2008 0208 Special City Commission Meeting

Home Browse Search

Summary Minutes: Special City Commission Meeting February 8, 2008 $336,400.00) levied against RK Associates and related entities, and he noted that the Code Enforcement fines are usually settled between the City and the property owner at 10% or 5%, he doesn't know what ratio the City Manager uses at times but it varies; 2) naming the internal street, which separates the RK Associates Shopping Centers located between 170 and 171 Streets as "Ranaan Katz Boulevard"; and 3) allowing RK Associates with the ability to use two (2) colors for reverse channel signs located at its shopping centers. He said that the City's eminent domain counsel recommends approval of the settlement and he concurs with his recommendation. He also noted that the City has deposited $2,250,000.00 into the Court Registry at the time the Court had awarded legal title of property to the City. He said also that the City at that time settled its claim that Alamo Vanguard had with the City and which they have a good working relationship right now with Alamo. He stated that the City is now only required to deposit $4,750,000.00 into the Court Registry for full settlement of this case. Public Speakers: Sidney Calloway, Esq. City of Sunny Isles Beach, Florida Sidney C. Calloway, Esq., the City's Eminent Domain Counsel in this matter gave a brief history of his experience in eminent domain proceedings, and noted that this case was going on for many years before he was retained by the City in 2007. Mr. Calloway discussed his analysis of the settlement. He noted that he had a chance to work with the City's retained Real Estate Appraiser, Mark Quinlivan, who has performed many appraisals within the City in the context of valuing properties for the City. He said at the time he began this case, the owner was asking for $ 1 1 Million Dollars as the price for the market value of Parcel 1 , and he looked at Mr. Quinlivan's previous appraisals of the property and noted that the date of evaluation was April 2005 which was at the height of the real estate boom. He looked at Mark's appraisals of the property and as time went on, the appraisals went up 50-75% as was reflective of the market, which makes Mr. Quinlivan's work credible. He said he also looked at the property owner's appraisal and their valuation to try to understand why they believed the property was worth $12 Million Dollars, and he presented his analysis to City Attorney Ottinot with at least two opinions on his assessment of their analysis and their appraisal of the property, their ability to claim that the property is worth $ 1 2 Million Dollars was hinged in part on land sales that occurred in the mid Miami Beach area, as well as the Rascal Plaza property that was assembled with two or three other parcels to pull together the real estate for the Epicure Project. He said that gave us the ability to challenge the valuation of the property at $ 1 2 Million Dollars, primarily because the Rascal Plaza property and that sale which was about $13 Million Dollars, which did not conclude until January 2007 well after the April 2005 date of valuation and also the two other sales that were used by the property owner to justify this $12 Million Dollars included a couple of other sales that represented assemblages of property that was used in connection with the Fontainbleau expansion of its hotel and condominium development, and the third sale was similar to that. He noted that they did not find any single parcel sales that were comparable to the subject property that the property owner used that established the $ 1 3 Million Dollars valuation. He said that they strongly challenged that Parcel 1 was worth $ 12 Million Dollars or even $ 1 1 Million Dollars. The property owner has maintained that to this date. He tried to put the City in a position where the City has alternatives. He noted that he believe the property is worth $3,750,000.00, that is a credible number. He said that he believes the settlement proposal we have in front of us today, represents the property owner's assessment that it makes more sense to settle the case today than to leave the case in the hands of a 1 2-personjury who very well may agree with the City's position. 2