[Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] oh [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] back to the regular meeting thank you Mr City attorney I'll give my colleagues a few more minutes to for everyone to get here before we resume the meeting since we have a Del doll moment could I read a script for the next shade meeting please do thank you and if we have more d moments you can read into the record the titles of our pz items very well Madam chair all right this is a request for an attorney client session um Madame chair and members of the commission pursuant to the provisions of section 286118 Florida Statutes I'm requesting that at the city commission meeting of June 13th 2024 an attorney client session closed to the public be held for the purposes of discussing the pending litigation in the matters of Robert Gusman Bruce Gusman and Jackie Gusman there as successor Trustees of the real property of Maurice gusband Cultural Center for the Performing Arts Inc a dissolved Florida not for-profit Corporation versus City of Miami case number 22- 23242 cao1 pending in the Circuit Court of the 11th judicial circuit in and4 mi County Florida and Maurice Gusman Cultural Center for the Performing Arts Inc a dissolved Florida not for-profit Corporation versus City of Miami case number 3D 23 1842 pending in the district court of appeals of the State of Florida their District to which the city is presently a party the subject of the meeting will be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures the this private meeting will begin at approximately 10: a.m. or as soon thereafter as the 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 coroo Commissioners Miguel anhel gabella monola Rey and Damen Paro the city manager Arthur Nora i f myself George weisong chief Deputy City Attorney John a Greco Deputy City Attorney Kevin Jones and assistant City attorneys Eric EES and Margaret Snyder 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 Cent session thank you Mr City attorney and you wanted me to read the pz titles um no we have we haven't done anything as yet you can start reading the titles for second reading and first reading in very well second reading items sr1 ordinance and an ordinance of the Mii City commission amending chapter 2 Article 4 division 2 section 2-28 of the code of the city of Mii Florida as amended titled Administration departments planning building and zoning department new permits prohibited non-homestead properties to provide the allowance for issues issuance issues of certificates of use for businesses unless there is an issued violation by the building department and amending section 2-21 titled denial or revocation of certificate of use by restricting chapter 10 of the city code violations from causing a denial or revocation of a certificate of use in limited circumstances containing a severability clause and providing for an immediate effective date sr2 an ordinance of the Miami city commission amending chapter 2 article 9 section 2- 779 of the code of the city of Miami Florida as amended titled Administration City owned property Outdoor Advertising Signs and on-site signage on government owned property to amend ordinance 14140 to bring it more into Conformity with prior ordinance 13536 so as to allow so as to disallow new light emitting doode LED signage and other recent changes but provide guidelines for current LED signage containing a severability clause providing for an effective date first reading ordinance fr2 an ordinance of the Miami city commission amending chapter 2 article 10 of the code of the city of Miami Florida is amended city code title Administration code enforcement more particularly by reinstating section 2830 of the city code titled alternate code enforcement system providing for an alternate code enforcement system that gives special magistrates the same Authority as the code enforcement board to hold hearings and impose fines costs leans and other non-criminal penalties against violators of the city code providing for the qualifications appointment Powers compensation and retention of special magistrates and to amend section 2817 B3 of the city code pertaining to irreparable or irreversible violation fines containing a severability clause and providing for an immediate effective date fr4 an ordinance of the Miami city commission amending chapter 37 section 2 of the code of the city of Miami Florida as amended I think if could fr4 have been deferred that's the graffiti one no no fr4 is in play in play I'm sorry um all right in ordinance of the Miami city commission amending chapter 37 section 2 of the code of the city of Miami Florida is amended titled offenses miscellaneous malicious defacement markings Etc of real property to provide for authority of Code Compliance Department to manage the graffiti mitigation program and add other requirements for participation containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date and that's the last of the F first reading items Madam chair we're still waiting for one of my colleagues so you can start with the pz items yes Madam chair it begins pz4 pz4 um pz4 an ordinance of the Miami city commission with attachments amending the zoning atlas of ordinance number 13114 the zoning ordinance of the city of Miami Florida has amended Miami 21 code by changing the zoning classification from t50 urban center transa Zone open to T680 Urban core transect Zone open of the property generally located at 43 Northeast 53 Street 40 Northeast 54 Street and 50 Northeast 54 Street Street Miami Florida collectively property more more particularly described in exhibit a attached an incorporated further recommending to the city commission acceptance of the voluntarily proferred Covenant attached and incorporated as exhibit B making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date and this one will be adopted as modified okay thank you Mr City attorney all of my colleagues have joined me I'm going to ask my colleagues at this time are there any items on the agenda that you would like to defer to the next meeting if anything has changed from this morning there was yes let me go here um PC item okay the item that I would like to defer until we have the August referendum would be pc7 obviously if the referendum fails then definitely pc7 should be brought forward why am I saying that because it will not make sense at all to vote upon this today if we're letting the people decide uh in August um let them decide and if it's voted down by the voters of Miami then by all means it will be taken down Madam chair may I speak to that for a second yes it's in the district yes okay this is obviously been fought hard by downtowners this has been deferred several times they want their case heard the ballot referendum does not directly tie to this issue at all it's a bit of demagogy it is a global issue about Jim equiv and Parks this is a very specific issue about gym equipment and bayron park Trust we have had many many phone calls many many people have come out to speak some folks are here to speak again on the issue I think we owe it to take a vote on the issue commissioner with all due respect you talk about civility but when you use the words demagog the only demagog is being used here is when are you use it uh first of all uh it's only been a very small group of people that have expressed themselves against it second L of all uh I don't know where you're claiming the demagog is because this has been an issue that we have shown and we're willing to show again today that for well over a year and a half before the bayr prodct trust ever took it up the media had written and was talking about it the DNA uh of downtown uh ch chman knew about it cuz he was the one that sent me the article as I shown uh and I personally spoke to the heads of numerous of those associations across the street uh and then in one whole meeting with the different groups across Bayfront Park which is in the other side so people were informed there's no demagogy here the demagogy is that uh some are trying to kill this thinking that somehow they're getting at me they're hurting me uh I'm not going to be hurt whether you dump this in the bay make a reef out of it or not it's the people that going to use it and when you keep saying this is D2 D2 this is a regional park and when Bonnie shoes were put by this commission years back uh by other commissions it was based upon that this was a regional park furthermore there has never been uh any master plan that's been approved by this commission if there is please show me when a commission in the past took any kind of vote on a master plan my God we have around 40 parks in this City that have outdoor gyms parks that are much much smaller in fact all of them are smaller than this 20 acre park that's only taking some 3,000 square ft as was stated here uh by staff everything was done appropriate uh what is the big fear of the people of Miami voting on this and you're free to lead a campaign uh on it uh if there are thousands of people that don't want this then this will fail and that'll be the end of it uh if I m I I I have a moot I I have a request to defer pz7 do I have a motion there a motion to defer pc7 until after the referendum uh is H do I have a second CRI motion fails for lack of second are there any other items that my colleagues would like to defer off of the agenda seeing none hang on hold on a second sorry uh um okay let me see if I got this right on the re12 I think in the uh in the briefing that we had yesterday w we going to ref defer that was was it your requested the man kind of fogged re12 what about re12 commissioner it's hard to hear you oh sorry that weren't we going to uh in the briefing didn't we agree that you somebody had requested to defer that to defer it yeah didn't you request to defer that no no no no no not it wasn't a deferral request the re12 what is your I'm sorry the2 re12 is a a renewal for basically a renewal of an event permit but that settled last night so we just kept it without any reference to anything else to keep it simple okay okay okay so no I I don't have anything all righty are there any items on the consent agenda that you would like to pull for discussion you could wait for one second uh commissioner okay uh in the meantime all right so I'd like to discuss uh ca3 and ca4 ca3 and four commissioner Paro are there any items that you would like to pull from the consent agenda none commissioner Reyes none okay commissioner Coro no items from the ca uh no not from the ca agenda I'm seeing okay may I have a motion to pass CA 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 and 11 1 2 1 two 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 and 11 so mov I have a motion in a second all in favor items passes unanimously ca3 for discussion right may I proceed yeah so what I wanted to ask simply is uh we had some questions but we got it answered yesterday in the uh in the briefing what I just wanted to know when when these uh properties were bought and now we're selling them uh where did the funds come from I I just want to know city manager or Larry or yeah whoever's in charge over here and uh and now when they're sold where are they going back what what uh what PLT as you like to call them or bucket were those pulled to to to buy when we bought them if you know and uh now when we sell them what bucket are they going into the proceeds so um you're referencing CA three and four right those were these are being rejected um yeah what he's asking is when they were originally purchased when the land was purchased what source was used cdbg I believe we had cdbg and was that from the general fund or was that from the commission off District commissioner's allocation I'm sorry the district commissioner's allocation who was that commissioner cor is okay and and now want to sold the it's going back to him yes okay that's all I want to do thank you do I have a motion so so you would understand where it would go no no I understand it came out of your thing I just want to be clear and it's going back to you no problem yeah but I think you will be happy to hear this okay what we're going to do with this is transfer it to the park the new park of 6 Acres that we're doing that will be between your district and my district which partk is that that will be Ru and Theo uh 6 Acres on 17th between 17th and 16th Avenue 7th Street actually 6th Street uh all the way to 4th Street you're talking about the little park no no no no this is uh 6 Acres this six acres what 16th 16 yeah we're going to make that all into a park that's been approved with the name ruin daro and it will be next to your District next to mine and this where the money will go to be able to build that Park okay thank you for the information may I have a motion for CA 3 and four move I have a motion in the second all in favor I motion carries unanimously are there any items from the public hearing pH items one or two that you would like to pull for discussion um if you could ph1 and two by by the way commissioner um ph1 and PH2 is the same uh as the other two that you asked about yep and that's where we'll be going to and they were sold for a lot more than what we bought him for yeah I understood that I asked the question so do I have a motion to pass C ph1 and two yes I have a motion and a second all in favor I resolutions are there any items from the resolutions r e that either of you would like to pull for discussion well yes in uh r e 12 12 I don't know if uh it was included that uh when it was passed it was passed with a covenant that no uh helicopters we going to be okay and uh if I'm going to vote on it I want to bring it as it was before because this is a continuation of it so let's pull re2 yes let's let's pull for discussion for discussion for disc yes re2 for discussion are there any other re items that you would like to pull for discussion well re6 uh I think uh deserves some discussion okay re6 uh we already discussed that in the in the shave meeting I like the differ all we got to do is vote up or down and that's it well I I need to uh take a very very short uh time to bring something that I think it's important to point out so we'll pull re 6 and re2 are there any other re items that no may I have a motion for re 1 2 3 8 9 11 and 13 motion chair yes it's my understanding that re9 was withdrawn oh I'm sorry it is yes I'm sorry re13 if we could pull that I didn't realize that that was still there r13 so may I so wait wait wait wait so I'm going to say again you're pulling you're pulling re13 re6 for discussion 12 and 13 for discussion re6 and what's the other 12 and 12 for the and 13 okay 12 13 and six mhm may I have a motion for re1 to 3 8 10 and 11 motion I have a motion I have a second all in favor items passes unanimously re6 is up for discussion Vice chair thank you if I could get something up um and I don't know if it is ready for it uh or or not yet it was given to it I don't know where I it is that I think here they come all that I need is the uh one page here like this that's all that I need up there okay okay on the left is the June 2023 commission vote that was 41 for the districts uh that we have as of today still on the right is the last proposed settlement from the plaintiffs that sued us uh from February of this year we have been accused of racially Jerry mandering three districts so that Hispanics could get elected and you heard two or three people today come up repeating that lie they we racially Jerry Mander three districts for Hispanics to be elected now these districts are approximately combined close to 90% Hispanic so any which way you cut them you will end up with a majority big majority Hispanic District if you look at district one that the commission voted in June 2023 that was with an 89.7 percentile of Hispanics and we're accused of Jerry mandering that now the proposed settlement is here before us today in that same district one you see on your right it's got more Hispanics 9046 per. in District 4 you see that we voted in June 2023 for a district that had 90.3 Hispanics the proposed settlement before us today for District 4 is 91.0 4 Hispanics over 1 percentile more Hispanics and last but not least District three the district that I represent and I'm term limited so I can't run for this District again so I'm not fighting uh for something that I will have an interest in running in again I can run again um you see that the proposed settlement is 80.5 one Hispanics still over 80% so if we gerrymandered this three district for Hispanics to be elected then why are we given a proposal that has a entire percentile of Hispanics in this districts and that's not called Jerry mandering racially Jerry mandering Madam chair call the question I no I I I let's call the question we've been we've been over this I'm tired of this let's call the question let's call the question I have enough for the dog and let's let's call the question here we're wasting time we're wasting time we had an agreement that's why with all respect with all respect I'm out of order but I'm getting tired of this you have to allow your colleague yeah but he talks a lot and and then we forget he talks a lot and then we forget with all due respect commissioner yes ma'am I would afford you the same courtesy please okay please commissioner now I'd like for someone that maybe knows more than I to explain to me how we racially Jerry Mander our June 2023 commission vote and the proposal that's being given to us today is not a racially Jerry Mander vote when it has more Hispanics what it doesn't have is that in these three districts all the Hispanic neighborhoods have all been divided whether it's l Havana flami Silver Bluff Etc but in the new proposal the one neighborhood that's probably the most affluent if not one of the most affluent in Miami and one of the most non-hispanic neighborhoods in Miami uh it's all together it's all together so I uh I think I've made my case uh I cannot vote for an amount to be given for something that we did not do we did not commit racial Jerry mandering call the question M do I have a motion for R I have a motion do I have a second second I have a motion in a second all in favor I I may before a vote I want to make clear that uh I uh voted against it I mean I I I voted for uh uh the fenet because I wanted to see the composition because I didn't we didn't have a composition of all the districts and I wanted to make sure that we're going to have diversity and uh I am uh I already analyze it and and I knew at the time that it was not going to cost us an additional Penny you see to deferred and and uh I'm glad to say that it was the third is it's going to be voted now and didn't have any additional cost I would vote Yes motion carries motion passes 41 with commissioner Crow voting no re12 R12 is is the the renewal for the event for pedal and before previously there was some language about helicopters but last night they settled with chocks and this complicates that I don't want to invite any potential lawsuit or any other complication so I've just kept it simple but I'll defer to the administration okay I want I want to hear from the uh City attorney and if there is any any uh conflict with the Covenant that we have so the um just let me put out there first the language that you mentioned earlier was in the previous settlement there was language that said there shall be no helicopter takeoffs Landings or parking operations on or above any part of the property any instance of helicopter takeoffs Landings or parking operations on or above any part of the property will render the temporary event permit null and void um as uh commissioner Paro indicated there was a settlement we took it to the city commission um I'm not sure if it was the last meeting or the previous meeting it was finally signed uh late last night we received word of it um I can't tell you whether or not this will or will not impact the settlement um the issue is um as you heard earlier today there there may be some in conr in helicopters and paddle ball events may not be the most suited for one another but it's ultimately at the end of the day up to this commission to decide whether you wish to add the additional language so here's the thing adding the language does not prevent the property owner from Landing or taking off helicopters what it would do is prevent him from having the paddle event and Landing or taking off helicopters um so that's ultimately the decision do you want to um hold the padle padel I'm sorry event organizer to um language that says the property owner cannot use the facilities for helicopters takeoffs and landings as well as um the paddle event and mind you this is a c plane base which is designed for the takeoff and landings of um SE planes into the government cut yes what what I want what I wanted to keep it is we haven't by the way we haven't spoken to the um the plaintiffs in that case so I do not know what impact this would have in our relationship with them now that we have issued this settlement um this the other alternative for you all is this is slated to begin June 19th 2024 through December 31st so we could potentially bring it back at the next meeting after having consulted with all the parties but it's ultimately up to you to decide what I don't want is we have a I mean helicopter uh uh uh activity going on on on but I don't want them to be competing you see sea planes is sea planes and then they have they uh they have a license to land and and fly sea planes not helicopters okay that's what I want to make sure right that wouldn't be any any competition so I mean it might require a little more research on our end but I believe that the airport license they currently have now we've had a lot of back and forth relative to Whose license that should be whether it should be the cities or The Operators um certainly would not prohibit them as I'm aware from from Landing helicopters um there's no prohibition to Landing a helicopter now the issue really is whether or not there is a concern over helicopters Landing the event that's taking place the ongoing paddle or padel um operation there um the impact there as well as the impact to the Hort across the way in terms of the other side of the island or close proximity to the island um you know this is this is a m and I and for the record let me say that the chocks operators have not spoken to us the only contact we've had is with representatives of paddle not not chalk so I I have no sense of whether or not um you know how averse they are to this language in any way I I haven't spoken to them directly might be good form as George recommends to maybe ask them what their perspective is and if they in any way shape or form um would take action based on the settlement agreement I I don't know haven't had a conversation with them so but they couldn't be playing paddle ball and hand in London they at the same time you know I don't want I don't want it to happen at the same time well I'll tell you there is evidence that they have had the paddle operation and landed helicopters they have cuz I have photos of I'm talking in the same place so so Madam chair can I motion the through the chair to defer since in light of the situation I have a fur request to defer re2 12 do I have a second motion dies for lack of second okay what are we doing may I just start the easiest way because it is complicated was to go ahead and give the approval for padel uh because it's an event and it seems like we should be able to work this stuff out move if if if if uh we are going to go ahead with it it is under the condition that uh you are the City attorney is and the city manager they are going to further analyze this and and we make sure that it doesn't I mean that is that is all right to have a covenant that they or or additional language that they won't be having U helicopters Landing while they were playing pable okay second sounds good okay so I have a motion in a second all in favor I I and chair for the record that's as is as is so it's as the language is currently proposed in the uh yeah as is it appears on the agenda deferring to both of you okay re13 yes Vice chair thank you Mr manager uh what is the cost that's being asked for here um it's approximately somewhere in the low 70,000 between police and solid waste that that would be the cost we get some clear cost cuz what I have is almost 75,000 and yeah okay so it's 49,000 a little over 49,000 for um the police dep Department staff and 25 a little over 25,000 for solid waste and so it's correct what I was the impression it was close to 75,000 yes sir how is it being paid uh by police was almost 50,000 and solid waste is slightly over 25,000 um it would have to come out of those budgets where out of those individual departmental budgets so it would be the police that will paying for it and so waste to be paying for it yes sir the information that I had from our 2122 budget was that we had placed in the budget $40,000 for this event then we increased it on the 22 20 three budget to 55,000 by 15,000 then we had a huge jump from the 23 to 24 budget to $150,000 now we're taking $50,000 from the police budget and an additional 25,000 from the solid way budget to give an additional 75,000 which will now make it $225,000 uh while the city wants to be supportive and I think we are by a huge increase of this parade this is not a parade of the statute and lebel where you have tens of thousands of people that come watch it for this amount of money especially when we've been hitting the police and for that matter s of waste in cutting their departments so they have to be hit by 50,000 more and 25,000 more I think the appropriate thing to do would be commissioner if you want to be fiscally responsible get it from your own budget you have plenty of money there in your own budget that you could do it with it's in your district and you like to talk about the district the district well the city as a whole has put in $150,000 this three times as much as we put the year before the fiscal year before so if you won $75,000 more it should come from your budget it shouldn't come from the police or from Solid Waste Madam chair so this is the goom Festival it's an event that pretty much had stalled and gone away and we've been trying to revitalize it and we have have a plan this would be the highest year of our funding next year it would go down significantly with really not much City investment in the way of any any Department giving money back but they're at a pivotal moment in time and we've decided to support them in this manner it's important to note that in District 2 this is our entire budget we don't have a lot of special events I think our whole total amounts to maybe 250 300,000 of all of our speci events it's not like all these other districts 175 for your food and wine 100,000 for car we don't have all of that this is where we've decided to kind of place our biggest investment because it's about Reviving Little Bahamas it's about Reviving Coconut Grove and is very important to our district well I am sure it's important to the district and that's why I voted to increase it by three times the amount to 150,000 for this fiscal year but I cannot sit here and vote to take money away from the police department uh and solid ways when you have sufficient money in your budget you can move monies around any way you want to the kinds of monies we all have in our budget that we can move around to uh it's plenty so you should not take this from police or solid ways uh when you you could pay it from your own budget and if you could show me uh any event that as small as this that we have paid $225,000 I I'd like to see it but that's not the case commissioner obviously we handle chairwoman we handle our own budgets and we have a lot of constraints we have a lot of issues with Parks we have more Parks than any other area we know what we're doing we have a plan and I would like to call this to a vote do I have a motion for re2 I mean re13 do I have a motion I said I I was one of the uh promoter of bringing go Bay back to uh thank you to uh cocono Grove and I uh I was in instrumental on creating little B Hammers and uh yeah I'm moveing I have a motion do I have a second do I have a second sorry I have a motion in a second all in favor I N for the Recon stated I motion passes 41 with commissioner Cy voting no do I have a motion for sr1 motion I have a motion do I have a second second all in favor all M May is sr1 yes okay did you vote commissioner R yes oh okay motion carries 41 sr2 sr2 if I may say for the record that you know a lot of conversation has gone around the king of Amendment it's not the king Amendment it is the king compromise and it was a compromise that I came up with because in listening to everyone that came to speak I heard what they were saying about the light because as I understand it we cannot take down and nor do you intend to try to take down the Pam sign correct I I'll explain okay so um jeta clier came and spoke today she's a resident of D5 and I believe she said it best this is not a district specific issue the cultural institutions because I would absolutely side with you on District issues and I just want to make that clear but I do not believe that this is a D2 specific issue like jeta CER said yeah and she came from D5 to speak on the item and which is why I have put forth the compromise which I thought was which I I think is thoughtful IT addresses the lighting it's not going to be as bright it's not on 24 hours a day etc etc so I wanted to put that on the record for why it was that I tried to come up with a compromise and I believe that compromise is better than just All or Nothing one or the other because we have come so far in the process with these signs we they're permitted I agreed with you on the moratorium no more going forward so I'll let you go ahead first I'd like to thank obviously everyone that came here and that spoke up especially all the downtowners who are impacted by it I agree with you that cultural institutions and chairwoman I want to thank you as well as my colleagues who have tried to come up with thoughtful ways to kind of make all of this work um for the for the area I agree with you that when it comes to cultural institutions they are Regional but when it comes to all the vertical communities who use the park dayto day it is their neighborhood park and it's important for us to kind of keep that in mind there are some recent developments that are noteworthy first of first of all the AR Center has requested that their permits be revoked and we're in the process of revoking them second of all we have a letter of default also requesting a copy of the license agreement between orange Barrel media and Pam that's about to leave the city of Miami so as I said originally this is really really complicated our district has been dealing with this January in the weeds kind of like down the rabbit hole and that's why we're very current with kind of every single uh little thing that seems to be happening when we talk about this issue so what I'd like to propose is if we can take what what has been discussed about regulating the sign and add that to the amendment that I was profer which just cancels the Alex Diaz de la Portilla Amendment but we can regulate these signs the ones that were originated under his Amendment using the criteria that you've talked about with lumens and operating hours and everything else and that way it's kind of it's more workable why because in this instance we have a Pam with a lease with the city of Miami that doesn't have anything to do with revoking a permit we can't revoke a permit because we will be subject to millions of dollars and and that's why there's that separation now one other thing because what are we voting on today this is second reading for the compromise proposed so I believe procedurally if we were going back to that would I don't know be another reading because what's on the table for us is second reading for the compromise that was proposed my understanding is that we can eliminate language and use the original Amendment but add in the part that regulates the sign which really was the kind of like the bulk concern from your Amendment so Mr City attorney because when we were adding in he said that was a substantial change and made it first reading which is why we're here second reading right so um I believe what commissioner Paro is suggesting is that um at first reading his his ordinance had the complete repeal of the for La of better term um District or Diaz de la partia amendments um that was substituted with the amendment that the chairwoman passed forward so he's suggesting now that we amend what where we're at now remove all the language relating to the amendment from the last meeting and then except for the regulation language so the effect of that would be that there would be no express signs permitted in any of the zones but you would also have the regulation language that deals with lumens um hours of operations and stuff like that would that be a substantial change well the the difference between the two is this is removing language which has already been advertised so it's already there the people have seen it they understand it versus adding new language the problem was when we went from first reading to First reading was set up to say no more signs are permitted and then the amendment said uh no more signs are permitted except you may have two signs in two different areas so and the title had said abolishing the signs and then we were adding signs so the that was the concern was that the title said no more signs and then we were adding signs based on the amendment were we adding signs I thought we took away a sign we added light we we didn't give more we took away no yes commissioner paro's item on that day was to get rid of all the signs not get rid of but uh not permit any signs and then the amendment said all those signs are not permitted except there could be one at Pam and there could be one at AR so you actually added back the signs from Pam and AR with that Amendment and what he's suggesting is to unad those signs but keep the regulation that you proferred okay well commissioner gabella yeah this is a you know a complex you issue indeed you how to explain 10 minutes and what's going on but from my perspective and I want to be be clear on this because there's a lot of been a lot of talk you know let me just say for the record I want to put the only person that tells me what to do is my wife okay just you know cuz I got got tired of the radio telling me this and that and you know how this is you know but that's the only person that tells me what to do my wife and you know my kids you know but this is what I will say I you know what this kind of you know confusing but what I voted on I voted on I think with you I didn't necessarily vote against you what I was concerned about that I wanted since you said yourself that the signs are here to stay and and I agree with you it's a monstrosity you know but we did not create that monstrosity that was done before you and I got here uh I think you gentlemen were involved I don't know about you anyway I I voted against okay no no I'm not saying I'm not saying you voted for keep voting against no I hear you but but let me this is so so this is where I'm getting at what I was you know I think but our job or my job at least is to you know it's a balancing act you know that somebody put us in this in this position that we're in you know and uh and I got here we got here you know and then we find ourselves with this which has become a a hot you know a hot button a hot potato you know because rightly so people are concerned but but what I've been trying to do is trying to uh save the money for the tax here of future liability because after all you know and and and I'm going to say something here I want to I I want to read this into the rec because we've done a little bit of of research you know and I'll tell you I've never seen so much H hypocrisy in my life from elected officials and I'm not talking about us here by the way okay the county back when this is all started 12 the Y that they needed to get a permit from the city of Miami so that's what they did on instructions from the county 8 months ago where where we weren't here there's a letter testing to this half of the people not a majority sit on that Ash board were appointed by the county now all of a sudden County shows up and tells us that we gave this permit outside our jurisdiction outside our jurisdiction okay the gentleman sitting next to me and I got here well after this is all cooked up after the fact now we are attempting to fix the problem that was created by others we were not here you know my pres my predecessor who is under indictment charges at this very moment and others created this mess that we were in let's be clear what happened is back then nobody wants to talk about this but back then there were a lot of people who were scared of Mr Portilla back then they were probably asking how high do we make do we need to make the sign Mr Portilla how high do we go because nobody had the moral or the political courage to stop what was going on because not so long ago they ruled uh the uh they you know the gentleman ruled the St with an iron fist uh I have expressed to Mr yur that's right in in front of me and I who I respect and admire for being straightforward and truthful one of the few that that were on either side okay that I will be the first one today M GAA to revoke everything that has to do with these signs my interest is to save the taxpayers money okay and further I asked that I we spoke about this yesterday and I came up with an idea I said I asked that a bond be placed by The Sign Company he represents in other words the counter to this sign company and others to identify the taxpayers should lwuit to Rise Against the city of Miami of uh to the taxpayer uh I have been told by the C that the by them by you gentlemen and by a lot of people don't worry Mike the city of Miami is not going to be sued so then I came up well if it's not going to be sued tell you what put a put a bond okay and then when that happens everybody's safe you guys get to go home and we're all happy but um when you made some calls I believe you know they didn't want to do that okay uh so they're saying on the one hand that that there won't be no suit for the city we won't be liable but then on the other hand they're not willing to put you know the money work with the mouth is respectfully so I say that but I think I'm saying the truth you know and I just want to get to the bottom of this you know and uh and so that's what I suggest my own amend I'm not by the way if your Amendment does that fine I'll vote you know I want to make you know you guys I I just want to be clear okay what I was proposing my Amendment okay that only included the Pam period in the story and the reason I was doing that is so we can have regulations to protect the residents period end the story okay I am not doing that because this gentleman is sitting here in front of me okay or this gentleman or anybody else my my my job I think our job is I have a fiduciary duty to the taxpayer these walls right here they don't pay the tax bill the the bills here our salaries the taxpayer does they're the ones that that that fit the bill at the end of the day and I don't want to do that to them so I'm trying to Res we are all I think trying to resolve a situation that uh we've been put in and see how best we can get out of here and I understand it's not easy some people will not like it some uh will my Amendment and by the way and and and something pecul happened that that I got to say it okay uh for one week okay for one week I I learned yesterday that the AR had withdrawn their application for one week and this was news to me and I found it out by coincidence yesterday ladies and gentlemen that the uh that the arch the uh the exe executive president I believe um uh Mr Johan and I I can't remember his last name uh had pulled had sent a letter to Ace Maro okay last a week ago a week ago mind you by the way did any of you guys know this did you know it got did you know did you know in my about this letter what letter the the letter that the the the gentleman from the arch had pulled the uh the said I don't want to be in the ARs does not want to be involved anymore in the in the permit in the permit for the sign did anybody know that I have you didn't know it either did you know it you did know it so my point is my point is this and I got to when I got to the briefing and I was you know and and all of you that were in the briefing the directors I I apologize if I was rude because I I was hot and heavy when I came in because I thought this information was kept from me you know on purpose and others knew it you know but but you know we didn't find that out till till yesterday okay till yesterday and that that was very odd to me but at the end of the day what what what I want to do and I will do uh whatever you guys think is fair whatever especially you think is fair because again I am not here against you I am not here you know the other thing was you know oh gabella you're aligned out with gyu okay that was the thing and and listen commissioner got you you're a commissioner and you know what when when it's right uh to vote on something because the the project merits a vote I'm going to vote uh with you okay just want you to to understand that we're we're here for the taxpayer okay now this does not mean that after that we have to be friends but but I just want to when my friend when my friend uh when my friend is wrong my friend is wrong and when my enemy is right my enemy is right okay so I just want to put out there and I said look half of the time G and I are battling are battling okay this is no Alliance it just so happens that on some projects I have to vote on the merits and this is what I do okay and this is the same thing I'm doing here and I I want to show the residents from your District okay that no ill will was meant from my part or disrespect to you or anybody else when I did what I did because I thought your amendment was going to regulate and that's why I was doing it the the the hours of operation which I thought that what you were doing were not please explain to me exactly and and I will be vot I just want regulation and I don't want the city to be sued that's all that's what I'm trying to before before this happen I I want a point of uh I mean information uh if I misunderstood you uh Mr G commissioner gabella I'm sorry but I I I I think that I heard you said that nobody had the gut to stop when the mention that wait a wait a minute wait a minute you have you talked your piece I want to talk mine okay I want to clarify that I was from the getg goal with the exception of you with the exception of you sir I apologize no you're you're right and what I meant to say that mostly in the county very hypocritical okay and and I'll say this very hypocritical on the County's part for allowing this and say yeah you know go to the city and get the permit which the arch did and then eight months later this H shenanigan goes on and then all of a sudden now the hot potatoes thrown back at us okay because they didn't have the courage to to deal with this and I got to say the truth because I'm tired of hear of the shenanigans you know playing play being played politically and then the residents think oh this guy you know but they really don't know what's going on I think we need to change that but at the end of the day I reiterate sir I want to protect your residence and I thought that was the best way and and we want we need to move forward first of all thank you thank you for so much thought and effort that you've given to this issue just like chairwoman all of us really thank you I appreciate that I want to make a couple of things clear while I'm speaking for you for you go through the chair I want to keep your record good you got to go through the chair I did she actually told me I have a great record sure and and yeah so I'd like to explain the I have never been and when I have said I'm not looking to bring down the signs through revocation meaning revoking a permit because if we revoke a permit that's millions of dollars as you say and and like you I don't want any liability or to pay any more damages or any kind of legal fees so I get that but there is a path to bring down the Pam sign through our lease with the Pam in which they are in default and a letter should be coming from us shortly and because we have also asked for the license agreement between orange Barrel media and Pam and we have not been provided that agreement so that letter will be advising the default and requesting a copy of that agreement I don't want to messy those Waters because if there's a path for it that sign to come down it should come down and that's what the residents are demanding and that's the reason that I've structured it this way that's the reason I wanted a full repeal of the original ordinance now I understand the concern well if it's there and it's operating what do we do and that's why I want to take the operational that that you wrote chairwoman in your in your Amendment and include it in this and George it can be added uh those operational uses as non-compliant legal non-compliant correct correct chairwoman Mr Vice chair commissioner g a a friendly question please don't get mad what's that it's a a friendly question please don't get mad what is that you're good you can laugh that's good why when I spoke just a little bit before you said I spoke too much and when you spoke a lot now you didn't speak too much well I'll tell you why because because you have a track record of speaking a lot and I have a track record I go I finish and and I'm done that's all but listen all right all right whatever just okay I was wondering so I could place you in the future no no would we be able to move what I'm suggesting and vote on that so we have the compromise that I have we have commissioner gella's Amendment as well um well Mr city clerk uh if I may chair there's one more let me hear Let me let me hear from um wait okay commissioner CYO wants to have one more thing added so let's add everything into the before we get an opinion I just want to put everything on the table so that I'm not accused that hey you didn't bring this up you should have it's your fault uh we're talking about not being liable and I I I think we all agree that in a democracy if you give people the go to build something they spend the money they build it uh you just can't take it from them after it's done uh you know they're surprised to pay for that so this commission voted to up hole a vote that the Bayfront Park trust did on three monuments that are under 400 square ft each two in Bayfront Park one in Fay that I understand that they've got improvements uh that the contract was that if we threw them out for whatever reasons before they recoup their money or whatever the cost was to build them that we had to make them whole so if you would like to include these three monuments uh for the same reasons you said you're doing this other one on either one of your motions I'm bringing it up if you don't want to that's fine too we could all throw it uh with the dogs and cats and the gym equipment and everything make a big beautiful Reef out of it I want to make Madam Sher I want to clarify you see what are we voting on because because I will not vote for those signs I mean I mean I I am stick to my first vote which was against them and I will stick to my vote and if you what you're proposing commissioner par it is to find a way to do and you have the way to get those signs of the properties of of Pam I will go along with you but we if we don't have the way of getting those signs I mean turn them down I would not vote for it and for I want to clarify because I see you guys sitting there yes with those teachers which are very pretty and and I will wear one of them because I support the Arts but I don't support this monstrosity of signs that I think that they shouldn't be there in the first place and they are they will be hurting the residents because the the the amount ofum illumination that they have it is in my opinion is even dangerous to people that are traveling from in in the highway uh and I stick to my guns I will not vote for those signs be kept if what you're proposing it is to get those signs off I will vote for you in no I will vote against it and that's it I'll be the sole vote I was the sole vote before and I don't mind being the soul vote I speak I I vote with my conscience so chairwoman I did want to make one one point as well our lease has a very strong indemnification clause and George maybe you could I'm sorry City attorney maybe you could uh expand on that a little bit just to explain right and so um you had asked whether there was an indemnification clause in the agreement between the city and Pam and there is and it um basically calls on Pam to defend and hold harmless the city from any and all claims related to any um issues relating to the contract so there is a potential um that in the event that litigation were to ensue regarding these signs that Pam would have to be the one fighting that lawsuit now I just wanted to um be clear um as I've always said um there is no call to tear down the sign and if there were ever a request pursuant to the contract to look into whether or not we should um uh cancel the contract or or claim um actual breach that our recommendation would be to go to court get a declaratory judgment action so that um nobody incurs real damages or liabilities until a court has determined what the rights and responsibilities are under these various leases and we're somewhat um hamstrung by determining what our rights and liabilities are because we haven't yet seen the license agreement between Pam and orange Barrel media you you translate that in Lance Darren so the question is yes because because you have said a lot of words and and my question has not been answered are we going go after the signs and turn it down so this whether you pass this ordinance in any version does not call for the sign to be taken down the sign will remain regardless of what version of this ordinance you pass and can we regulate it um under King's Amendment and your Amendment and now commissioner paro's Amendment there is um regulation under those three amendments to the um ordinance what do what do do what well my Amendment addresses reg the time that the sign you know it turns it off at a certain time IT addresses the brightness of the sign content of the sign and that that is what we are going to vote and and maintaining the the king's Amendment because they people are a compromise you're compromise I mean and listen I I really congratulate you for always trying to find uh a compromise and then that's that's very commendable of you but uh my position is steadfast you see I don't want those science so what's good with you okay so I mean what I've said from the beginning I think what's good with me is to completely get rid of the original uh Amendment for that Alex latia had introduced and to go ahead and offer these operational uh requirements the lumens the hours of operation while the sign is operating it does not impact what's happening on this side with the lease I would expect that we would get a declaratory judgment and that is the only path that exists to bring down the Pam sign but the only way to have that is if we're not doing carve outs for it and that's why I think what I'm proposing is the cleanest version possible very very little you know liability which a very big concern IT addresses the operational hours that both of you were concerned about a commissioner Reyes no science no science that's the only way that we can I mean Mr City attorney is this the a path to getting rid of those signs I'm going through you so if if you ultimately wanted to get rid of the signs yes your your best path is with District 2's Amendment because the main difference between District 2's Amendment and District 1 and District 5 amendment is there's permits the sign in the code to exist one Pam sign one Two-Face sign in Pam whereas commissioner Paro is asking you to remove that now the net effect will be the same if if it's if commissioner paro's Amendment passes they become a legal non-conforming use which means they're there they're allowed to exist and they're just legal non-conforming if commissioner um gabella and chairwoman King's amendments go forward it makes it a little bit harder to argue later that the sign has to come down because you are essentially permitting those two signs to exist okay so that's your choice in in my amendment I have the James L night Center Mii Children's Museum peris Art Museum and the Pam that's it the four that's what I have in my amend right right really the the one at play is Pam that's really the question for everybody okay chairwoman Vice chair Mr City attorney yes sir may I call you George like uh D yes sir thank you um why can we just go straight to court and the questions that we have on their contract if it's in violation uh or Not by whatever agreement they enter to with orange barrel uh and any other questions that we have get a declaratory judgment from a court it's basically the same thing that the insurance carrier is trying to do to uh see if they could wipe their hands of having to pay what they need to pay to to the city um why can we do that you're you're right sir and I do recommend that now let me just tell you the one big caveat is if you do nothing on this item today other people aside from the moratorium can come forward and try and seek permits so so the action on this ordinance is really to close the door um because the moratorium we have is only 270 days in order for us to come up with leg uh legislation so um if you don't take action within those 270 days then other people Pam could ask for additional signs um I I I understand but uh in whichever form that we use and it could be the one that we have before us today um we could include in that motion instructing you to go for a declaratory judgment based upon the different uh questions that we might want a court to decide yes this way uh whatever final uh decision uh is made made by the city uh we don't have the liability uh to face right or at least we'll know what the potential liability will be well ex exactly right um I don't think we will be taking any action that the court rules adversely against the city what we might want to see or not see right so I make a motion that we approve the chairwoman's item with the caveat that I just presented that we go for a declaratory judgment before the courts and the issues at hand uh and that we just make a further Amendment so that we're even across uh the board that we include the other three monuments uh boards under 400 square ft that have been permitted and I think one or two have been built already two in Bay from Park uh in the outskirts and uh one uh on beginning on the side of Fay Park I don't think we should do carve outs I think we should make it clean and simple not carots it's including everything it's carbots no we we've included everything in a bunch of car votes well I would like to move forward with the amend the the compromise that I have that's what I'm talking about I don't have an issue with um commissioner gabel's what adding your Amendment so okay so my Amendment the only thing I'll say it again my Amendment just does the James L night Center Miami Jon's perz Art Museum and the Pam that's it nothing else and I'm and I won't be voting for anything else either I said that last time u i I can't remember what your amendment was my compromise is the times of operation the brightness of the sign no I have that here too okay so so so Madam chair could I just mention that no no it I it could be your compromise it could Comm yeah commissioner gabella took your compromise and cleaned it up a little bit because in the language that you were handed there was number one mention about the rtz and I don't think we should put anything in our city code that acknowledges the County's rights okay so as long as his Amendment includes my compromise I I support that so if I could have a motion what do you support that Damian no okay no because I don't think we need to go into specific sites I think we just need to repeal the old legislation create the operational requirements so that you can regulate the lumens the operating hours for any signs that EX exist and then if so we can come back at another time to deal with specific sites well my compromise addresses that and you still have the path forward to take the well it's not my compromise anymore it's commissioner gella's compromise he cleaned it up a bit but still allows you to move forward trying to get a declaratory judgment but we don't trouble that so I I support I support commissioner gella's Amendment and I'm ready to vote on that okay here's the thing people here ma'am you've had an opportunity to speak thank you don't ma'am so so so um all right so I want to make it clear okay uh I want you to feel assured in what we're doing and my question to you is again I only have three in the pimp and that's not acceptable to you as much is my question with the regulations I'm just asking because we're carving it out for them and referencing them specifically and I think that might hurt us I don't have what what what they have over there I only have the the um I have the James Elight Center look I know it's it's similar to the to chairwoman Kings and that's the problem that I didn't want any specifics uh listed I just wanted to be able to repeal the original amendment that Alexa did and then offer this regulatory part that you cared about and the chairwoman cared about for non-compliant use signs which that's what any sign would be if it wasn't covered under this current ordinance that we're that we're putting forward that repeals all of those signs okay just just one thing so so I'll vote with you but I don't want the rtz included in no it's not in there my reason is because remember we're going to negotiate with those guys and we don't want to create a president or anything that's going to put us in a corner to then them say oh you see you accepted or no I agree with you that's that's why I keep saying that this is the cleanest version so so as long as so let me make myself clear as long as we're going to limit our liability the taxpayers liability okay and and look to me I don't care whether the sign comes up or down really to me it's about how we got into trouble we're trying to get out and we're trying to take care of the resident that's what it is for me you know and and George with this we are assured right that that the the liability is going to be close to to you know to zero on on the taxpayer just I'm asking I mean I don't I know you have you don't have a crystal ball I don't want to put you in in a in a difficult position you know but that that's all I want I just want to limit that then because I asked you remember that I asked you I think it was yesterday George if if if we were sued how much could could this cost off and you don't have the crystal you said could be 20 to 25 and the time spent go into court and and attorney's fees you know and so I don't want to I don't want to that's what I'm trying to you know uh I mean if the sign can be taken down tomorrow without non liability I'd be for that right now my only problem is the liability question the taxpayer right I can as you say I can't answer that question but there is there is virtually no liability if you approve either of these versions of the ordinance if however you tell us tear that sign down then that may in for liability and that's the number we were talking about um so so to repeat there is no liability either way with adopting this ordinance because they that just reverts to a legal non-conforming use essentially all right so I motion what he's doing so so it's your amend so let me get that clear so right commissioner go ahead I motion what he's supp I motion what he's supporting the easiest way well one of the ways to do it is is the amendment that you just passed out which would I guess have to be approved as an amendment would be accepted with a change that Pam would be stricken from the list so that would leave only James El Knight Center and miy Children's Museum on the list of signs there would be no digital freestanding signs permitted right corre okay no I don't think that if you leave those other two signs in I don't think it's right to extract the Pam sign out particularly because there's still a path forward I like your amendment that includes everything but I don't think that we should leave some signs and not have you know take the Pam out but then we have James El Knight and the Children's Museum I don't think that's right well what what's confusing everything's confusing about this ordinance to be honest with the amendment on the amendment on the amendment of the amendment but um when you're looking at the ordinance 2779 there was originally signs that were permitted the James El Knight Miami Children's Museum those are different from these digital freestanding signs so the um Diaz de la Portilla amendments added digital freestanding signs and there were four of them Bayfront Park Pam Adrien AR Center Maurice Fay um but we're getting rid of those now it's but now right that's what commissioner parto is saying is get rid of those signs but leave those other signs um like you don't have to change those other signs because they're not these signs right that's exactly that makes sense the James Elight Center sign is not a digital freestanding sign that's the argument okay so where we at can we vote on this so long as there's Clarity so the the what you're voting on is the Amendment to the um the king Amendment sponsored by now commissioner gabella but with the parto addition of eliminating the Pam sign from section A of the 2779 so it would say of these locations set forth above the following locations are deemed digital freestanding signed sites and it would strike them all Bayfront Pam Adrien R Center and Maurice FY Park are we including going for a declaratory I think that that um you can do that at any time if you want you could do it now or you could do it later if you decide that you want to take the next step of determining whether or not that sign the legal non-conforming sign then should be part of uh the the motion so you have uh assurance that we're not going to be putting ourselves in a situation okay In Harm's Way legally okay that's fine I'm okay with that wait wait a second so the city clerk asked me to put for the record that commissioner coro's motion died for lack of second at 6:13 p.m. okay now we have a motion on the floor for commissioner gabel's Amendment we don't have a motion to include commissioner paros okay MO to include commissioner PES second can't be all part of the same motion you just want to make sure you're capturing all the Amendments that were stated by the City attorney as well as I think what commissioner Coro was requesting so we just want to make sure this motion this submitted motion is capturing everything that is being requested correct Mr sen okay thank you Mr clerk yes so motion to read everything that is capturing okay so um this will be an amendment to 2779 that will um it's amending the current version that's in in the file further eliminating from that file Adrien R Center and Pam it adds the regulations um relating to the signs that will now be legal non-conforming signs and it instructs the City attorney to seek a declaratory judgment regarding the contract between Pam and the city and rights relating to the signs all right so motion second all in favor I I Vice chair how did you vote Vice chair how did you vote uh how I vote I said I and I and I stick to my guns I don't want them see it passed but I'm still but against it um four to one uh another thing that I what is and one question that uh that uh commissioner K wanted to include it was included it it is included the uh the uh Monumental signs no those are not included those are not included and I'm I'm also against those two right they're not included in this though gentlemen we took a vote it was one okay I I did what I was supposed to do I inform you of the liability that you have in those Monumental signs yes is uh in in your hands but uh George Mr City attorney you did understand what was passed that we want you to go immediately for declaratory judgment from a court uh into uh the contract uh as was stated here and anything other that you think that we need a court to rule on so that before we move too further out uh we know if we're in firm ground or in quicksand absolutely sir okay in in in uh in uh I mean I want to everybody think I mean to know that we are in agreement that those signs have to be taken out and I I uh I my only concern is that we won't be able to get him out I mean to turn them down and I do understand that if we turn it down now there's a possibility there's a big possibility of of being liable you see and and I mean we will have to pay a lot of money for it I don't want that either you see so I am glad that did it pass but my vote is a protest okay what what did you say it's a protest oh okay what what do you listen if you don't understand my my my wait wait wait wait if you don't understand my accent you see it's got nothing to do with the accent it's how you said it not the accent okay so we had a four One V right I just want to clarify for the record the amended motion passed 41 with commissioner Reyes voting no commiss R that's correct yes understood thank you do I have a motion for fr2 as motion fr2 fr2 yes I have a motion in a second that was explained to us we have a huge backlog and uh until that's resolved um let's see how it goes so I have a motion and second motion a second all in favor I oh I had Miss fr4 do I have a motion for f fr4 motion do I have a second second all in favor Madam Madame chair hold on a second on F4 okay okay I would like to offer offer a a friendly Amendment okay because I have a lot of people but particular in downtown Miami that they been fine one after the other one after the other and even though they is if they even report it to the police thank you they still get fine I would like to if you you uh allow me uh make a friendly amendment that after the third fine if it there is there continues being victimized if they reported that the fine will not take place you see as soon as they clean it well they're not supposed to be fined at all if it's a present owner no it's a present owner Well yeah if they're not supposed to be fined at all uh I want a clarification on that because what I what what I want to do is try to help those those businesses that's the intent yeah I know there is intent but I want to make sure okay yes good evening tra Haynes assistant director Code Compliance um commissioner at this present moment the Department of Code Compliance is not citing property owners for just graffiti violations in in preparation for aall four okay understood do I have a motion in a second all in favor all motion carries um you guys fr4 and just for clarification F fr4 was adopted as is as is yes yes okay yes yes unanimous unanimous I'm going to jump to di3 I believe there's a board report let me see if I can track down Peter uh early okay never mind then I'll go to um di2 okay di2 di2 Inspector General but uh took place yes so the um meeting with the Inspector General we uh occurred on Tuesday as a result of that meeting um we were basically told that an interum solution really is it realistic because the Inspector General doesn't have the bandwidth to be able to take on the additional staff that would be required especially under um such a short period of time um they did profer the uh the option that should the charter amendment pass that they would be willing to um assist us with a long-term more long-term solution through an interlocal agreement um similar to what they have with the um Mii dat County School District okay um as a result of that conversation as well um one of the things that uh came out of it and really is something that I discuss with each of you individually and I I want to profer as a potential um alternative to what's currently proposed in terms of the two um ballot language items as it relates to one the creation of the Inspector General and the second the um uh removal of the auditor general um from the charter um one of the things I'd like to suggest based on that conversation with the Inspector General um kind of what they have felt is best practices um and I think just from a standpoint of just need is that we reconsider the removal of the auditor general keep that position in place um so that we have both both An Inspector General and an auditor general really creates more accountability I think just from a standpoint of of um of future consideration one would deal primarily with the financial aspects of the city from an internal audit perspective and the Inspector General would deal really more on the investigative side right um corruption and whatnot administrative policy um if there is some concerns with regards to the performance of the current auditor general I think that can be dealt with that that agreement is on a month-to-month basis anyway um and you certainly could make a transition there we just feel from an Administration standpoint that having both creating that extra added accountability actually has Merit and so that would be the recommendation on our end to maybe reconsider that second ballot item to remove the auditor general keep that position in place um for future consideration Madame shair through the shair uh U I want to clarify some comments that have been made in uh because you know that public uh are fed a lot of uh misinformation and one of the misinformation was that the inspector General didn't want to deal with us because the city of Miami had too many problems that's not true and in regard to the uh keeping the uh the U auditor the Inspector General can be also or assign an auditor you see an internal auditor that will be under him okay and I'd rather have that instead of having two offices that mean it's up to you guys but that's what we voted and if it doesn't work we still have time to bring it back well it's your baby it's your baby you you it's it's our baby we don't I mean we don't we don't take ownership or anything we work together no but you're the one that came up with this yes yes sir okay thank you sir okay um is there anyone here for the annual board reports I believe we're going to need to defer that to the June 13th meeting do I need a motion for that yes ma'am may I have a motion to defer di3 second all in favor thank you chair when did you say June 13th June 13th okay uh di5 I believe uh theor good afternoon Commissioners Annie Perez director of procurement um the gi5 is a disclosure item um my brother-in-law owns two firms an Architecture Firm and a construction firm and he had submitted some quotes for the Tower Theater um stage extension project and when those quotes got to me uh sometime I think it was very early December um I immediately recognized the companies I recused myself I um delegated my authority to my two assistant directors and subsequently thereafter I met with the city attorney's office and we submitted for a request for an opinion from the commission on ethics so that opinion is attached to the item in a nutshell they said there is no conflict between myself and my brother-in-law um doing business with the city of Miami but nonetheless they did say that I did do the correct things by recusing myself and delegating The Authority because in essence I am the chief procurement officer and there could be a perception of impropriety and we don't want that so thank you you're welcome I I really want to thank you like profusely because this is the kind of thing that makes our our our city special thank you for coming before us and giving us the opportunity to hear thank you thank you thank you may I have a motion for pz4 I'll make the motion pz4 I have a motion and a second all in favor I item passes as amended right unanimously no just we just need to substitute the backup documents okay Mr City attorney would you please read into the record the remaining titles of the pz items starting at pz7 I think that doesn't need to be read into the record pz7 or that's right it's a resolution um pz9 9 10 11 12 13 and 18 yes Madam chair pz9 um an ordinance of the Miami city commission with attachments amending ordinance number 10544 is amended the future land use map of the Miami comprehensive neighborhood plan pursuant to small scale Amendment procedure subject to 163 3187 fora statutes by changing the future land use designation from duplex residential to low density restricted commercial of the acreage described herein of real properties located at 1300 Northwest 38 Street 1317 Northwest 37 Street Miami Florida is more particularly described in exhibit a making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date pz10 an ordinance of the Miami city commission with attachments amending the zoning atlas of ordinance number 13114 the zoning ordinance of the city of Miami Florida has amended Miami 21 code by changing the zoning classification from t T30 Suburban transac Zone open to t4l General Urban transic Zone limited of the property located at 1300 North West 38th Street and 1317 Northwest 37th Street more particularly described an exhibit a making findings containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date pz1 an ordinance of the Miami city commission amending ordinance number 13114 the zoning ordinance of the city of Miami Florida is amended Miami 21 code specifically by amending article 3 titled General to zones to establish a development density bonus and Associated development flexibilities for developments that contain housing for the elderly containing a severability clause and providing for an effective date pz2 in ordinance of the Miami city commission with attachments amending ordinance number 10544 as amended the future land use map of the Miami comprehensive neighborhood plan pursuant to smallscale Amendment procedure subject to Section 163 3187 Florida Statutes by changing the future land use designation from median density multif family residential to restricted commercial of the acreage described here in of real property at 20600 2610 and 2620 Southwest 27 Street Miami Florida as more particularly described an exhibit a attached an incorporated making findings and providing for an effective date pz 13 an ordinance of the Miami city commission with attachments amending the zoning ordin the zoning atlas of ordinance number 13114 the zoning ordinance of the city of Miami Florida as amended Miami 21 code by changing the zoning classification from t4r General enal Urban transact Zone restricted to t40 General Urban transa Zone open of the property generally located at 2600 2610 and 2620 Southwest 27 Street Miami Florida as more particularly described an exhibit a attached and Incorporated making findings containing a cility clause and providing for an effective date pz 18 an ordinance of the Miami city commission amending ordinance number 13114 the zoning ordinance of the city of Miami Florida as amended Miami 21 code spefic specifically by amending article 6 of the Mii 21 code titled supplemental regulations to extend the sunset Provisions for one additional year to allow addition educational uses by right in T6 transa zones in certain circumstances pursuant to ordinance number 14188 directing the city manager to place a discussion item on a city commission agenda to review the ordinance 9 months after adoption making findings containing a severability clause and providing an effective date okay and the note on pz8 the backup needs to be modified for the city clerk and on pz11 can I be added as a sponsor dc1 motion that's the elderly housing yes that's the elderly housing motion there's a Jennings disclosure on pz2 and pz13 for District 4 commissioner Ray I believe motion so um hold on a second are there any items that my colleagues would like to pull from the pz items for discussion well we had uh pc7 which is the uh the uh uh exercise we could pull that that was already taken out it was already taken out oh yeah okay okay that Geor think that was taking up okay so may I have a motion for pz8 9 10 11 12 13 and 18 motion second all in favor I I motion carries [Music] and you said pz7 pc7 no that's taken out that's been taken out what do you mean taken out that was the Jimmy me that was taken out what mean pc7 is in play it's in play it wasn't a part of the previous motion how we voted on did we defer it no pz 7's in play your motion was on pz eight n 10 he said pc7 was taken out I didn't know if we had deferred it and I missed it taken out of the uh that block vote yeah I was taken out of the block vote okay got it so we're voting to appeal the decision I need what's our vote up uphold the decision and the decision uphold the appeal and theni warrant that takes the equipment out of the park right okay I'm voting to keep the equipment in the park okay because I I got you you know I I already said no I know I'm getting okay I see folks stand hey Miss Amanda hi good evening Amanda corand um outside Council for the City of Miami on this appeal we were here in January and had a full and complete public hearing so I think it's the position of the city that the public hearing is closed at this time but are available if you have any questions to clarify if you if you vote to Grant the appeal then the equipment stays if you vote to deny the appeal the equipment comes out okay do I have a motion to Grant the appeal yes I have a motion do I have a second I'll be the second I have a motion in a second all in favor to Grant the appeal I thank hey motion fails 3 to2 yes motion fails 23 with commissioner Reyes gabella and part of voting no May then may I classify that we have we have uh an a question in the ballot and uh the that question the ballot is the one that is going to decide no I would I would argue that that question doesn't decide that's a general question about gym equipment and Parks this is a very specific situation with with buildings that have their own gyms primarily and people who are going to that Park who don't want that gy equipment where it's located yes but that that that question was placed and it was my understanding that was specific to it yeah it's not specific no yes I I don't we don't have the language for that yet yes okay we have the language it's very broad it's very broad no it was specific to that Park yes to that Park but just gym equipment in general for the whole okay we could take that up whenever you like later but can we can we vote on the item we did oh okay no no we did we did okay there are two future legislation items that's just for reference requires no action on behalf of the commission at this time the city of Miami yep yep so okay so what H my apologies pz7 failed it they it um failed to the appeal right so it's still in Play I See No I want to make a motion to deny the appeal that's why I okay do I have a motion I have a motion do I have a second second I have a motion in a second all in favor I no no so chair just for the record then the motion passes three2 with commissioner Cy and commissioner King voting no correct okay are we done as amended as amended yes do you want to say something else yeah I want to say something because it's been brought to my attention going back to which one was it the S1 sr1 so s Sr one okay if you would um while we're I'm sorry we forgot one item may I have a motion to approve pocket item one a motion what is pocket item one is commissioner reyes's item okay I'll make the motion I have I have a motion in a second all in favor motion carries unanimously okay okay pc7 is good we're done pc7 you're done okay you're done I've got the master plan for the park right here by the way I know you mentioned earlier doesn't ex we're done commissioner all right so so on SR on sr1 which we already passed but it's been proper to my attention because the certificate of use the certificate of use and and this pertains to what you the the the language that you had of the pertaining to the uh got it what you call the habitual uh repeat offenders okay so the the we passed it as as is we passed it already but what the only question the only thing I wanted to communicate to you guys is that I've been told by by building and others okay that this is going to be hard to enforce okay and I was just wondering okay I I'd like in the future I'd like to make it Revisited I'm just saying I just make it that's it okay this concludes the city of Miami Commission meeting for May 23 2024 thank you all meeting adjourned [Music] [Music] --------- [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] oh [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] oh [Laughter] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] is [Music] B [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] down [Music] [Music] oh a [Applause] [Music] he [Music] he [Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Music] he [Music] [Applause] [Music] down [Music] he [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] a [Music] he [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] the [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] w oh [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause] [Music] wo a [Music] [Music] [Music] May 23 2024 I need needed to make an announcement about the shade meeting Mr City attorney please thank you madam chair on May 9th 2024 under the provisions of section 28611 parentheses 8 Florida Statutes I requested that this city commission meet in private to discuss pending litigation in the cases of number one the Mad room LLC DBA ball and chain altto Mexicano LLC DBA takaria El Mexicano Little Havana Arts Building LLC and lran Fiesta LLC versus City of Miami case number 21 cv23 485 D RKA pending in the United States district court for the southern district of Florida second case is Tower Hotel LLC a Florida limited liability company padas Villas LLC a Florida limited liability company beatstick LLC a Florida limited liability company L shopping LLC a Florida limited liability company and Jo cete a Florida limited liability company versus City of Miami case number 69- CAA 44 pending in the Circuit Court of the 11th judicial circuit in and for Miami County Florida and the third case is Tower Hotel LLC of Florida limited liability company Pedra V villis LLC a Florida limited liability company Beat Stick LLC a Florida limited liability company L shopping LLC of Florida limited liability company and Joo K LLC a Florida limited liability company versus City of Miami case number 3D 23- 285 pending in the district qu of appeal in the State of Florida Third District to which the city is presently party the city commission approved my request and will now at approximately 320 commence a private attorney client session under the parameters of section 28611 parentheses 8 Florida Statutes the subject of the meeting will be confined to settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures this private meeting will conclude approximately 1 hour later the session will be attended by the members of the city commission which include the chairwoman Christine King Vice chairman Joe coroo Commissioners Miguel anhel gabella Damen Paro and Manolo Rees the city manager Arthur Nora the 5th myself the City attorney George weong chief Kevin Chief Deputy City Attorney John a Greco Deputy City Attorney Kevin Jones assistant City attorneys Eric EES and margarit Snider and city of Miami's outside Council Raquel a Rodriguez Esquire Michael E dco Esquire and Angel cortinas Esquire 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 thank you madam chair thank you Mr City attorney now we did have a personal appearance time certain for the supervisor of elections would my colleagues mind if she makes her presentation before before we go upstairs okay you guys no no yes okay good afternoon welcome City ofing commission I appreciate this very very much and I will try to be very brief um first I want to thank you for inviting me here today I'm very encouraged that this is a topic that you guys are willing to consider I know that Todd has circulated the letter that I wrote to him to all of you and that you guys have had an opportunity to look over it um the elections department is requesting what I am calling a modest amount of additional time between your general and runoff election um and I just want to say right off the top it's not just the city of Miami this is every city that has a runoff election that is two or three weeks from their general election why yours is a little bit more complicated is because it is coupled with Miami Beach and hiia of course large cities so for us to be able to turn around your general and your runoff within two week for these large cities is is really burdensome for parties and when I say all parties it's the department it's voters first and foremost and I think candidates as well because we've heard that it's difficult um to do this and um so the request in the letter was for four weeks um and I think you you probably know there are many steps that are involved in preparing for an election each one of them are in sequence and they have to do with they have to be done with 100% accuracy right there is zero uh opportunity or tolerance for error in what we do and so the twoe time that is currently designated um really was set up at a time where voting was primarily on Election Day now modern-day voting takes into account a significant amount of people voting by mail and also early voting and so for us it's from certification of your first election until the first vote by mail ballots that go out and that window is very very small as it is um and also many laws have changed little by little election laws have changed making it more complicated for us um one example is that uh you may know this already voters have until Thursday at 5:00 P P.M to cure their vote by mail ballot also to provide uh information to us to accept their provisional ballots and so it's not really until Friday after the election that the canvasing board is certifying and if we have a recount which knock on everything that doesn't happen but in Florida racis that is more and more common that just begins to set us back even more and more so we can't even begin to to prepare for a runoff election um until sometime Saturday um and so uh what is involved what has changed we we have to code proof and test three different voting systems um only then can we send our ballot for printing only then can we begin processing and mailing those those ballots out to your voters separately we have to reset program and retest all of the equipment set up and conduct early voting deliver all of your equipment you know the list goes on and on it's it's a lot to take on in in two weeks um and so these are some of the logistical burdens that I'm hoping to alleviate on the department side um on the voter side I worry about the vote by male voters in particular because um there's a the short period that exists really isn't affording them enough time to return their ballot um I in the letter i state that in your 2023 runoff election which was only districts 1 and two we had 8 days of total delivery time to mail the ballot to the voter and get it back to us between when you know we were ready and uh election day at 7 p.m. which is the statutory requirement for return and what has also happened in addition to the changing election laws is that the postal service has changed their service delivery standards and so what they have notified us is that local mail takes up to 3 days on the way out and 3 days on the way in myam immediate County if you're somewhere else in Florida or if you're in another state it could be up to 10 days and so as you can see these dates are just not lining up anymore and um as I also stated in the letter um I gave you guys some statistics that in the last election 565 voters or 11% of your vote by mail voters had their ballot rejected because it came in late and you know I can imagine that that's not a number that any of us are comfortable with that can change the election and so providing a little more additional time I think is is uh favorable to the voter as well lastly because I am trying to run through this quickly I know you have your other meeting as I promised um on the candidate side we're being asked for data we're being asked for information to go out and campaign and and and get people to turn out to vote in the runoff it's it's becoming very difficult for us to provide that information to you guys in that short period of time I have to certify the election I have to do all my internal procedures before I can provide that data and so I think the candidates I mean i' we've we've pulled this right um I've asked around is are people generally favorable to this idea of extending it and um I've so far I've been getting very good feedback people understand the need to give us additional time and um you know with that I I do under so initially my suggestion was was to have the election in October your original election in October with your runoff in November um but I have since heard that there may be a desire to keep your first election on the original first Tuesday in November and push out the runoff perfectly acceptable and uh amable to that idea but what I want to caution you guys about is that if you do the four weeks which is what I've been talking about as a minimum it is literally the Tuesday after Thanksgiving and that's not ideal for the exact reasons that I just talked about people are going to be traveling vote by mail ballots are going to be coming in late early voting would be over Thanksgiving holiday that's not great so you know I I don't think that that's the model that we should do I think if if we like November December that we should probably do five weeks that would give us one additional week and it would take us out of the overlapping of the Thanksgiving holiday and um and I have also asked the other cities Miami Beach and hiia how they feel about that because I really would love to keep every everybody on that Consolidated calendar if we can and so they're floating that as well um and so I think that's everything in summary I don't know if you had questions for me or if you just wanted me to get the idea out there thank I don't know do my colleagues have any questions okay cumers I mean very little time between uh election and runoff and uh I agree that we need more time see when you get into election you have to raise money you have to get all the data you have to do a lot of things and two weeks is not enough and five weeks I agree with it I mean let me think a lot five weeks after is a lot but I don't really have any questions now if you guys don't have any thank you thank you for your presentation and at this time we will recess the city of Miami Commission meeting for May 23rd 2022 24 and see you back in a bit after this and just for the record recess for the attorney client session thank you Todd okay [Music]