CAO 01-05 AIPP Amendment
\
'(
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jorge M. Gonzalez
City Manager
. ~I,IJ~
~urray H. Dubbi~Al li~V
CIty Attorney /VV\~
Raul J. Aguilac96)k.
First Assistant City Attorney
C.A.O. NO. 01-05
FROM:
C.M.O. NO. 1-04/01
SUBJECT: Art in Public Places Amendment For City Owned Land Use
DATE: May 9, 2001
The Administration is currently proposing an amendment to Chapter 82, Article VII of the
Miami Beach City Code, entitled "Art in Public Places"; said amendment would require private
developers (excluding not-for-profit entities whose projects' total construction budgets are less than
$8 million dollars) who engage in joint public/private ventures with the City, utilizing City owned
land, to contribute one and one-half percent (1.5 %) of the construction budget for the proposed
project to be contributed to the Art in Public Places fund for such purposes as provided by that
ordinance. A first reading of the aforestated amendment is scheduled to be heard by the City
Commission at its regular meeting on May 17, 2001. If approved on first reading, a second and final
reading would be considered on June 6, 2001, and said ordinance will be effective ten (10) days
thereafter.
The issue at hand is whether the proposed ordinance amendment applies to the ongoing
negotiations for public/private development of the 72nd Street Site, pursuant to Request for
Qualifications No. 5-00/01, entitled "Request for Development Qualifications for an Approximately
4 acre PubliclPrivate Development Opportunity known as the 72nd Street Site, located between
Collins and Harding Avenues, from 72nd to 73rd Street" (the RFQ). The Administration's concern
is that the proposed amendment was not a part of the information supplied to proposers in the above-
referenced RFQ. Notwithstanding the fact that the Administration may not have contemplated the
aforestated ordinance amendment, and thus not included same in the RFQ, if the effective date of
said ordinance amendment precedes the conclusion of negotiations relative to the RFQ (that is; the
negotiation and approval by the Mayor and City Commission of a fmal Agreement(s) and execution
of same by the City and the successful proposer), then the relevant portion of the amendment
requiring private developers of public/private ventures on City-owned land (such as that
contemplated within the RFQ), would be binding upon the proposer and should properly be made
a part of those negotiations.
,
Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, it would be prudent for the City, in its continuing
negotiations with the successful proposer for the 72nd Street Site, to include a provision within the
relevant Agreement(s), acknowledging that the proposer has been made aware of the amendment to
the Art in Public Places ordinance and agrees to be bound thereby.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
RJA \kw
F:IA ITOIAGURICAOIOI-OS.CAO
cc: Christina M. Cuervo
Ronnie Singer
James Quinlan
2