Support the Crespogram
NUMBER 57 - JULY 8, 2018
Support the Crespogram
This website has always been open and available to everyone. I don't have a Paywall, nor do I try to limit access through subscriptions. In recent years I've turned twice a year to putting up a Pay Pal button for donations, because it actually costs a lot in time, effort and money to research and publish the stories I post.
There's been a lot of talk in the last year or so about supporting your local media. I think that I'm not only a part of the local media, but what I do is as much, or more important in making folks aware of the misbehavior of public officials in this community than what any of the supposed "real media" does.
Today's stories are another example of that. You'll not find the information in any of the stories below in any other publication, TV, Radio or social media website.
When it comes to standing up against the abuses and chicanery committed on an almost daily basis by politicians in Miami, the Crespogram has been the only voice who has consistently called for honestly, transparency, accountability and a stop to the screwing of taxpayers by these politicians, and backed it up by shining a light that reveals what they've been doing behind closed doors.
If you agree, then I'd appreciate your support so I can continue doing so.
If you are not familiar, or uncomfortable with PayPal you can send a check to:
Al Crespo
689 NE 92nd Street - 10G
Miami, FL 33138
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, THE DAVID BECKHAM SOCCER STADIUM DEAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT DEAL PREDICATED ON HOODWINKING A GULIBLE MIAMI PUBLIC INTO GIVING BILLIONAIRES VALUABLE PUBLIC LAND WHILE DANGLING A RETIRED SOCCER STAR WHO'S WIFE REFUSES TO LIVE IN MIAMI AS THE TRINKET TO DISTRACT FOLKS WHILE THIS THREE-CARD-MONTI HUSTLE PLAYED OUT
Do you remember what the sales pitch was 4 years ago when David Beckham and his business partners held their first cocktail party touting a new soccer team and stadium for Miami?
They wanted a stadium downtown on the waterfront. In fact, that was a non-negotiable requirement. The stadium had to be downtown, and on the waterfront.
There would be little need for parking they argued because the soccer fans could either walk or use public transit to get to the stadium. They were going to pay for the whole thing - although it turned out then, and might turn out now, that they wanted the state of Florida to give them $20 million to help cover the costs of the stadium - and most importantly, they wanted a piece of public land big enough to allow them to build not only a stadium, but also a hotel, a commercial building or two and tens of thousands of feet of retail space for bars, restaurants and whatever else would make them money, and oh yes, they also wanted to build a marina.
Under the guise of dangling a soccer stadium like a Christmas tree ornament, they were little more than just another group of slick-talking hustlers looking for an opportunity to do a massive real estate development on public property.
Four years later, Beckham and his latest latest collection of business partners, now led by the sons of Jorge Mas Canosa, finally decided to give up on the waterfront as the site for their soccer stadium, but have actually doubled down on their other demands which is still is to get a large enough piece of public land to do what they wanted to do from the very beginning: build a massive real estate development that would make them all centi-millionaires.
Their latest plans call for:
1,000,000 square feet of office space
380,000 square feet of food, beverage and retail space
120,000 square feet for music and entertainment related uses
A 20,000 square foot conference center
A 500 room hotel
And oh yeah, a 28,000 seat soccer stadium
Contrary to the claims that the taxpayers of Miami will not pay a single penny, that's bullshit. Taxpayers always get stuck for costs that are never discussed or disclosed until the time comes to pay the bill.
And they want this massive piece of public land from a city that suffers from historic levels of income inequality, a serious lack of affordable housing, and the promise - not a threat, but an absolutely 100% promise - that well before the year 2100, large swathes of the city will be severely impacted as a result of climate change and sea level rise, and the last thing that many of the soccer fans of today will care about is worrying about the standing of their soccer team.
Now, mind you, there's nothing wrong with making money, even really serious money, but there is a lot wrong when making that money involves collusion between rich folks and elected officials who's past behavior has shown a disturbing willingness not only to bend the law in order to let these rich folks to get richer, but to actually screw the residents of the city in the process.
There are any number of legitimate reasons for why this deal should not be allowed to go forward, and hopefully some of them will be articulated at the Commission meeting, although a word of warning about how this process is handled.
If Chairman Keon Hardemon announces on Thursday morning that the only opportunity for public comments on this issue will be allowed during the morning public comments portion of the meeting, and not at the afternoon session when this item is actually going to be heard, then the fix is definitely in.
Of course the fix is already in, but this will tell you that the fix is so locked in that they don't care about the optics.
AN UNSOLICITED BID, IS AN UNSOLICITIED BID, AND THERE'S A PROCESS FOR HOW TO DEAL WITH UNSOLICITED BIDS
For me, the issue that raises the most alarm is that this proposal for Mel Reese Park is a simple and straight forward unsolicited proposal, and the process for handling unsolicited proposals, whether they come from the Baby Jesus, David Beckham or anyone else who walks into a government office with an idea on how they'd like to use a piece of public property, should be pretty straight forward for everyone.(See:City of Miami Ordinance 13-01347 that spells out the specifics.)
I believe that this ordinance is applicable on the basis that this project is being presented by the proposers first and foremost as the construction of a soccer stadium, which under any definition would qualify as a facility to be used for public purposes, and that the provision that requires that the project be in the public's interest is met by the fact that the public will be asked to approve this project via a referendum.
The government or government agency being solicited has to first determine that they do indeed want to do something with the piece of property being sought through the unsolicited proposal, and if they do, then they have to provide an opportunity for others who might have another idea on what to do with the property to submit their ideas through an RFP process.
Local governments, government agencies and politicians operating in the best interests of the citizens and taxpayers will always follow this process because it's the right and legal way to handle an unsolicited proposal.
If on the other hand, a local government or government agency attempts to ignore or wave the requirements to solicit other proposals then the odds start going up that the deal is cooked, and that the politicians are at best doing favors for their pals, or worse, that the politicians are crooks who have been bribed.
When a deal that's valued at a billion - that's BILLION - dollars or more, there are no grey areas that provide cover for politicians not following best practices to insure that the deal is not only done right, but that everyone can believe that it was done right.
At the end of the day, one thing is almost always certain, and that is that if a deal starts out crooked, you can pretty much bet that it will continue operating crookedly throughout the life of the deal.
Unfortunately, this looks like it's going to be another It's Miami, Bitches deal. and I am going to say now that I believe the final vote approving this deal will be Carollo, Reyes and Hardemon for, and Willie Gort against. Commissioner "Selfie Boy" Russell's vote is not going to affect the decision, and in fact the only unknown in his decision is whether he continues to be believe that if he sucks up to Carollo and Reyes and votes for this they'll quit bitch slapping him at Commission meetings.
They won't, but then watching Russell get slapped at Commission meetings has become a reason for some folks to tune in to watch the show.
For those opposed to this giveaway, you better plan now to hit the streets and get people to come out and Vote NO in November, because on Thursday you're going to be ignored, and screwed by the political equivalent of serial rapists.
NUMBER 58 - JULY 9, 2018
WHAT'S THE REAL REASON THAT THIS PRIVATE, "INVITATION ONLY" EVENT IS BEING HELD THE NIGHT BEFORE THE MIAMI CITY COMMISISON MEETING?
When private meetings are held that claim to offer, "inside information," then the citizens whose land is being sought in support of this venture should become very concerned.
It was none other than Tomas Regalado, the last grifter Mayor of Miami who once proclaimed, "In Miami, all deals are bad deals."
By hosting this private, "invitation only" event, the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce has revealed that they are willing to act as shills in keeping information away from the residents of Miami, who are the ones who will be impacted by whatever happens to this property.
As bad as this is, what is worse is the failure of the Miami Herald Editorial Board refusing to call out this behavior? Where is the public statement from the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce objecting to their neighbor hosting this kind of event? Where are the editorial comments from the General Managers of the TV stations, who once upon a time would seldom let a week go by without opining on some perceived abuse in the community?
Secrecy has no place in this deal, and the failure of those who call themselves the community's protectors to speak out forcefully against this, is itself a shameful example of just how poorly served the citizens of Miami are served by these people.
NUMBER 59 - JULY 10, 2018
TWO DOWN, ONE TO GO: MANOLO REYES OPPOSES SOCCER STADIUM AT MEL REESE PARK
WHO'S REGISTERED TO LOBBY ON THE BEACKHAM DEAL , AND WHAT THAT SAYS ABOUT WHO'S VOTING WHICH WAY
As of this morning there are 7 individuals who have registered to lobby on behalf of the Beckham soccer stadium proposal. You can see the actual registrations HERE.
Here are the individuals, and possible reasons for their being on this list.
Jorge Mas
Jose Mas
They are principals, and are required to register.
Carole Gimenez Jr.
He's a paid lobbyist, and handcuffed to Joe Carollo. In street terms, Gimenez is Carollo's minder.
Barbara Hardemon
She is the aunt of Commission Chairman Keon Hardemon, and only surfaces on the big money deals where she is considered to be her nephew's bag lady.
Barbara Hardemon is no stranger to being accused of soliciting payoff's on behalf of securing a City Commissioner's vote. In 2007, Marc Sarnoff, then a new City Commissioner, wrote his now famous memo to himself where he alleged that then City Manager Joe Arriola told him that local relator Alicia Cuervo revealed during a luncheon meeting that in order for then Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones to vote in favor of what was known as the Mercy Hospital condo project proposed by the Related Group, Barbara Hardemon needed to be paid $50,000.
Here is that memo.
Hardemon's speciality is supposedly "Community Outreach" in the Black community, and no doubt the Hardemon family gets a lot of outreach from Aunty Barbara.
Steve Marin
Given my recent story about Joe Carollo, the Ultra Music Festival, and Steve Marin becoming the new lobbyist for this company after Carollo was elected, you would normally assume that Marin is Carollo's bagman on this deal too.
I've been told that that's not the case, and that in fact, Marin this time out is operating as Mayor Francis Suarez's bagman.
Richard Perez
Miguel De Grandy
These are two lawyers who I believe are handling the paperwork, and therefore are, like the Mas brothers, required to register.
Given that Ken Russell has now surfaced as the swing vote, it will be interesting to see whether one of several lobbyists previously connected to him suddenly shows up on the Lobbyist Registration List.
Stay tuned, it's Miami, Bitches!
Sec. 29-A. - Contracts for, unified development projects, and real property; safeguards.
(a) Unified development projects. A unified development project shall mean a project where an interest in real property is owned or is to be acquired by the city, is to be used for the development of improvements, and as to which the city commission determines that for the development of said improvements it is most advantageous to the city to procure from a private person, as defined in the Code of the City of Miami, one or more of the following integrated packages:
(1) planning and design, construction, and leasing; or
(2) planning and design, leasing, and management; or
(3) planning and design, construction, and management; or
(4) planning and design, construction, leasing, and management.
So long as the person from whom the city procures one of the above-mentioned integrated packages provides all of the functions listed for that package, such person need not provide each listed function for the entire unified development project nor for the same part of the unified development project.
As many members of the public having expertise in the field of real estate development or in other relevant technical areas or who reside within the vicinity of a proposed unified development project site as deemed appropriate by the city manager shall be invited by the city manager to provide input during the preparation of documents for competitive processes of the unified development project.
If deemed appropriate by the city manager, the unified development project process shall include a request for qualifications process prior to the issuance of a request for proposals. Qualifications shall be evaluated by the city manager or designee(s) and only those deemed qualified in accordance with the specified evaluation criteria shall be invited to participate in the subsequent request for proposal process for said unified development project.
Requests for proposals for unified development projects shall generally define the nature of the uses the city is seeking for the unified development project and the estimated allocations of land for each use. They shall also state the following:
(1) the specific parcel of land contemplated to be used or the geographic area the city desires to develop pursuant to the unified development project;
(2) the specific evaluation criteria to be used by the below-mentioned certified public accounting firm;
(3) the specific evaluation criteria to be used by the below-mentioned review committee;
(4) the extent of the city's proposed commitment of funds, property, and services;
(5) the definitions of the terms "substantial increase" and "material alteration" that will apply to the project pursuant to subsection (e)(4) hereof; and
(6) a reservation of the right to reject all proposals and of the right of termination referred to in subsection (e)(4), below.
After public notice there shall be a public hearing at which the commission shall consider:
(1) the contents of the request for proposals for the subject unified development project;
(2) the selection of a certified public accounting firm, which shall include at least one member with previous experience in the type of development in question; and
(3) the recommendations of the city manager for the appointment of persons to serve on the review committee. Said review committee shall consist of an appropriate number of city officials or employees and an equal number plus one of members of the public, whose names shall be submitted by the city manager no fewer than five days prior to the above-mentioned public hearing.
At the conclusion of the public hearing the city commission shall authorize the issuance of a request for proposals, select a certified public accounting firm, and appoint the members of the review committee only from among the persons recommended by the city manager.
The procedure for the selection of an integrated package proposals shall be as follows:
(1) all proposals shall be analyzed by a certified public accounting firm appointed by the commission based only on the evaluation criteria applicable to said certified public accounting firm contained in the request for proposals. Said certified public accounting firm shall render a written report of its findings to the city manager.
(2) the review committee shall evaluate each proposal based only on the evaluation criteria applicable to said review committee contained in the request for proposals. Said review committee shall render a written report to the city manager of its evaluation of each proposal, including any minority opinions.
(3) taking into consideration the findings of the aforementioned certified public accounting firm and the evaluations of the aforementioned review committee, the city manager shall recommend one or more of the proposals for acceptance by the city commission, or alternatively, the city manager may recommend that all proposals be rejected. If there are three or more proposals and the city manager recommends only one, or if the city manager recommends rejection of all proposals, the city manager shall state in writing the reasons for such recommendation.
In transmitting his or her recommendation or recommendations to the commission, the city manager shall include the written reports, including any minority opinions, rendered to by the aforementioned certified accounting firm and review committee.
(4) all contracts for unified development projects shall be awarded to the person whose proposal is most advantageous to the city, as determined by the city commission.
The commission may accept any recommendation of the city manager by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members. In the event the commission does not accept a proposal recommended by the city manager or does not reject all proposals, the commission shall seek recommendations directly from the aforementioned review committee, which shall make a recommendation or recommendations to the commission taking into account the report of the aforementioned certified public accounting firm and the evaluation criteria specified for the review committee in the request for proposals.
After receiving the direct recommendations of the review committee, the commission shall, by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members:
(1) accept any recommendation of the review committee; or
(2) accept any previous recommendation of the city manager; or
(3) reject all proposals.
All contracts for unified development projects shall be signed by the city manager or designee after approval thereof by the commission. The city manager or designee shall be responsible for developing a minority procurement program as may be prescribed by ordinance and permitted by law in conjunction with the award of contracts for unified development projects. The provisions of this charter section shall supersede any other charter or code provision to the contrary.
(b) Sales and leases of real property; prohibition. Except as otherwise provided in this section, there shall be no sale, conveyance, or disposition of any interest, including any leasehold, in real property owned by the city, the department of off-street parking, or the downtown development authority, unless there has been prior public notice and a prior opportunity given to the public to compete for said real property or interest. Any such sale, conveyance, or disposition shall be conditioned upon compliance with: the provisions of this section; such procurement methods as may be prescribed by ordinance; and any restrictions that may be imposed by the city, the department of off-street parking, or the downtown development authority, as appropriate. Further, no right, title, or interest shall vest in the transferee of such property unless the sale, conveyance, or disposition is made to the highest responsible bidder, as is determined by the city commission, or the off-street parking board, or the downtown development authority board of directors. The city commission or the off-street parking board or the downtown development authority board of directors, as appropriate, may by resolution waive the requirement of sale, conveyance, or disposition to the highest responsible bidder by means of the following procedure: the city manager, the director of the off-street parking authority, or the director of the downtown development authority, as appropriate, must make a written finding that a valid emergency exists, which finding must be ratified by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the city commission after a properly advertised public hearing. When the requirement of sale, conveyance, or disposition to the highest responsible bidder is waived, other procurement methods as may be prescribed by ordinance shall be followed. The city or the department of off-street parking or the downtown development authority shall have the power to reject all offers. All invitations for bids, requests for proposals, or other solicitations shall contain a reservation of the foregoing right to reject all offers. This section shall not apply to transfers to the United States or any department or agency thereof, to the State of Florida, or to any political subdivision or agency thereof.
(c) Safeguards.
(1) All persons contracting with the city under this section shall be required to certify their compliance with the antitrust laws of the United States and of the State of Florida and to hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the city for any noncompliance by said persons with the above laws.
(2) All persons contracting with the city under this section shall be obligated to pay whichever is the greater of the following: (i) all applicable ad valorem taxes that are lawfully assessed against the property involved or (ii) an amount to be paid to the city equal to what the ad valorem taxes would be if the property were privately owned and used for a profit-making purpose. Such taxes shall not be credited against any revenues accruing to the city under any contract that may be awarded under this section.
(3) Any proposal by a potential bidder or contractor that contemplates more than the estimated extent of the city's proposed commitment of funds, property, or services shall be ineligible for acceptance by the city commission.
(4) Any substantial increase in the city's commitment of funds, property, or services, or any material alteration of any contract awarded under subsection (c) of this section shall entitle the city commission to terminate the contract after a public hearing. Prior to such public hearing, the city commission shall seek and obtain a report from the city manager and from the review committee that evaluated the proposals for the project, concerning the advisability of exercising that right.
(Char. Amend. No. 3, 11-6-79; Ord. No. 9507, § 1, 10-28-82/11-2-82; Res. No. 86-656, § 2.a, 7-24-86/11-4-86; Res. No. 87-678, § 2(a), 7-9-87/11-3-87; Res. No. 01-841, § 2, 8-9-01; Res. No. 01-843, § 2, 8-9-01)
Editor's note— Res. No. 01-843, § 2, adopted August 9, 2001, amended 29-A in its entirety to read as herein set out. Formerly, 29-A pertained to contracts for personal property, public works or improvements, unified development projects, and real property; safeguards. The historical notation has been retained for reference purposes.
Order No 9489, adopted by the commission on Sept. 17, 1982, set forth inCharter Amendment No. 1 for approval/rejection at election on Nov. 2, 1982. On Oct. 28, 1982, Ord. No. 9507 amended the language of subsections (a) and (c) of 53 as proposed by Ord. No. 9489. The election was to approve the language of Charter Amendment No. 1, as amended by Ord. No. 9507. Subsequently, in light of Charter Amendment No. 2 of Nov. 3, 1987, the city attorney directed the codifier to delete paragraph (ii) of subsection (d) as superseded by 29-B.
Case Law reference— For case decided prior to enactment by Charter Amendment No. 3 of 1979 of a competitive-bidding requirement for disposition of city property, see Mahoney v. Givens, 64 So. 2d 926. Said case held that competitive bidding is not required to lease city real estate.
Material variance between plans bid upon and plans submitted and adopted renders contract void, Glatstein v. City of Miami, 399 So. 2d 1005.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this Charter or the City Code, and except as provided below, the city commission is prohibited from favorably considering any sale or lease of property owned by the city unless there is a return to the city of fair market value under such proposed sale or lease. The city commission is also prohibited from favorably considering any sale or lease of city-owned property unless (a) there shall have been, prior to the date of the city commission's consideration of such sale or lease, an advertisement soliciting proposals for said sale or lease published in a daily newspaper of general paid circulation in the city, allowing not less than ninety (90) days for the city's receipt of proposals from prospective purchasers or lessees, said advertisement to be no less than one-fourth (¼) page and the headline in the advertisement to be in a type no smaller than 18-point and, (b) except as provided below, there shall have been at least three (3) written proposals received from prospective purchasers or lessees; however, if there are less than three (3) such proposals received and if the guaranteed return under the proposal whose acceptance is being considered is equal to fair market value the city commission determines that the contemplated sale or lease will be in the city's best interest then, subject to the approval of a majority of the votes cast by the electorate at a referendum, the sale or lease may be consummated. Any lease for the development of improvements of city-owned property which has been approved by voter referendum shall require additional voter referendum approval for a development on City-owned property where the developer has not obtained the necessary building permits within four (4) years of the effective date of the lease. Such section shall not be applicable when the delay in the performance of any obligation is as a result of force majeure, or litigation that questions the validity of the vote, or the City Commission action to place the question for referendum, then the performance of such obligation shall be extended by the length of the delay. In the case of city-owned property which is not waterfront, when the value of such property to be sold or leased (individual leaseholds within a single city-owned property shall not be considered as a single parcel of property for such valuation purposes) is five hundred thousand dollars (00,000) or less, based on an appraisal performed by a state-certified appraiser, the city commission, by a 4/5 the affirmative vote, may sell or lease said city-owned property after compliance with the advertisement requirements set forth above but without the necessity of a referendum.
The above provisions and any other city requirements for competitive bidding shall not apply when:
(a) conveying property to implement housing programs or projects which are intended to benefit persons or households with low and/or moderate income, the criteria of which to be provided for by federal and/or state law or by the city commission;
(b) conveying property to implement projects authorized under the Florida Community Redevelopment Act of 1969, as amended;
(c) conveying property to implement projects of any governmental agency or instrumentality;
(d) disposing of property acquired as a result of foreclosure;
(e) disposing of property acquired in connection with delinquent taxes which properties were conveyed to the city by the Miami-Dade board of county commissioners under the provisions of Section 197.592 Florida Statutes, as amended; and
(f) disposing of non-waterfront property to the owner of an adjacent property when the subject property is 7,500 square feet or less or the subject non-waterfront property is non-buildable.
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the city commission, by a 4/5 this affirmative vote, may:
(a) grant a lessee of city-owned property a one-time extension during the last five years of its lease, without the necessity of a referendum, for the purpose of funding additional capital improvements. The extended term shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the original term or ten years, whichever is less. The granting of such an extension is subject to the lessee paying fair market rent as determined by the city at the time of such extension and not being in default of its lease with the city nor in arrearage of any monies due the city; and
(b) amend the Lease Agreement between the City of Miami and Biscayne Bay Restaurant Corp., d/b/a Rusty Pelican, dated February 13, 1970, as amended, to (i) extend the lease for an additional term of fifteen (15) years, with the option to renew for two (2) additional five (5) year periods, (ii) increase the amount of the minimum guarantee to the City to at least 60,000 per lease year effective upon execution of the lease amendment, and (iii) require Rusty Pelican to complete capital improvements to the property, including a public baywalk, in the amount of not less than Million, within twenty-four (24) months of the effective date of the lease amendment; and
(c) waive competitive bidding and execute a lease with Dade Heritage Trust, Inc. for the City-owned building located at 190 Southeast 12th Terrace, for a term of thirty (30) years, with two (2) thirty (30) year renewals, for minimum annual rent of 00.00 with Consumer Price Index adjustments, with restrictions, reversions, and retention by the City of all other rights; and
(d) waive competitive bidding and execute a Fifth Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Aligned Bayshore Marina, LLC, also known as Monty's, to extend the current lease term by an additional term of approximately thirty-two (32) years (to expire May 31, 2067), with two (2) ten (10) year options to renew for a total term of fifty-two (52) years (to expire May 31, 2087); which will increase minimum rent payment by an additional two hundred thousand dollars (00,000.00) per lease year, for a minimum of ten million dollars (0,000,000.00) over the base term of the amended Lease Agreement, or one and three quarters percent (1.75%) of gross rent receipts from the Property, whichever is greater, as additional rent due to the City and, commencing January 1, 2019, minimum annual total rent (inclusive of the additional minimum rent) shall be one million five hundred thousand dollars (,500,000.00), plus an additional twenty five thousand dollars (5,000.00) to be paid on an annual basis for the full amended term to a special fund to be established by the City for the benefit of low income housing renovation; further providing capital improvements to the Property of a minimum of seven million five hundred thousand dollars (,500,000.00) to be spent within three (3) years of the electorate's approval of the Fifth Amendment to the Lease Agreement; further creating a capital account requiring a minimum additional investment in the Property of four million dollars (4,000,000.00) over the amended Lease term, inclusive of the renewal options; requiring a Transfer Fee payment to the City if the Property is transferred or assigned; and further requiring a Refinancing Fee payment to the City should the Property be refinanced after the initial refinancing.
Notwithstanding anything in this Charter to the contrary, the City may enter into leases or management agreements, for any City-owned submerged lands, with entities having a possessory or ownership interest in the abutting riparian uplands for building marinas, docks or like facilities, using methods adopted by ordinance on the condition that such leases or management agreements result in a return to the City of at least fair market value.
(Res. No. 87-678, § 2(a), 7-9-87/11-3-87; Res. No. 01-841, § 2, 8-9-01; Res. No. 01-843, § 2, 8-9-01; Res. No. 03-855, § 2, 7-24-03; Res. No. 14-0184, § 1, 5-8-14; Res. No. 14-0225, § 1, 6-12-14; Res. No. 16-0348, § 3, 7-29-16; Res. No. 17-0351, § 3, 7-27-17)
Sec. 29-B. - City-owned property sale or lease—Generally.
NUMBER 60 - JULY 10, 2018
I HATE TO MAKE A MATERIAL MISTAKE, EVEN WHEN THE MISTAKE RESULTS IN REVEALING INFORMATION THAT SUPPORTS MY ORIGINAL CLAIM THAT THIS SOCCER PROPOSAL FOR MEL REESE PARK IS REQUIRED TO BE PUT OUT FOR BID
It was pointed out to me by one of my Twitter followers that I was mistakenly using the wrong Ordinance - 13-01347 - regarding my claim that the city was at fault for not complying with the provisions of the terms set out in this ordinance for the handling of, "Unsolicited Proposals."
Sec. 18-176. - Methods and procedures for sales and leases.
(a) Any sale, conveyance or disposition of any interest, including any leasehold in real property, owned by the city, the off-street parking department, or the downtown development authority shall be made in the manner set forth in this article, and said sale, conveyance or disposition shall be conditioned upon compliance with the provisions of this article V. Nothing in this section shall be construed to waive the special requirements for leases and contracts of waterfront property provided elsewhere in this Code or in the city Charter.
(b) In order to facilitate the implementation of a city policy before considering proposals requiring deferrals, abatements, credits or other reductions in payments to the city for leases and any other agreements for the use of the city's real property, including but not limited to license agreements, permits, use agreements and other related agreements, four affirmative votes of the city commission shall be required for approval of any such deferrals, abatements, credits or other reductions in payments.
(c) Before the city considers proposals requiring deferrals, abatements, credits or other reductions in payments to the city for leases and any all other agreements for the use of the city's real property, the lessee or party using the city's property shall provide an audited financial statement. Audited financial statements shall:
(1) Be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) in the United States;
(2) Be complete and include all notes to the statements and any auditor's reports associated with the audited financial statements; and
(3) Include, if associated with the financial statement, an auditor's opinion.
(Ord. No. 9572, § 1, 2-10-83; Code 1980, § 18-78; Ord. No. 13151, § 2, 4-8-10)
Sec. 18-176.1. - Unified development projects.
Unified development projects shall be as set forth in Charter Section 29-A.
(Ord. No. 12271, § 3, 8-22-02)
@MiamiDadeFla referred me to Section 18-176 of the Miami City Code which states:
In reviewing this section of the City Charter, I also decided to look at the next section that dealt with "Unified development projects," because the Beckham soccer stadium deal certainly would quality for such a designation.
As you can see, the Charter directs readers to go to Section 29-A of the Charter for the explanation of those provisions.
Here is Section 29-A of the Charter, and I have highlighted what I think are the relevant parts that still support my original contention that any proposed lease of this property requires it being put out for bid.
As I said, I really hate to make mistakes, and in this case I did make a significant mistake for failing to take the time to review the referenced Sections of the Charter, and I apologize.
However, these portions of the City Charter do supporting my claim that the City administration in their eagerness to cut a sweetheart deal with the David Beckham group has failed to comply with the stated provisions requiring anyone seeking to lease city property in support of a "Unified development project" to follow the required provisions including issuing a "request for proposals."