, every meeting on this. So, both of these items are truly items that we need a full commission to hear. And, you know, we've heard people
uh they don't have to come, you don't have to send people send out uh tweets uh or anything uh to get more people here. we, you know, done the items that uh I thought there was uh a consensus on
uh before to deal with and we would leave the others for next uh meeting that we would have and and that's where I stand. I'd like to make the motion to hear those two items. Second. I I can support that. Well,
uh, what's going to happen here, Commissioner Rosalu, is that if we hear these items and it's a 22 vote without Commissioner King here, then, uh, they will fail in one of them. Uh, you know,
it might be a 3-1. Uh, even though, you know, I'm not taking a position to vote one way or another. I should think that people uh if they're going to be taxed deserve a right to put their position forward, but bottom line is,
you know, uh you're the third vote up here. If uh you want to go ahead and listen to both items and one do you know that uh it's your motion that you made uh and it was voted upon in first
reading three to two that if it comes to a vote here uh might end up being 22 therefore it would fail. If that's what you want to do uh for it to fail then uh so be it. I I I think we may be able to
arrive at a at an agreement on the item. Okay. Well, that's fine. So, there's a a motion. There's a second to hear these items. And uh uh all f all
that are in favor signify by saying I I. Okay. Passes three to one. And let's uh begin by uh listening to I think the one that will be the quickest uh which will
be uh the DI5. It's a discussion and presentation regarding the DDA. I don't intend to make this a horse and and show pony uh even though there have been individuals
I understanding that have followed the process uh in our charter to ask to make presentations through the manager and they've been ignored u I don't intend to bring them uh on board in this all that
I wanted to do out of this is not praise not crucified the DDA and anything that they've done or haven't done just to give people the right you would think in America everyone should have if you're
going to be paying taxes in this case they're paying an additional tax on their properties uh that benefits the whole city but only uh one area of the city is paying for it then they deserve to have a say so if
they want to keep paying it or not. And my sole proposal to make it short and sweet uh is in bringing forth uh motion, if I may, where
the question on paying to the DDA from residential units is put to a vote of property owners. on residential units.
And why do I say property owners and not voters? Because the property owners are the ones that are paying directly and then have a separate one at the same time uh on commercial properties to see
if they want to keep uh paying or not. And however way they decide, I respect it. I have no problem. You know, I have no action grinding this. I just want people to be able to have a say so if
they're paying monies. You know, this is the way that things are, at least that I remember in the America I grew up in uh that we would do things. You don't pay if you don't decide and have representation.
And uh that's uh the sole purpose of my bringing this up. I'll start with Commissioner Rosado and we'll work our way down. Any statements? Is there any additional information that we were going to be provided? I was under the impression there was also like
a public presentation. Am I am I wrong in this? Well, if you like to hear any 1% of public presentation, I have no problem in in listening uh from a public presentation from
uh the association or either one Bickl or downtown, but um you know, it's it's up to you if you'd like to hear that or not. I I'm just not ready to to vote on this
item. Uh I became the DDA chair just a couple of hours ago because I haven't been here very long at all. I actually haven't had a chance to meet with either the DDA or other interested stakeholders. Not in a very meaningful way. Would you like to bring this for the next meeting while you have that opportunity? And we just bring up the
question that I put up here. I'm not I'm not taking one side or another and saying that this is good, this is bad. I just want the people that are paying to decide for themselves what they want to
do. Just as I understand it from a timing perspective, they they need to have their budget approved just like the city does in a relatively short amount of time. I I'm not sure that I can take a position on this yet. Not an informed position. And even at the next meeting,
that doesn't give me enough time to really study the issue. I'm going to be attending my first DDA board meeting. I attended some years back, but it's been many, many years. I just don't I don't think I can make a decision on this in the next, you know, so weeks or so. I would defer it
until minimum at a minimum to September, like the second September meeting, because I need to at least meet with them and review their budget. I I just don't I don't have enough information at this point in time to make an informed decision. I think that would it would be not responsible of me to vote on this at this time.
So motion to defer motion to defer to the second meeting in September at the soonest. Yeah, there there's a motion to defer second meeting in December. But I I I hope that you're understanding that you're not taking any position. You're just letting people express themselves
with money that they're paying that they've never have been asked. Uhhuh. whether they want to pay it or not that you where you live at in Coral Gate and all of us that live in separate parts benefit from that but we
don't have to pay it in our properties. They're paying it that we're letting them decide if they want to keep paying it or not. That's all that we're doing. If uh for any reason they vote uh no, they don't want to pay it anymore, you have the option to come back to this
commission and decide if you want the commission to put some money in the DDA or see how that would be funded to go forward, if that's what's needed to be done or not. I I'd just like more time to be able to to do a deep dive on the issue. I I
understand the concept. I understand the concept of allowing them to vote. I just need to have a much greater familiarity with each of the programs that are in place, the initiatives, etc. I want to hear from interested stakeholders. I want to actually get out into the downtown community now, which now is something I'll be able to do um in this
new capacity and actually hear folks out. And I just don't think doing that next week is sufficient time. So that would be my request is to to table the item until the second meeting in September and then determine if there's a time frame, you know, what the
appropriate time frame for that would be. I'll second it. There's a motion. There's a second to defer it until the second meeting in September. All in favor signify by saying I. I.
I. I. Okay. It's table to the second meeting in September. Go ahead, Commissioner. your item was also SR3. Okay. I I did prepare a presentation on this and I worked with the
administration so I know that they're going to have a a PowerPoint as well, but I prepared some some remarks. Uh so the Bayfront uh trust is experiencing a period of stability and that should be acknowledged that progress is real and this moment of stability is a credit to current leadership. But there will come
a time when the current chair has to pass the GAVL. Uh, and these moments of stability Miami history has shown us time and again are typically very short-lived. Uh, as I mentioned at the last meeting, I I don't want to discuss people as part of this item at all. I want to discuss ideas and that's going to be my focus. Uh, this proposal is not
about anyone commissioner or leader and and it's uh just of a number of reform items that I'm going to be proposing or supporting in in some form over the next several months. Uh, it's about ensuring that the park system doesn't rely on who holds the gavvel. No single person, no matter how effective, should have to
carry the full weight of an entire system's success or failure. The goal is not to take control away of anything from anybody, but rather to build a structure that protects the park from political turnover and prevents it from continuing to be used as a political football, which is the posture that it's
essentially had for close to 40 years. I'm going to give you I did this last time. I'll just do a quick recap of assorted challenges over time to to indicate this isn't something that's happening now, but something that's happened for almost 40 years. Uh in the 80s and 90s, the trust was created. It
had tremendous promise, but it never had sufficient built-in checks and community representation as part of its structure. Board appointments over time began trending toward political loyalty rather than relevant experience or even uh being a downtown resident or business
owner in many cases. Throughout the early 2000s, audits found that there were a number of no- bid contracts, outdated vendor deals, and inconsistent finances. And in many cases, community input was absolutely minimal. Uh you even had at one point an executive director that was arrested for bribery.
This is again under the current structure that's been in place for a number of decades. Uh infighting with city departments stalled consistent maintenance and programming. So a lot of work had to be done to bring up the the parks uh into quality form and there
were entire periods without executive leadership in place. Uh so let's be honest the the trust pass historically has been politically volatile like a pendulum uh swing swinging with the tides of elections and personalities. uh these aren't exaggerations on my part.
Rather, these are on the record. And that's why part of part of why the public trust has eroded uh uh regarding the trust in a number of years and decades. We've patched over the damage, but we haven't restructured its actual foundation. Uh so we can't afford to
keep repeating the cycle, and the park is just too important to once again become the political football that it's consistently been throughout its history. So why is now the right time to even have this conversation? The trust, at least for the moment, is stable. And that's exactly why now is the right time to act deliberately and without urgency.
Reform during stability is smart governance and waiting for the next crisis, which is something the city has a history of doing, would be failure of leadership on our collective part up here. As we've seen time and again, whether it's the Olympia Theater, the Miami Police Headquarters, Marine Stadium, the Coconut Grove Playhouse, or
a number of other uh items and city assets, the city has a long history of waiting until something can't possibly get worse before it decides to finally take action. and that's the wrong time in which to do things. So in this case, let's take action at a moment of relative calm in order to get this right. The park is perhaps more
important than ever, increasingly surrounded by worldclass institutions and serving as Miami's front yard, civic front yard. Every year though we delay, we risk continued short-term thinking, missed fundraising opportunities, missed programming opportunities, missed planning opportunities. And so yes, the
current chair has only had this position for a few months, but this reform is not a reflection of his leadership. Instead, it's about building on it and ensuring that what's being achieved now doesn't evaporate during the next election cycle. So this proposal is not in conflict with his work or his vision, but rather it's an extension of it. What
I'm proposing is that we still maintain full public ownership of the park, but that we establish a structure that moves the agency further out of reach out of anyone the grasp of any one political leader. Um, I'd like to see us involve to a greater extent downtown businesses and property owners. That's not
consistently the case. Uh, we each can appoint folks from anywhere in the city and that as folks have reached out to me with emails saying that they'd like to see more downtown representation. We're actually not obliging by that mandate. Now, um, we've worked closely with the administration to research best practices from the National Recreation
and Park Association and other industry leaders that operate in the field of governance and operations for large revenue generating urban parks. We've dug deep interact internationally recognized uh major parks in the country. Major parks that are large
urban parks, revenue generating parks such as Central Park in New York City and large parks in Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Dallas, and even a local example of the underlying. Um, as we saw from the NRPA article that I distributed at the last meeting, uh, others across the country have actually looked at Bayfront
and proposed that we take an alternative structure. So, at the national level, this has caught attention. Um, I want to make clear what this reform is not about. It's not about privatization. It's not a reflection on any individual, whether it's an elected person or somebody appointed to a position. I'm proposing forward-looking governance
reform for one of our city's most important public assets. This is a chance for the current chair and the commission to remember not just for stabilizing the trust but to actually be responsible for transforming it into something much more enduring, much more built to last so that we can leave a legacy of leadership that future
commissions can build on and not one that they have to rescue. uh now is the best time to fix a system because we're in a period of calm. Not when it's broken and have an emergency situation, but rather one where we've got a short amount of time to actually make an intelligent decision um so that we don't
regret it and we don't continue to kick the can down the road. Now, if we all agree that the this park matters, these two parks, and I'm sure that we do, we must agree that its care shouldn't depend on political cycles or personalities. And so right now we have the rare alignment of stability of leadership and of public focus which is
why I think the moment to act is now and to make this change before the end of this calendar year dissolving the trust and moving to alternative structure but in the short term moving it under the offices of the city manager's office.
It's my full remarks. Yes, commissioner chair. Go ahead. Would you be willing to consider an effective date of January 1st which would give enough time to really kind of explore the different structures, work with the staff, work
with the community, work with the transition? I I am happy to help make presentations to the community if we agree to a non-negotiable date of January 1st and then move immediately move it under the manager I'd like to move it under the manager's office effective today if at
all possible. Well, that's why I've stated that this should be voted upon when we have a full commission. Made a nice presentation. Uh what I would suggest is that we table this until we have a full commission.
Can I can I can I u go ahead and speak, sir. Um if if that's okay with you, Mr. Bart, if you've been done already or were you done or I don't want to cut you off? I'm done. Thank you. Done. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'll I'll chime in later, but No,
no, the only thing I was going to say is if we need that amount of time, and I know I know you have a preference and a vision, but I think it's always important to bring the community along. And that's the part that that that with any kind of transition plan that's organized would probably take that
amount of time anyway. So, that's why I was proposing an effective date would you said calendar year would match with the calendar year. I I I mean I my preference was actually more immediate, but I understand that that there are concerns about that. I was trying to
hopefully tie it to the the fiscal year, right? Because things move. I understand there's an appointment process and the appointments typically are made at the end of the year. Well, but and and really my focus was about the residents because the probably the piece you you know you don't know as much
because you weren't here on the day at the time but the downtown residents have been through an awful lot on this issue. You know, trying to get kind of more uh input, more uh say in the things that are happening. I think that they feel like we're responding in the right
direction and so I'd like to be able to at least provide the time to share those ideas, share your vision and kind of bring them along with us along the way. Let me let me say this. You keep saying the downtown residents, the downtown
residents. I've never seen here more than a dozen or so of your supporters in downtown that come when we had a real election for the downtown residents to decide what they
wanted. When you were putting up stuff in your Twitter and your Instagram that this is a referendum and Joe Caro, if you vote against it, the outdoor gym equipment,
it won citywide 8020. basically the same numbers in your district in the two precincts right across the park in Maurice Bay one by the 80% and the other was 65%.
So this excused the downtown residents. I mean not even in communist Russia when the Bolsheviks took over they had 2% there. You don't even have a 2% of these
people uh there and the southern majority is too busy working trying to pay their mortgage, their rent, their lives to come here week after week with the same thing. I'm
going to tell you why you're right that this has to be done before uh the next fiscal budget is taken. We have a dilemma of what to do and of course the manager
took the easy way out just give it away like everything else that uh they try to do in the city uh on the Olympia theater and the amount that I'm told that it's about $40 million to take care of it. That's
what the manager said publicly. Now, he was responsible for that since he was the executive director in Austri Parking and he's been responsible for the Olympia Theater since he's been
manager here. Bayfront Park Trust depended on the numbers that uh I have seen as of late that we left could have as much as 20 million, but at least 15 million from what I'm seeing,
but as much as 20 possibly that is reserves that could be spent uh for anything else. On top of that, it has no less than $5
million in a surplus every year. And that wasn't like that when I took over. It was at best a break even situation. Uh I forced a lot of contracts like
Ultra to have to pay a heck of a lot more. Everybody there pays top dollar. And then I brought new contracts uh that are bringing a lot of monies to the trust. That's why I think this year the
supers should be uh somewhere in the $6 million range. Now with those amounts, we could pay maybe as much as half, maybe as much as half to take care of the Olympic theater. And with the
surplus that we have in about eight years or less, we should pay off uh whatever we need to do in the Olympia theater. That doesn't mean that we can't work out a good management contract or
uh other contracts that we would need to with the Olympia Theater. And I have no problem with uh the Matter Academy people, the Slam coming in. They run fine programs uh and I trust their management. But
here's a prime example of what Bayfront Park could do. And and I will tell you that with a little more tweaking in ways that is not going to be harmful at all and it's not going to be bringing noise,
that could bring in another five, six million dollars a year uh in surplus dollars. So this is why we have to do this now, not later. We're going to be facing some real tough decisions. If
we're going to be able to hire 100 more police officers, even 50, uh we're going to have to bite the bullet that many don't want to do here. uh if we're going to lower, you know, we asked the manager in a
resolution to come back and give us 25, 50, 100% uh reduction in property taxes for seniors, 65 and other commission. I'm going to tell you, we're even going to be able to give him a 5% reduction. Uh we got to find more money in different
ways. And uh this is one of the ways that we could find dollars for this city so that we could keep the most important parts of the city. How in the world can we be talking about spending or possibly
spending all this money in the Marine Stadium and we can't even keep the jewel over our city, the Olympia Theater. I mean, any city in America would love to have a place like that. And I guarantee you the administration in
those cities wouldn't be talking about giving it away. But why are we here? Well, we're here because we weren't told that that needed all this work. There was no monies put aside each year
like I mentioned before to do the work that we needed to do. And that's part of the problem that we have. So, uh, I'm in agreement with that. And this why I think this should be tabled for the next meeting where we have a full commission.
Can I Yes. Go ahead, sir. No, I I was just going to make a motion uh to move forward with that with an effective date as amended to January 1st. You won't be able to resolve the Olympic
Theater stuff in the way that I propose. And then what's going to happen is you're going to have a motion so that we do a contract that forever the Olympia Theater won't belong to the city of Miami. Can I interject your I think I've heard
everybody. Go ahead, sir. First question and then don't get mad what I'm going to ask you, but you were there for 7 to 8 years. How come you think it's a good idea now, but you never proposed it when you were the I did? As a matter of fact, I did. Yes.
I didn't know it. When did you propose? It was proposed. It was when? Yes. And you were against it in this commission. So was he. When when was that? That was proposed either in December, January of this year. Oh, in January. No, that was proposed if I if I my memory um if I recolct
correctly, that was proposed when you knew that I was about to become chairman. Okay. and I became and then that's when you proposed that no sir that was commission talked about that even when you were there for seven to eight years you were there for seven to eight years and you never proposed it now you think it's a good idea
I I'm disagree with you sir move on there's a motion on the floor I hang on hang on before the mot that motion because yeah so so I've said that why you know it's very suspicious to me why now he had seven eight years to do it he didn't do anything but now seems like a good
idea But uh No, no. I I I heard what you said. I heard what you said. I'm I'm going to take it like what you said. And this year, you know, you proposed it in February of this year. Uh look, um the Virginia uh key trust, I don't know
if you guys are familiar with the uh with the history of it. In 2022, there were allegations of uh you know, stuff not going under there correctly. Okay. And in 2022, the commissioners here, whoever they they were, and I think you were here, Mr. for you commissioner and
and others. I think you were not here. I was not here and Rosado was certainly not here. What they did was they removed the whole board, but they didn't change the institution. They never removed the trust. And still to today, that trust is is is viable. What they did is they removed where they thought the problem
lied. Okay? But they kept the trust in the same makeup, the same structure as it is today. As a matter of fact, we just had him waiting on it. This is it right here. The Virginia Key Trust. Now, seems to me, okay, that if we're going to start worrying about trust, maybe we
should also look at the Virginia Key Trust if if this is the way the way the city's going about. Okay. Second, let me let me just say this, okay? I've been chairman for about 4 months now. Okay? And precisely what you're talking about, Commissioner Rosado. I
was put in there to the rumblings that were going on there for seven eight years while Commissioner Koyo was chairman. With all due respect, I believe his brother was chairman before that and Frank I think never had a problem if I if I recall correctly. The problem was this gentleman. Now that's
his problem with him and then I came into the picture, okay, to fix that problem. I've been trying to fix that problem and and understand to me it's not like I'm held on to that thing and you're going to have to pry my hands off of that thing. I will go graciously. I've already said that before, you know,
but uh I just think the way this is coming about and the city manager has uh we have talked okay and I believe and I don't want to put words in your in your mouth. I believe that we talk candidly about this and I think we at this moment we're not prepared and we don't have a plan to take this entity into our own.
Is that correct or am I No, I mean what we do with it now, I mean I think the the intent and the conversations I've had with Commissioner Rosso as well is is to um analyze potential other structures for the park
from a governance leadership perspective. Right now if this is abolished immediately it would just roll into a parks program but the existing staff would remain in place. But would that be a good thing? I I Are you recommending that we do that with the Virginia Key Trust in the future, too?
I you know, chair the chair of the Virginia Key Trust is certainly not here. It'd be good to get her perspective on it because she's been managing that entity. I have no I have zero relationship with them at all. So, I I don't I can't weigh in on the Virginia Key Trust and certainly I'll weigh in on it. Uh they're are two
very very different trusts. Virginia Key Beach Trust does not have the ability uh that the Bayront Park Trust had to generate dollars. That's why the Bayront Park
Trust has some $20 million or so in reserves and it should end up this year with around $6 million or so uh in a surplus. They're very distinct
uh trusts that you can't compare them apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Period on that. All right. Now, you talked about Wait, wait a minute. Don't hijack my my conversation. I let you speak and and you know, go ahead. Go ahead. Take all the time you want, but then I will.
Yeah, of course. As your it is your right. So, so, so we have this that uh Commissioner Rosado, you come in and uh I've been appointed for four months and so and and now it's like a referendum on on me. Uh tell me, uh Commissioner, no,
no, but but but I got to know because you know, out of the blue you want to do this. What uh what have you found? Okay. What have you found that uh you know that's been going on in in my tenure, four months versus eight years? You know, and then you got to ask yourself the question if you're going to be honest about this. Okay. Why now is the
question. He had seven or eight years to do this. And you know when he does it, he does it when he knows he's about to be taken off as chairman and then I go into the fold. This is what this is really about. But like like I said, you know, I I feel in you know, if you're in my shoes, okay, that you're trying to
write the ship, okay, I got nothing going on there. You know, as a matter of fact, it takes up my time to be honest with you, okay? But I I I am a man that I do like to finish what I start. Okay. Uh, also my executive director has been working long hours there, you know, and
we just want to give him a chance. Okay. But but here's the thing what I'm saying. I'm I'm baffled, you know. I'm baffled, you know, because look, when you're going to remove somebody, you know, like you are doing to me because you are doing it to me, you know, you got you got to have a reason. It's like when you fire somebody, you know, you can't just fire somebody for wrongful,
you know, uh, you know, you got to give me a reason why why you're and and and yeah, you said it because there's a political football, but that wasn't my political football. that political football was going on seven, eight years while while while this chairman, you know, had had the park. That ain't my problem. That ain't my fault. You know
what I mean? I was put in there for what you're talking about. That that that thing that you're talking about, the the you know, the craziness going on. That wasn't me, my friend. Okay. I've been there for 4 months. He went through I don't know how many executive directors. His former chief of staff was the last the last director and then they had a
squabble and now he's suing him. And by the way, furthermore, furthermore, I contend he has a conflict of interest voting in this. Okay? He has a conflict of interest voting in this. Commissioner G does. Okay? Because he will derive a certain benefit. I just want to read
this real quick. The trust resolution. Koyo has a conflict voting for the trust resolution because in the Suarez encounter lawsuit he is a codependent and the trust can cross claim against him and seek contribution and indemnity from him for any monies that the trust has to pay to
the plaintist Kanto and Suarez. Suarez is his former chief of staff. As a result of Ko's actions while chairman of the trust, if the trust is dissolved, if the trust is dissolved, it will lose the ability to recoup from Koyo any monies that it pays because of his acts or
emissions. So a benefit when when a new horn to Koyu if the trust is dissolved would the city of Miami sue commissioner Ko to recover those monies once it takes over the dissolved trust. So these are these are, you know, little issues, you know what I mean, that I want to bring to the to the uh to the forefront
because I I feel I feel here that uh I was appointed, you know, legally to that trust. By the way, you had uh Commissioner Gyo, for the last three years, you haven't even been voting on it. And let me tell you, when when you wanted uh the chief of st your former chief of staff, Suarez, I voted for it the first time around because that's
what you needed. That's what I gave you. When the gym equipment, the famous gym equipment where you two were at odds with each other. Okay. And then you talk about people not being here. This gentleman wasn't being here. And you went ahead and you took the advantage and you you voted on the referendum and that's how you got that done. And when
the people spoke, I agreed with you. I agreed with you and I say you were right. You you you outwitted, you know. Wait a minute. Wait. Let me know what you're going to spoken. You spoken long enough. No. I'm going to address some of your things. No, let me finish. You better. No. No. I
have the more. You keep throwing more that I can't answer. I have the No, that's what you do. Now, let me answer and then you can cuz I'm not done. I'm not done. You are done right now. No, no, I'm not done right now. You know what? You are done right now. No, I'm not done because you keep wanting to throw stuff so I answer. You
let me answer and then you sir I have the floor and you're going to let me talk. I'm as much of a commissioner as you are. I'm putting all kinds of bologoney on you. No, no, I'm speaking. That's totally not true. No, that is and I'm going to start answering one by one and I'm going to get them beginning with
no that's not what the stuff that you're putting out. Yeah, leave me that I have a conflict. I have sir again I have the floor. I have the floor. No legal conflict. Yes, legal. Yes, legal. And I'm chairing the meeting and I said that I've given you enough time. No, you haven't. No, you haven't. I have
the floor. I have the floor. Once I answer you, I am as much a commissioner as you. I am as much of commissioner as you. I am the chair. You can't shut me down. These are the problems that we have. You're a chair that doesn't replace everybody else deserve. Can we make a motion for five more minutes? Can we make a motion to give uh
Commissioner Gabella five more minutes and that's it? I need to answer all kinds of wild false allegations that this gentleman is throwing out here. Please, leave me alone. Could we actually I'd like to respectfully request that we allow the city attorney to chime in because this
is there were some legal accusations. There were some legal opinions. I'm not sure exactly where they came from, but I'd like to hear from the no accusations. Wait a minute. No, no, no, not Wait a minute. I mean, it sounded like a legal asking Let the city attorney answer that. Legal opinion, but I wasn't sure the
origin of it. I can assure you the origin wasn't from my office. Um, we were asked whether there was a voting conflict of interest under the Florida statutes for Commissioner Coryo, I'm sorry, Vice Chairman Coro to vote on this issue and we determined that there was no conflict
of interest. any um any type of conflict that has been mentioned in our view is speculative at best. Um we looked at the m uh state of Florida commission on ethics opinions. We looked at the Miami deed county commission on ethics opinions and the Florida statute is
pretty strong in that um unless you have a personal pecuniary interest present um then you have a voting conflict. But um while there may be some conflict or or something like that, it doesn't rise to
the level of allowing an uh the vice chair to abstain from voting. So in our view um he has no conflict and he should vote on the item. But but George, George, wait a minute. Can you let me finish? George, uh I
believe you and him had a conversation. You and him had a conversation. And didn't you tell him that he was kind of right in what I just read or am I crazier? No, you're not crazy. Um what I told the um So it's either right or wrong. Well, what I told your legal counsel was
that um our opinion stood. He raised an an extra issue and I said, you know, maybe talk to the Bayfront Park Independent Council, but I do not see that um based on our interpretation of Florida law and the Miami date county
commission on ethics that there is a voting conflict under the statute. I mean, there's a motion on the floor. Um, if we if you accept the amendment for January 1st, Commissioner Gabella, would that be and and what exactly? Um,
it's abolished on as of if it's abolished. And do we know what vehicle we're going to abolish it to? Do we know? because this is my January 1st which would give enough time for the kind of planning and transition that I think the residents would
appreciate the community would appreciate because even though there's a vision of well this is might be a really good structure it could be conservancy it could be there's a few options it it allows us the time to socialize them in the public sphere and answer a lot of
questions but commissioner before we move on it sounds like the question is going to be called I I did want to clarify ify something. So I first brought this two things. One, as I I referenced in my remarks today, I'm bringing forth a number of reform items. I mean, I've brought up the police headquarters
today. Uh certainly I'm inserting myself into the Olympia deal, which I think could be a much better deal, and a variety of other things I'm going to bring being bringing forth. The item with the school board today, I think, is also a reform of the way that we operate our parks and recck facilities and expand access to residents. So, there's
going to be a number of things that I bring that I think are are different than the way the status quo is. But the other thing I brought this up wasn't my intention to bring this item up initially at my first meeting on the commission. It's something I've been thinking about because this agency again
removing all personalities and names and players. it is historically sort of prone to having a number of very public challenges and these meetings disrupt tremendously and it keeps us from getting the the people's work done because of the bickering that goes back
and forth. So, it's been very much on my radar for a long time and as somebody who grew up in the city of Miami, it's an agency that I'm familiar with some of these things we read 20 years ago, 30 years ago, but I brought it up at my first meeting which I didn't intend to do in the context of being potentially assigned the DDA chairmanship. I did not
want you to be somebody without a chairmanship given that I had just gotten on the commission. So, that is what prompted it. Had that not been moving forward at that time, wouldn't have moved forward with the item, but I didn't want you to potentially lose this chairmanship and have no stake in the downtown um community, which I know you
clearly, you know, do care about. So, would have always been willing to give the the DDA chairmanship even today, even now at this moment to to to be clear, I'm I'm the new person here. I don't need to be in charge of anything beyond being the commissioner for district 4. That's plenty. It's a lot of
people. Um, so I just want to I want to make that clear. So it's not it's not about you. It was the fact that that was introduced and I didn't want you to somehow be the only individual without a chairmanship. So I wanted to clear about the timing. So, so listen, I'll accept, you know, what you're saying, but uh as
far in his uh uh determination, his motivation to do this, sir, has nothing to do with what you're talking about, with all due respect, you know, has nothing whatsoever to do with that because this would be like you entering now the chairmanship of the DD, you know, the downtown development, what we
just spoke of, and then 4 months later because somebody's got a grudge against you, now all of a sudden I'm questioning you whether and like I said, like I said, What have I done in my tenure? What what have we done? What have you got? You know, except that there's been rumbling going on. But what you what what is failed to mention here that
those rumblings did not go on when I've been there. I've been there for 4 months. And that's got to be taken note of because this is just the whole p of uh precipice, if you will, of where you started your conversation that you're you're saying things are not going wrong. And I'm saying, "Yeah, my friend, but I was put there because things were
not going wrong to write the ship and that's what I'm doing." And now you're passing judgment on me like if I was part of of that thing that wasn't going going well. You know what I mean? And and listen, if you guys want to dissolve it, that's fine with me. But all I've been saying, okay, again and again, that this has been done on the fast, okay?
There was no, you know, there hasn't been no thought process to this, okay? The ones that are really going to lose out, listen, uh, Commissioner, if if you get your way, congratulations. But listen, you know who really loses? The ones that are the losers are the residents, okay? Not not me. I I do what
I do. These people you bring here, I bring here. I bring him. Yeah. You with him? Yeah. I I don't there's this guy the the first question that the the first time that we started having this rumbl you're talking about
was right after the election of both of you. Then Mr. Pardon started up. He then opened up a pack strictly to be constantly attacking me and sending messages out. And I could show that clearly and you know I can because you didn't even hide
it. So that's where the rumblings were. But you know what? What I did there, you can't deny it. And even though you might have some now that want to deny it, it's there for the record. Deny what? Uh, is that what I've
accomplished for that part? Not the rumblings. You're claiming the commission to fix the problem. There was nothing to fix. Question's been called. I'm going to second that. I'm going to second calling the question. Okay. Sorry. There's a problem in calling the
question. There is no second. I There is. So, you're going to second the main motion. The motion to call the question as amended. Okay. I am going to go along with this, but here's the thing. What I want to say to you guys, okay, when January comes
around, okay, let's have a plan, okay? Let's have a plan in place, okay? So, this just is not done willy-nilly. Okay? Yes, sir. Let's not uh play any more games, guys. If what you want to do is keep the game
that's going on now, the problem wasn't before. You were the one playing the game, not me. I'm not playing no game. If you guys want to keep that game, then keep it. He's playing the game. you know, spend millions of dollars and trying to prove and defame and say that I took a penny
out, which you'll never find. And I'm telling you again, you have any evidence that I took one penny in that or committed any criminal violation, let's go right to the FBI.
If you would let me say that uh I have photos and I told you before and you don't have crap. Yes, we do. You've denied here again. You denied in a meeting that you have an arrest record. Let me give you Let me give you the case number, sir. You need
to shut up so I can speak. I am the chair. You're screaming. Case number 7702014709690. What is that? Again, Anel Cavea. What is that? This your sealed police record. Really? You know exactly what it is. Really? Yeah. It's in the internet in the correction department. You know what I
do know? That you were arrested for your wife. You know what I do know that you seal record? Is this you or not? Is this your seal record or not? To call the question. Is this your seal record or not? To call the question.
Second motion. I think I'm a grown man. You know, I think we need to head. So, keep lying to the people. The only one that lies to the people is you, sir. The only one. You have a seal record here. That The only one that's been arrested is you, sir. acknowledge you arrested throwing something at your wife. So
don't talk. You got a glass ceiling. If I were you, I' I'd zip it. You're getting yourself. In the meantime, the manager is protecting you. So that over two months has gone by and you're the only person in the city of Miami that has
open code violations that everyone has seen here. But the city of Miami, the only one that has seen it is the one that has open violations. And yours reads like a CIA document. Yours reads like a CIA document where you covered everything up and probably
illegal. And we're going to get to the bottom of that. Here we go with the C. We're going to get to the bottom of that. Can I approve that? I have zero violations. As we have a motion, I move to call the question second. There was a second. We need to we need to take the vote. Yes, we'll take the vote. Make a roll call, please.
Can Mr. City Clerk, can we get some clarity on what the actual motion reads because I'm confused as to what we're actually voting on. January 1st, it's We can't hear you on the record. January 1st, 2026 is the motion, I
believe. Write your motion. It was amended as the date being January 1st to dissolve the trust effective. Clerk, can you begin with Commissioner forward? Yes, sir. Um,
a motion to pass as amended SR3. Commissioner Rosado, yes. Commissioner Gabellum, yes. Commissioner Partardo, yes. Commissioner Croy, no. The motion passes 3-1 with Commissioner Crow voting no
as amended. Okay. There's no further actions before this board. This meeting is now. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Time out. Meeting is adjourned, sir. That I had shade meeting. You have apologize. A shade meeting. Yes, sir. It's just a notice of a shade. Go ahead. Read the the notice.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and members of the commission pursuant to the provisions of section 286.011 parentheses 8, Florida statutes. I'm requesting that at the city commission meeting of July 24, 2025, an attorney client session closed to the public be held for purposes of discussing the pending litigation in the matter of
Jorge M. from Perez Art Museum of Miami Dade County, Inc. DBA Perez Art Museum versus City of Miami pending in the 11th judicial circuit in and for Miami date county to which the city is presently a party has filed a counter claim against George M. Perez Art Museum of Miami Dade County, Inc. DBA Perez Art Museum. The
subject of the meeting will be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation and procedures. The private meeting will begin at approximately 10 a.m. or soon thereafter as a commissioner schedules permit and conclude approximately 1 hour later. The session will be attended by the members of the city commission which include chairwoman Christine King, vice
chairman Joe Coroyo, commissioners Miguel Angel Gabella, Damen Partardo and Ralph Raphael Rosado, the city manager Arthur Noriega the 5th, city attorney George K. Weissong III, deputy city attorney Kevin R. Jones, deputy city attorney Javi E. Alban, assistant city
attorney supervisor Eric Ees, assistant city attorney Maggie Snyder and Nick Basco. 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 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 termination of the attorney client session. Thank you, Mr. And for the record, that is the the litigation involving the PAM billboard with the city. Uh so I know there's a lot of interest in the community on that, but just so it's on the record
that that's when we'll be hearing it. Right. there was a mediation and they presented some information that we need to share with you. So we want to share that with you. Thank you. Okay. And then chair just for the record um the following items shall be peruntory
regarded as a deferred item and schedules on the July 24th uh 2025 city commission agenda and that is SR2, FR2, FR3, DI1 and PZ1. Thank you chair. Okay. This meeting I journal
[Music] [Music]