2004 0603 Regular City Commission Meeting

Home Browse Search

Regular City COmmission Meeting June 3, 2004 City of Sunny Isles Beach, Rorida Authority to Initiate an Eminent Domain Action and the Authority to Do Ail Things Necessary to Effectuate this Resolution; Providing for an Effective Date. Action: City Clerk Hines read the title and City Attorney Dannheisser reported. Public Speakers: Nonnan Malinski, Esq.; Arnold Shevlin; Henry Kay; Phillip Chernoff N onnan Malinski, Esq., the City's outside counsel, reported that we began by the Order of Taking Hearing in April and the attention was not being given adequately to what was going on, and it resulted in a delay from April to last week. Last week the judge concluded that there was a technical defiCiency in the resolution attachments that the City passed. He said he takes responsibility for that because he worked with Counsel on it, and based on the State of the law in Florida, he felt that the resolution was adequate. He said there Was a question of whether a survey was attached to it. There was a site plan attached to the appraisal which was the same thing for these purposes, hut because it didn't say "survey" the judge said that we will have to start ail over again. City Attorney Dannheisser intervened by saying she decided to hring this matter and Resolution before the Commission. Mr. Malinski said rather than have the judge dismiss the petition for that "defect", we voluntarily withdrew it for legal technical and strategy reasons. He said we are now looking to have an official stamped sealed survey attached to the re- fiJin g of the peti ti on. He said that the ul timate date that we have for the Order of Taki n g Hearing, the week of the 19" of] uly, which date was set by the court some time ago, is sti il far enough a Wa y so that if the resolution is approved today and we get the survey and file the petition by Monday or Tuesday, we will not have lost any time. Mr. Malinski said that the offer of a new seJJing price to the Owner will be done in the next day or two, we know what the update appraisal figure is, and he has spoken to the lawyer for the OWner and told him that he will be getting the offer. He said in discussions with the OWner of what price he was willing to take, Our appraisal was at about $1.6 MiJJi on, and is now at $2.1 MiIIi on, and he told Mr. Gould, the lawyer for the owner, that if We make the offer and there is Some real reason to discuss settling it at about 2.1,2.2, 2.3, that We should still keep our July 19" week date, which we don't want to lose, but we will talk, and he told him on the other hand, if he wants to go back to the evaluation of his property at $8 MiJJion , which is indusi ve of the ID Rs, then he was going to send him a short brief which shows that in the nati onal survey of the law on valuation, there is no support for an appraisal val uin g the property based on the val ue of the TDRs. He said that means the various courts in the country that have looked at this and said can an appraiser say the property is worth $8 Million because it has these IDRs, that the standard language from the Courts is the availability for purchase of TDRs is too speculative for an appraisal to rely on in determining value. City Attorney Dannheisser noted that we did have some discussions about whether we wanted to remain with this judge becanse of what OCcurred at the hearing, but in the end we decided that we wiil move forward and re-fiJe with this judge, and to the extent she 12