My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005 0609 Regular City Commission Meeting
SIBFL
>
City Clerk
>
City Commission Minutes
>
2005
>
2005 0609 Regular City Commission Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2011 9:34:32 AM
Creation date
11/1/2011 9:34:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CityClerk-City Commission
Meeting Type
Regular
Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
09/22/2005
Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Summary Minutes: Regular City Commission Meeting <br /> <br />June 9, 2005 <br /> <br />City of Sunny Isles Beach, Florida <br /> <br />the parking garage. He said they have now reached that point and that is why time has <br />become of the essence so they can do the improvements to the park and close their units. He <br />said that they did not hear back from the City so on May 10, 2005 they submitted a letter to <br />City Manager Russo stating how important the scheduling would be. <br /> <br />Mr. Price said that approximately two weeks ago a meeting was held with Alliance <br />Construction, their general contractor on the property, in which certain issues were raised for <br />the first time, and he learned for the first time on Tuesday morning [June 7, 2005] when he <br />picked up the Miami Herald that there is an issue. He spoke to Richard Lamandon, Principle <br />of La Perla/ Cornerstone Group, Tuesday, and later that day he called the City Attorney as to <br />what the issues were, and suggested that they sit down in a meeting to discuss the issues and <br />the resolutions of those issues. He said that he met with City Manager Russo and Acting <br />City Attorney Wright this afternoon, and basically the issues discussed with them were two- <br />fold: 1) The City believed they were entitled to compensation for lost revenues during that <br />portion of time in which construction of the Park was necessitated by the creation of the <br />Park, cutting off the area for life-safety issues so they can construct that portion of their <br />building which is the entranceway to their building; and 2) the issue of ensuring the City that <br />this would be done on an expedited basis, and they were told that their representatives <br />indicated to the City that this could be done in six months time. He noted that he would <br />submit both letters into the record which indicated no such representations were ever made <br />by them, that they have always envisioned a nine-month process. He said that their <br />construction was scheduled at a point in time where they wanted to temporarily terminate the <br />use of the park would coincide with that portion which is not the season for the Park and the <br />use of the beach. He said it is also the rainy season and hurricane season so they tried to <br />build a realistic schedule and felt that nine months would be needed for completion of this <br />Park. He said that the completion of this Park is very important to them in regard to their <br />ability to close units. <br /> <br />Mr. Price said when he spoke to the City about compensation they said they are generating <br />about $12,500.00 a month in parking revenue. He noted that it was always envisioned that <br />his client would continue to operate the parking as they had done in the past. He said that <br />they had purchased the property from Dr. Cornfeld and no longer have an association with <br />Dr. Cornfeld, even though as part of their commitment to the City that during that temporary <br />cessation of the Park, they would agree at their expense to let people park across the street <br />and they would charge that rate that is charged and regulated by the City. He said at the end <br />of the Public Hearing ofthat matter, City Manager Russo had suggested to them that maybe <br />it would be better for the City to operate the parking, and his client said if that is what the <br />City desires, then they would have no problem letting the City operate that Park. He noted <br />that he pulled out the agreement with the City and that it was always fully contemplated that <br />the Park was going to be closed. He said that it was fully understood that the revenues that <br />were going to be generated at the time the City had the Park would be maintained by the City <br />and at the end of the day, they were going to provide 29 parking spaces within their building. <br />He said that the County was additionally concerned that the Park should not be impaired <br />over to what was previously operated there so as part of the ultimate settlement with the <br />County and the City, they agreed that they would replace the 29 spaces in the Park and in <br />addition, still provide an additional minimum of29 parking spaces in their building at a fee <br />not to exceed what the City charges for parking. <br /> <br />]5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.