Ads January 2020fW\ - e
E o ...
i
5
le e
le e ·¡¡¡
3 ca z>
G
3
o
V o
(y
o
(y
>-- r- << ::, z < >- << o n
LJ z o
LLI z
3: al > aa a:
e e a z
G >
3
] l z e,
e: o ~
O .- :o :::, a-
-~
c <<
MIAMI BEACH
NOTICE BY THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA,
OF THE CITS INTENT TO USE
THE UNIFORM METHOD OF
COLLECTION OF NON-AD
VALOREM ASSESSMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that. the City of Miami Beach ("City") intends to use the uniform method
for collecting the non-ad valorem assessments to be levied by the City pursuant to Section 197.3632,
Florida Statutes, with regard to the Allison Island Security Guard Special Taxing District ("Special Taxing
District"). The City Commission will hold a Public Hearing on this matter on February 12, 2020 at 2:00 P.M.
at City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 3°Floor, Commission Chambers, Miami Beach, Florida, 33139.
The purpose of the Public Hearing is to consider the adoption of a Resolution authorizing the City to
use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments to be levied by the City pursuant to
Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes. The City intends to use the uniform method for collecting non-ad
valorem assessments after the transfer of control of the Special Taxing District from Miami-Dade County
to the City in accordance with Section 18-3.1 of the Miami-Dade County Code.
!
The City may levy non-ad valorem assessments for the purpose of the continued operation and
maintenance of the Allison Island Guard Special Taxing District, including but not limited to the making
of infrastructure and security improvements. The area or boundaries of Allison Island Security Guard
Special Taxing District are as follows:
A portion of Sections 11, Township 53 South, Range 42 East, Dade County, Florida; being
more particularly described as follows:
Lots 2 thru 52 of "Indian Creek Subdivision" according to the plat thereof, as recorded in
the Plat Book 31 at page 75.
· All the aforementioned plats being recorded in the Public Records of Dade County,
Florida.
The City intends to use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments for a period
of more than one year. This non-ad valorem assessment will be levied by the City for the first time;
however, Miami-Dade County has previously levied the non-ad valorem assessment for the Special
Taxing District.
The City's non-ad valorem assessments shall be subject to the same discounts and penalties, and the
issuance and sale of tax certificates and tax deeds, for non-payment as for the non-payment of ad
valorem taxes. The non-payment of such non-ad valorem assessments will subject the property to the
.:
potential loss of title. r e-
INTERESTED PARTIES may appear at the Public Hearing, or be represented by an agent, to be heard
regarding the use of the uniform method o.f collecting such non-ad valorem assessments, or may
express their views in·writing addressed to the City Commission, c/o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention
Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This item is available for public inspection
during normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor,
City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This item may be continued, and, under such circumstances,
additional legal notice need not be provided.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat., the City hereby advises the public that if a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect.to any matter considered at its meeting
or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not
constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant
evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in alternate format, a sign language interpreter (five-day notice required),
information on access for persons with disabilities, and/or any accommodation to review any document
or participate in any City-sponsored proceedings, call 305.604.2489 and select 1 for English or 2 for
' .
Spanish, then option 6; TTY users may call via 711 (Florida Relay Service).
City of Miami Beach
Rafael Granado, City Clerk
305-673-7 411
.'4°'9-20-25/0000450712M
_ e.et Falta atonal
1/15-22-29 2/5
.... .... e
E o e
si
d2 ·;:
d» .. Ill Ill
d» e
G'
3
.D z
G s
o N o
(y
o
(¿
>- r- << :::, z << -,
>- << o n LLI z o
L :;:
~ at > a = e e
Ml z
G > c
L- z; ¡ z o
1 I
!
I I
I I
e o
E5
O • :o :::, -
~-,
e <<
MIAMI BEACH
NOTICE BY THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA,
OF THE CITY'S INTENT TO USE
THE UNIFORM METHOD OF
COLLECTION OF NON-AD
VALOREM ASSESSMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City of Miami Beach ("City") intends to use the uniform method
for collecting the non-ad valorem assessments to be levied by the City pursuant to Section 197.3632,
Florida Statutes, with regard to the Biscayne Beach Security Guard Special Taxing District ("Special
Taxi ng District"). The City Commissi on will hold a Public Hearing on this matter on February 12, 2020
at 2:01 P.M. at City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 3°Floor, Commissi on Cham be rs, Miami Beach ,
Florida, 33 139.
The purpose of the Public Hearing is to consider the adoption of a Resolution authorizing the City to
use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments to be levied by the City pursuant to
Secti on 197.3632, Florida Statutes. The City inten ds to use the uniform method for collecting non-ad
valorem assessm en ts after the tran sfer of control of the Spe cial Taxi ng District from Miami-Dade County
to the City in accordance with Sec tion 18-3.1 of the Miami-Dade County Code.
'Th e City may levy non-ad valorem assessments for the purpose of the continued operation an d
maintenance of the Biscayne Beach Guard Special Taxing District, including but not limited to the
making of infrastructu re and security improvements. The area or boundaries of Bisc ayne Beach Security
Guard Special Taxi ng District are as follows:
A portion of Sections 3, Township 53 South, Ran ge 42 East, Dade County, Florida; being
_more particularly described as follows:
Lots 1 thru 52, Block 15; an d Lots 5 thru 58, Block 16 of "Biscayne Beach Secon d Addition "
according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 46 at Page 39.
All the aforementioned plats being recorded in the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
The City intends to use the uniform method of c;ollecting non-ad valorem assessments for a period
of more than one year. This non-ad valorem assessment will be levied by the City for the first time;
however, Miami-Dade County has· previously levied the non-ad valorem ·assessment for the Special
Taxing District.
The City's non-ad valorem assessments shall be subject to the same discounts and penalties, and the
issuan ce an d sale of tax certificates and tax deeds, for non-payment as for the non-payment of ad
valorem taxes. The non-payment of such non-ad valorem assessments will subject the property to the
potential loss of title.
INTERESTE D PARTIES may ap pear at the Public Hearing, or be represented by an agent, to be heard
regarding the use of the uniform method of collecting such non-ad valorem assessments, or may
express their views in· writing addressed to the City Commission, c/o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention
Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach , Florida 33139. This item is available for public insp ection
during norm al busine ss hours in the Offi ce of the City Cl erk, 1700 Conven tion Cen ter Drive, 1st Floor,
City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This item may be continued and, under such circumstances,
additional leg al notice need not be provided.
Pursuan t to Secti on 286.0105, Fla. Stat., the City hereb y advises the public that if a person decides to
app e al an y deci sion made by the City Commission with resp ect to an y matter con sidered at its mee ting
or its hearing , such person must en sure that a verbatim record of the proceedi ngs is made, wh ich
record incl udes the testimony an d evidence upon which the app eal is to be based. This notice does not
con stitute consent by the Gi ty for the introducti on or admissi on of otherwi se ina dmissi ble or irrelevan t
eviden ce, nor does it authorize ch allen ges or app eals not otherwi se allowed by law.
To request this material in alternate form at, a sign lan guage interpreter (five-day notice required),
inform ation on access for person s with disabilities, an d/or an y accom modation to review an y documen t
or parti cipate in an y City-sp on sored proceedi ng s, call 305.604.248 9 an d select 1 for En glish or 2 for
Spanish, then option 6; TTY users may call via 711 (Florida Relay Servièe).
1/15-22-29 2/5
City of Miami Beach
Rafael Gran ado, City Clerk
305-673- 7411
20-26/000045 0703M
SUNDAY JANUARY 26 2020 NEIGHBORS 23NE
MIAMIHERALD.COM
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that a Second Reading/Public Hearing will be heard by the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, in the Commission Chambers,
3rd Floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, on February 12, 2020 at 2:20 p.m.,or as soon thereaer as the matter can be heard, to consider:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, To Consider Approval, Following Second Reading/Public Hearing, Of A Second Amendment To
The Development Agreement Dated January 9, 2019, Between The City And South Beach Heights I, LLC, 500 Alton Road Ventures, LLC, 1220 Sixth, LLC And KGM Equities,
LLC, As Assigned To TCH 500 Alton, LLC, By Assignment Of Development Agreement Dated As Of September 27, 2019 (The “Developer”), For The Development Of The
Properties Located At 500 Alton Road, 630 Alton Road, 650 Alton Road, 1220 6th Street, 659 West Avenue, 701 West Avenue, 703 West Avenue, 711 West Avenue, 721 West
Avenue, 723 West Avenue, 727 West Avenue And 737 West Avenue (Collectively, The “Development Site”), As Authorized Under Section 118-4 Of The City Code, And Sections
163.3220 – 163.3243, Florida Statutes, Which Second Amendment Provides, Among Other Terms And Conditions, For: (1) Settlement Of The Dispute Arising From The Board
Of Adjustment’s Ruling, Dated November 1, 2019, Allowing The Exclusion Of Covered Stairs, Elevator Shas, Mechanical Chutes And Chases From The Calculation Of Floor
Area For The Project; (2) A Reduction Of The Maximum Number Of Residential Units Permitted On The Development Site, From 410 Units To A Maximum Of 330 Units; (3)
Approval Of The Final Plans For The 3.0 Acre Public Park That Developer Shall Construct On Behalf Of The City, At Its Sole Cost And Expense; (4) Expedited Timeframes For
The Developer To Complete Construction Of The 3.0 Acre Public Park And To Convey Ownership Of The Park Site To The City; (5) Approval Of The Final Plans For The 5th
Street Pedestrian Bridge Project, Which Developer Shall Construct On City’s Behalf (The “Bridge Project”), And (6) Approval Of The Final Bridge Project Budget, Subject To
A Maximum City Contribution For Bridge Project Costs.
PROPERTIES: The Development Site consists of 500 Alton Road, 630 Alton Road, 650 Alton Road, 1220 6th Street, 659 West Avenue, 701 West Avenue, 703 West Avenue, 711 West
Avenue, 721 West Avenue, 723 West Avenue, 727 West Avenue and 737 West Avenue.
Tax Folio Nos.: 02-4203-001-0220, 02-4203-001-0210, 02-4203-001-0201, 02-4203-001-0200, 02-4203-001-0190, 02-4203-001-0180, 02-4203-001-0170, 02-4203-001-0161,
02-4203-001-0280, 02-4203-001-0100, 02-4204-006-0070, 02-4204-006-0010.
LOCATION OF PROPOSED 5th STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROJECT:The 5th Street Pedestrian Bridge Project shall be constructed within public right of way areas of the
City of Miami Beach and the Florida Department of Transportation that are adjacent to, and located to the north and south of, the MacArthur Causeway, between Biscayne Bay and
West Avenue. The proposed Pedestrian Bridge Project shall span over and across the MacArthur Causeway and West Avenue along 5th Street, and shall connect to the Development Site
at the southwest corner of the 500 Block of Alton Road.
ZONING DISTRICT: The proposed Development Site is currently located within the Commercial, Medium Intensity District (“CD-2 District”),as modified by the Alton Road Gateway Area
Development Regulations, set forth in Section 142-311 of the City Code. The City’s Land Development Regulations provide for building intensities for this zoning district consisting of a
floor area ratio of up to 2.0, and population densities for this zoning district of 100 units per acre.
MAXIMUM HEIGHT: The proposed Amendment No. 2 does not provide for any change in height. Section 142-311(a)(4) of the City Code provides that the maximum height of any
residential tower on the Development Site shall not exceed 519 feet in height.
PERMITTED USES: The main permitted uses allowed on the Development Site are multi-family residential units, single-family detached units, townhomes, condominiums, or apartments,
and commercial uses. The proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Development Agreement will reduce the maximum number of residential units permitted on the Development Site, from a
maximum of 410 units to 330 units (multi-family residential units, single-family detached units, townhomes, condominiums, or apartments). The Development Site also includes 15,000 sq.
. of retail uses, previously authorized as part of the Development Agreement.
A copy of the proposed Development Agreement is available for public inspection during normal business hours in the City Clerk’s Office, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall,
Miami Beach, Florida 33139.
INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to appear at this meeting, or be represented by an agent, or to express their views in writing addressed to the City Commission, c/o the City Clerk,
1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This item is available for public inspection during normal business hours in the City Clerk’s Office, 1700
Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This meeting, or any item herein, may be continued, and under such circumstances, additional legal notice need
not be provided. Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat., the City hereby advises the public that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect
to any matter considered at its meeting or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it
authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in alternate format, sign language interpreter (five-day notice required), information on access for persons with disabilities, and/or any accommodation to
review any document or participate in any City-sponsored proceedings, call 305.604.2489 and select 1 for English or 2 for Spanish, then option 6; TTY users may call via 711
(Florida Relay Service).
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
City of Miami Beach
AD 02122020-09
SUNDAY JANUARY 26 2020 NEIGHBORS 19NE
MIAMIHERALD.COM
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
FEBRUARY 12, 2020
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the following public hearings will be heard by the Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Miami Beach, Florida,
in the Commission Chamber, Third Floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, on February 12, 2020,at the times listed,
or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard:
2:00 p.m. Public Hearing
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, EXPRESSING THE CITY’S INTENT
TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD FOR COLLECTING THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED WITHIN THE ALLISON ISLAND
SECURITY GUARD SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT OF THE CITY; STATING A NEED FOR SUCH LEVY; PROVIDING FOR THE MAILING OF THIS
RESOLUTION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, AND THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
PROPERTY APPRAISER; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.This Resolution is being heard pursuant to §166.041. Inquiries may be
directed to the Office of Management and Budget at 305.673.7510.
2:01 p.m. Public Hearing
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, EXPRESSING THE CITY’S INTENT TO
USE THE UNIFORM METHOD FOR COLLECTING THE NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED WITHIN THE BISCAYNE BEACH
SECURITY GUARD SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT OF THE CITY; STATING A NEED FOR SUCH LEVY; PROVIDING FOR THE MAILING OF THIS
RESOLUTION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, AND THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
PROPERTY APPRAISER; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.This Resolution is being heard pursuant to §166.041. Inquiries may be
directed to the Office of Management and Budget at 305.673.7510.
2:10 p.m. Public Hearing
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO
THE GENERAL FUND, ENTERPRISE FUNDS, INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS, AND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020.
This Resolution is being heard pursuant to §166.041 and §166.241 F.S. Inquiries may be directed to the Office of Management and Budget at
305.673.7510.
2:15 p.m. Public Hearing
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT
TO THE CAPITAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020.This Resolution is being heard pursuant to §166.041 and §166.241 F.S. Inquiries may be
directed to the Office of Management and Budget at 305.673.7510.
INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to appear at this meeting, or be represented by an agent, or to express their views in writing addressed to the
City Commission, c/o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. Copies of these items are
available for public inspection during normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall,
Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This meeting, or any item herein, may be continued, and under such circumstances, additional legal notice need
not be provided.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat., the City hereby advises the public that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City
Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute
consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals
not otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in alternate format, sign language interpreter (five-day notice required), information on access for persons with disabilities,
and/or any accommodation to review any document or participate in any City-sponsored proceedings, call 305.604.2489 and select 1 for English or
2 for Spanish, then option 6; TTY users may call via 711 (Florida Relay Service).
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
City of Miami Beach
Ad 02122020-08
22NE SUNDAY JANUARY 26 2020NEIGHBORSMIAMIHERALD.COM
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
FEBRUARY 12, 2020
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the following public hearings will be heard by the Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, in the
Commission Chamber, Third Floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, on February 12, 2020, at the times listed below, or as soon thereafter
as the matter can be heard:
10:05 a.m. Second Reading Public Hearing
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, ENTITLED “ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES,” BY AMENDING ARTICLE I, ENTITLED “IN GENERAL,” BY AMENDING SECTION 6-3 THEREOF, ENTITLED
“HOURS OF SALE/VIOLATIONS,” BY REQUIRING THOSE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS LOCATED ON OCEAN DRIVE, BETWEEN 5TH STREET AND
15TH STREET, POSSESSING A LICENSE TO SELL AND/OR SERVE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN THE CITY UNTIL 5 A.M. (“ALCOHOL LICENSE”), AND SELLING
AND/OR SERVING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES LATER THAN 12 A.M., TO RETAIN THE SERVICES OF AN OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER, FROM 12 A.M. UNTIL THIRTY
(30) MINUTES PAST THE CLOSING OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS AND, DURING HOLIDAY WEEKENDS OR
CITY-SPONSORED EVENTS, ON SATURDAY, SUNDAY, AND MONDAY; ESTABLISHING EXCEPTIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION,
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.This Ordinance is being heard pursuant to Section 2.05 of the City Charter and §166.041 F.S. Inquiries may be directed to the Office of the
City Attorney at 305.673.7470.
10:10 a.m. Second Reading Public Hearing
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 2 OF THE MIAMI BEACH CITY CODE,
ENTITLED “ADMINISTRATION,” BY AMENDING ARTICLE III, ENTITLED “AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMITTEES,” BY AMENDING DIVISION 1, ENTITLED “GENERALLY,”
BY AMENDING SECTION 2-22 THEREOF, ENTITLED “GENERAL REQUIREMENTS,” TO CLARIFY THE QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERS OF AGENCIES,
BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES; AND, PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.This Ordinance is being heard
pursuant to Section 2.05 of the City Charter and §166.041 F.S. Inquiries may be directed to the Office of the City Attorney at 305.673.7470.
10:15 a.m. Second Reading Public Hearing
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 82 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, ENTITLED “PUBLIC PROPERTY,” BY AMENDING ARTICLE IV, “USES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY,” BY AMENDING DIVISION 5, “SIDEWALK CAFES,” BY AMENDING
SUBDIVISION II, “PERMIT,” BY AMENDING SECTION 82-385, ENTITLED “MINIMUM STANDARDS, CRITERIA, AND CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION OF SIDEWALK CAFÉS,”
ESTABLISHING THE REQUIREMENT THAT SIDEWALK CAFÉ OPERATORS STACK AND SECURE SIDEWALK CAFÉ FURNITURE AT THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS EACH DAY;
AND PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.This Ordinance is being heard pursuant to Section 2.05 of the City Charter
and §166.041 F.S. Inquiries may be directed to the Economic Development Department at 305.673.7572.
2:30 p.m. Second Reading Public Hearing
DEFINITION OF FLOOR AREA
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SUBPART B OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED
“LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS,” CHAPTER 114, ENTITLED “GENERAL PROVISIONS,” SECTION 114-1, ENTITLED “DEFINITIONS,” TO MODIFY FOR
CLARIFICATION PURPOSES THE DEFINITION OF “FLOOR AREA”; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEALER,SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance is being heard pursuant to Section 118-164 of the City’s Land Development Code. Inquiries may be directed to the Planning Department at 305.673.7550.
INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to appear at this meeting, or be represented by an agent, or to express their views in writing addressed to the City Commission,
c/o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. Copies of these items are available for public inspection during
normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This meeting, or any item herein,
may be continued, and under such circumstances, additional legal notice need not be provided.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat., the City hereby advises the public that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to
any matter considered at its meeting or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony
and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or
irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in alternate format, sign language interpreter (five-day notice required), information on access for persons with disabilities, and/or any
accommodation to review any document or participate in any City-sponsored proceedings, call 305.604.2489 and select 1 for English or 2 for Spanish, then option 6;
TTY users may call via 711 (Florida Relay Service).
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
City of Miami Beach
Ad No. 02122020-04
12NE SUNDAY JANUARY 26 2020NEIGHBORSMIAMIHERALD.COM
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ADAPTIVE RE-USE AND ACCESSORY USES IN THE
NORTH SHORE AND TATUM WATERWAY AREAS
FEBRUARY 12, 2020
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the following Second Reading Public Hearing will be heard by the Mayor and City Commissioners of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida, in the Commission Chamber, Third Floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, on February 12, 2020 at the
time listed, or as soon thereaer as the matter can be heard:
5:02 p.m. Second Reading Public Hearing
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, SUBPART 8, ENTITLED “LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS,” BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED
“ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS,” ARTICLE II, ENTITLED “DISTRICT REGULATIONS,” DIVISION 3, ENTITLED “RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY
DISTRICTS,” SUBDIVISION II, ENTITLED “RM-1 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY LOW INTENSIT Y,” SECTION 142-152, ENTITLED “MAIN PERMITTED
AND PROHIBITED USES,” AND SECTION 142-153, ENTITLED “CONDITIONAL USES,” TO MODIFY USE REGULATIONS AND AMEND THE LIST OF
CONDITIONAL USES FOR RM-1 PROPERTIES WITHIN THE NORTH SHORE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT, TO INCLUDE ACCESSORY
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND HOTEL USES; BY AMENDING ARTICLE IV, ENTITLED “SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS,”
DIVISION 2, ENTITLED “ ACCESSORY USES,” SECTION 142-902, ENTITLED “PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES,” TO MODIFY THE ACCESSORY USES
FOR HOTELS IN THE NORTH SHORE LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND EXPAND THE ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY USES FOR EXISTING APARTMENT
BUILDINGS IN THE NORTH SHORE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR ACCESSORY CAFE, OFFICE, RETAIL, PERSONAL SERVICE,
AND NON-MOTORIZED WATERCRAFT RENTAL USES; AND BY AMENDING CHAPTER 130, ENTITLED “OFF-STREET PARKING,” ARTICLE II, ENTITLED
“DISTRICTS; REQUIREMENTS,” SECTION 130-31, ENTITLED “PARKING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED,” TO PROVIDE FOR AN EXCEPTION TO OFF-
STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN ACCESSORY AND CONDITIONAL USES ON RM-1 PROPERTIES IN THE NORTH SHORE NATIONAL
REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.This Ordinance is being
heard pursuant to Section 118-164 of the City’s Land Development Code. Inquiries may be directed to the Planning Department at 305.673.7550.
INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to appear at this meeting, or be represented by an agent, or to express their views in writing addressed to the City
Commission, c/o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. A copy of this item is available for public
inspection during normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139.
This meeting, or any item herein, may be continued, and under such circumstances, additional legal notice need not be provided.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat., the City hereby advises the public that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission
with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the
introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in alternate format, sign language interpreter (five-day notice required), information on access for persons with disabilities, and/
or any accommodation to review any document or participate in any City-sponsored proceedings, call 305.604.2489 and select 1 for English or 2 for
Spanish, then option 6; TTY users may call via 711 (Florida Relay Service).
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
City of Miami Beach
Ad 02122020-06
8NE SUNDAY JANUARY 5 2020NEIGHBORSMIAMIHERALD.COM
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
January 15, 2020
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that a First Reading/Public Hearing will be heard by the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, in the Commission Chambers,
3rd Floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, on January 15, 2020 at 2:10 p.m.,or as soon thereaer as the matter can be heard, to consider:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach,To Consider Approval, Following First Reading/Public Hearing, Of A Second Amendment To
The Development Agreement Dated January 9, 2019, Between The City And South Beach Heights I, LLC, 500 Alton Road Ventures, LLC, 1220 Sixth, LLC And KGM Equities,
LLC, As Assigned To TCH 500 Alton, LLC, By Assignment Of Development Agreement Dated As Of September 27, 2019 (The “Developer”), For The Development Of The
Properties Located At 500 Alton Road, 630 Alton Road, 650 Alton Road, 1220 6th Street, 659 West Avenue, 701 West Avenue, 703 West Avenue, 711 West Avenue, 721 West
Avenue, 723 West Avenue, 727 West Avenue And 737 West Avenue (Collectively, The “Development Site”), As Authorized Under Section 118-4 Of The City Code, And Sections
163.3220 – 163.3243, Florida Statutes, Which Second Amendment Provides, Among Other Terms And Conditions, For: (1) Settlement Of The Dispute Arising From The Board Of
Adjustment’s Ruling, Dated November 1, 2019, Allowing The Exclusion Of Covered Stairs, Elevator Shas, Mechanical Chutes And Chases From The Calculation Of Floor Area
For The Project; (2) A Reduction Of The Maximum Number Of Residential Units Permitted On The Development Site, From 410 Units To A Maximum Of 330 Units; (3) Approval Of
The Final Plans For The 3.0 Acre Public Park That Developer Shall Construct On Behalf Of The City, At Its Sole Cost And Expense; (4) Expedited Timeframes For The Developer
To Complete Construction Of The 3.0 Acre Public Park And To Convey Ownership Of The Park Site To The City; (5) Approval Of The Final Plans For The 5th Street Pedestrian
Bridge Project, Which Developer Shall Construct On City’s Behalf (The “Bridge Project”), And (6) Approval Of The Final Bridge Project Budget, Subject To A Maximum City
Contribution For Bridge Project Costs; And Further, Setting The Second And Final Reading Of The Second Amendment To The Development Agreement For A Time Certain.
PROPERTIES: The Development Site consists of 500 Alton Road, 630 Alton Road, 650 Alton Road, 1220 6th Street, 659 West Avenue, 701 West Avenue, 703 West Avenue,
711 West Avenue, 721 West Avenue, 723 West Avenue, 727 West Avenue and 737 West Avenue.
Tax Folio Nos.: 02-4203-001-0220, 02-4203-001-0210, 02-4203-001-0201, 02-4203-001-0200, 02-4203-001-0190, 02-4203-001-0180, 02-4203-001-0170, 02-4203-001-0161,
02-4203-001-0280, 02-4203-001-0100, 02-4204-006-0070, 02-4204-006-0010.
LOCATION OF PROPOSED 5th STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE PROJECT:The 5th Street Pedestrian Bridge Project shall be constructed within public right of way areas of the City
of Miami Beach and the Florida Department of Transportation that are adjacent to, and located to the north and south of, the MacArthur Causeway, between Biscayne Bay and West
Avenue. The proposed Pedestrian Bridge Project shall span over and across the MacArthur Causeway and West Avenue along 5th Street, and shall connect to the Development Site at
the southwest corner of the 500 Block of Alton Road.
ZONING DISTRICT: The proposed Development Site is currently located within the Commercial, Medium Intensity District (“CD-2 District”).
MAXIMUM HEIGHT: The proposed Amendment No. 2 does not provide for any change in height. Section 142-311(a)(4) of the City Code provides that the maximum height of any
residential tower on the Development Site shall not exceed 519 feet in height.
PERMITTED USES: The current main permitted uses in the City’s CD-2 Commercial, Medium Intensity District are commercial uses; apartments; apartment hotels, hotels, hostels and
suite hotels; religious institutions with an occupancy of 199 persons or less; and alcoholic beverage establishments. The proposed Amendment No. 2 to Development Agreement will
reduce the maximum number of residential units permitted on the Development Site, from a maximum of 410 units to 330 units (multi-family residential units, single-family detached
units, townhomes, condominiums, or apartments). The Development Site also includes 15,000 sq. . of retail uses, previously authorized as part of the Development Agreement.
The City’s Land Development Regulations provide for population densities for this zoning district of 100 units per acre.
A copy of the proposed Development Agreement is available for public inspection during normal business hours in the City Clerk’s Office, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall,
Miami Beach, Florida 33139.
INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to appear at this meeting, or be represented by an agent, or to express their views in writing addressed to the City Commission, c/o the City Clerk,
1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This item is available for public inspection during normal business hours in the City Clerk’s Office, 1700
Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This meeting, or any item herein, may be continued, and under such circumstances, additional legal notice need
not be provided. Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat., the City hereby advises the public that if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect
to any matter considered at its meeting or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it
authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in alternate format, sign language interpreter (five-day notice required),information on access for persons with disabilities, and/or any accommodation to review any
document or participate in any City-sponsored proceedings, call 305.604.2489 and select 1 for English or 2 for Spanish, then option 6; TTY users may call via 711 (Florida Relay Service).
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
City of Miami Beach
011520-06
DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2020 dailybusinessreview.com A13
NOTICE BY THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA,
OF THE CITY’S INTENT TO USE
THE UNIFORM METHOD OF
COLLECTION OF NON-AD
VALOREM ASSESSMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City of Miami Beach (“City”) intends to use the uniform method
for collecting the non-ad valorem assessments to be levied by the City pursuant to Section 197.3632,
Florida Statutes, with regard to the Allison Island Security Guard Special Taxing District (“Special Taxing
District”). The City Commission will hold a Public Hearing on this matter on February 12, 2020 at 2:00 P.M.
at City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 3rd Floor, Commission Chambers, Miami Beach, Florida, 33139.
The purpose of the Public Hearing is to consider the adoption of a Resolution authorizing the City to
use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments to be levied by the City pursuant to
Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes. The City intends to use the uniform method for collecting non-ad
valorem assessments after the transfer of control of the Special Taxing District from Miami-Dade County
to the City in accordance with Section 18-3.1 of the Miami-Dade County Code.
The City may levy non-ad valorem assessments for the purpose of the continued operation and
maintenance of the Allison Island Guard Special Taxing District, including but not limited to the making
of infrastructure and security improvements. The area or boundaries of Allison Island Security Guard
Special Taxing District are as follows:
A portion of Sections 11, Township 53 South, Range 42 East, Dade County, Florida; being
more particularly described as follows:
Lots 2 thru 52 of “Indian Creek Subdivision” according to the plat thereof, as recorded in
the Plat Book 31 at page 75.
All the aforementioned plats being recorded in the Public Records of Dade County,
Florida.
The City intends to use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments for a period
of more than one year. This non-ad valorem assessment will be levied by the City for the first time;
however, Miami-Dade County has previously levied the non-ad valorem assessment for the Special
Taxing District.
The City’s non-ad valorem assessments shall be subject to the same discounts and penalties, and the
issuance and sale of tax certificates and tax deeds, for non-payment as for the non-payment of ad
valorem taxes. The non-payment of such non-ad valorem assessments will subject the property to the
potential loss of title.
INTERESTED PARTIES may appear at the Public Hearing, or be represented by an agent, to be heard
regarding the use of the uniform method of collecting such non-ad valorem assessments, or may
express their views in writing addressed to the City Commission, c/o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention
Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This item is available for public inspection
during normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor,
City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This item may be continued, and, under such circumstances,
additional legal notice need not be provided.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat., the City hereby advises the public that if a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting
or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not
constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant
evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in alternate format, a sign language interpreter (five-day notice required),
information on access for persons with disabilities, and/or any accommodation to review any document
or participate in any City-sponsored proceedings, call 305.604.2489 and select 1 for English or 2 for
Spanish, then option 6; TTY users may call via 711 (Florida Relay Service).
City of Miami Beach
Rafael Granado, City Clerk
305-673-7411
1/15-22-29 2/5 20-25/0000450712M
by Joseph Pisani
Zachariah Mohammed’s living room
is filled with stuff he doesn’t own.
He pays $200 a month for the sofa, side
table, bar cart, dining table and four chairs
in his living room. It’s worth it, the 27-year-
old New Yorker says. If he needs to move,
which he’s done twice in the last 12
months, he won’t need to lug a sofa across
the city or worry if it will fit in a new place.
The furniture-rental startup, Feather, will
swap out items for something else.
“We don’t want to be stuck with a gi-
ant couch,” says Mohammed, a social
media manager at a software company,
who lives with his partner and their dog,
Remy.
Feather, Fernish and other companies
aim to rent furniture to millennials who
don’t want to commit to big purchases
or move heavy furniture and are willing
to pay for the convenience. It’s part of a
wave of rental culture that includes Rent
the Runway, focused on women’s design-
er clothing, and even Netflix and Spotify,
which let you stream from a huge catalog
rather than buy individual TV show epi-
sodes, movies or songs.
“They’re moving a lot. They’re chang-
ing jobs a lot,” says Thomas Robertson,
a marketing professor at the Wharton
School of the University of Pennsylvania,
describing the types of people who
would use the services. “Why would you
want to be saddled with furniture?”
The furniture-rental companies tar-
get high-income city dwellers who want
a $1,100 orange love seat ($46 a month)
or $980 leather bench ($41 a month) —
but only temporarily. The furniture itself
is a step up from Ikea.
“I’m 32 years old and have lived in
25 different places, five different coun-
tries, 12 different cities,” says Chan Park,
who co-founded online furniture rental
company Oliver Space last year. He
constantly bought and discarded cheap
furniture. Then he moved to a furnished
rental apartment in Singapore.
“It was probably the first time my
adult life that I felt like I was truly at
home,” Park says.
These startups are in just a handful
of coastal cities, with few users, but seek
to grow. They offer furniture from Crate
& Barrel, West Elm and smaller brands.
Others are renting out home goods, too.
Rent the Runway recently added West Elm
pillows and quilts. Ikea is testing a rental
service in several countries outside the
U.S., including Switzerland and Belgium.
Renting may make sense for a gen-
eration that sees “life as transient,” says
Hana Ben-Shabat, the founder of Gen
Z Planet, a research and advisory firm
that focuses on the generation born be-
tween the late 1990s and 2016.
Young people today get married and
buy homes later than they used to, and
young people move more than older peo-
ple do. Still, millennials are moving less
than previous generations did at their age,
and Americans overall are moving less.
Moving her furniture from New York
to Los Angeles would have cost Clarissa
Wright $3,000. Instead, she gave away
most of what she owned, traveled in
Europe for two months and then rented
a couch, bed, mattress, bar stools and
other furniture in her new place, for
$255 a month. Feather delivered and
assembled everything in one day.
Wright, a 28-year-old marketing con-
sulting for fashion and beauty brands,
says she can switch out the furniture,
add more stuff, move to a new apart-
ment or city. But right now, she doesn’t
know what the future holds.
“I don’t think too far ahead,” she says.
That comes at a price. Critics have
called the furniture-rental business ex-
ploitative in the past. Stores like Rent-A-
Center target low-income shoppers who
can’t afford to buy a fridge or couch out-
right and charge higher prices overall
than competitors.
Some of the new batch of furniture
renters charge for membership, and
there are fees for late payments or for fur-
niture that is badly damaged. Customers
can keep furniture if their monthly pay-
ments add up to full price. Prices are the
same at West Elm and Crate & Barrel, but
you could buy more cheaply directly from
the store if there’s a sale.
“If people think this is the best way
to buy a couch, they are wrong,” says
Margot Saunders, the senior counsel
at the National Consumer Law Center.
“They should recognize that they are
paying for the convenience of renting.”
Joseph Pisani reports for the Associated Press.
SETH WENIG/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Furniture-rental startups Feather, Fernish and others aim to rent furniture to millennials, such as
Zachariah Mohammed, left, and Pete Mancilla, with their dog Remy, who don’t want to commit
to big purchases or move heavy furniture and are willing to pay for the convenience.
Startups See a Market in
Renting Couches by the Month
BANKING/ FINANCE
DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2020 dailybusinessreview.com A11
NOTICE BY THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA,
OF THE CITY’S INTENT TO USE
THE UNIFORM METHOD OF
COLLECTION OF NON-AD
VALOREM ASSESSMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City of Miami Beach (“City”) intends to use the uniform method
for collecting the non-ad valorem assessments to be levied by the City pursuant to Section 197.3632,
Florida Statutes, with regard to the Biscayne Beach Security Guard Special Taxing District (“Special
Taxing District”). The City Commission will hold a Public Hearing on this matter on February 12, 2020
at 2:01 P.M. at City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 3rd Floor, Commission Chambers, Miami Beach,
Florida, 33139.
The purpose of the Public Hearing is to consider the adoption of a Resolution authorizing the City to
use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments to be levied by the City pursuant to
Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes. The City intends to use the uniform method for collecting non-ad
valorem assessments after the transfer of control of the Special Taxing District from Miami-Dade County
to the City in accordance with Section 18-3.1 of the Miami-Dade County Code.
The City may levy non-ad valorem assessments for the purpose of the continued operation and
maintenance of the Biscayne Beach Guard Special Taxing District, including but not limited to the
making of infrastructure and security improvements. The area or boundaries of Biscayne Beach Security
Guard Special Taxing District are as follows:
A portion of Sections 3, Township 53 South, Range 42 East, Dade County, Florida; being
more particularly described as follows:
Lots 1 thru 52, Block 15; and Lots 5 thru 58, Block 16 of “Biscayne Beach Second Addition”
according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 46 at Page 39.
All the aforementioned plats being recorded in the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
The City intends to use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments for a period
of more than one year. This non-ad valorem assessment will be levied by the City for the first time;
however, Miami-Dade County has previously levied the non-ad valorem assessment for the Special
Taxing District.
The City’s non-ad valorem assessments shall be subject to the same discounts and penalties, and the
issuance and sale of tax certificates and tax deeds, for non-payment as for the non-payment of ad
valorem taxes. The non-payment of such non-ad valorem assessments will subject the property to the
potential loss of title.
INTERESTED PARTIES may appear at the Public Hearing, or be represented by an agent, to be heard
regarding the use of the uniform method of collecting such non-ad valorem assessments, or may
express their views in writing addressed to the City Commission, c/o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention
Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This item is available for public inspection
during normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor,
City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This item may be continued and, under such circumstances,
additional legal notice need not be provided.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat., the City hereby advises the public that if a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting
or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not
constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant
evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in alternate format, a sign language interpreter (five-day notice required),
information on access for persons with disabilities, and/or any accommodation to review any document
or participate in any City-sponsored proceedings, call 305.604.2489 and select 1 for English or 2 for
Spanish, then option 6; TTY users may call via 711 (Florida Relay Service).
City of Miami Beach
Rafael Granado, City Clerk
305-673-7411
1/15-22-29 2/5 20-26/0000450703M
Bloomberg News
China’s financial opening could be a
classic case of be careful what you wish
for.
The opportunity of making inroads
in the world’s second-largest economy
is prompting the likes of Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.
to detail expansions that some estimate
will see $1 trillion plowed into China.
Plans to throw open the $45 trillion
market were expedited last week after
China said it will hasten the entry for
securities firms, rating companies and
credit-card providers as part of a trade
deal with the U.S.
Yet, a bevy of hurdles still promise to
complicate the efforts of U.S. banks and
financial services firms. China is home to
the world’s four largest banks by assets,
the biggest global fintech company and
other formidable competitors. Its tightly
controlled system is opaque and arbi-
trary when it comes to licenses, and the
regulation burden is heavy. Recruiting
talent has already proved tricky with
experienced local executives often pre-
ferring state-backed companies.
“It’ll be tough for foreign companies
to crack the domestic market, owing to
how entrenched the incumbents are,”
said Nick Marro, the Hong Kong-based
global trade lead at the Economist
Intelligence Unit.
COMPETITION
The market is vast and difficult to nav-
igate. It’s loaded with more than 130 bro-
kerages, thousands of state-backed lend-
ers, big insurance conglomerates and
massive financial technology firms with
entrenched customer bases. Industrial
and Commercial Bank of China Ltd. —
the largest — has more than 600 million
retail clients. It along with its peers over-
see $3.2 trillion of wealth management
products, making them the nation’s big-
gest asset managers.
Commercial banking presents a so-
bering picture. After decades of a limited
opening, foreign lenders saw their mar-
ket share fall to 1.3% in 2017 from 2.4%
a decade ago, prompting some to cut
branches. Citigroup Inc. had 25 outlets
in China as of April last year, down by
half from the end of 2015, while HSBC
Holdings Plc saw its loss in the China
retail banking and wealth management
unit widen in 2018 from a year earlier,
according to their annual reports.
Wealth managers have hardly fared
better. Since an opening three years ago,
BlackRock Inc., Man Group Plc and 20
other firms licensed to run private secu-
rities funds for high-net-worth individu-
als manage just 0.2% of China’s $362
billion in hedge fund assets.
APPROVALS & REGULATIONS
Waiting for approvals to do business
can be a tortured affair. JPMorgan and
Tokyo-based Nomura Holdings Inc.
waited more than 10 months for a green
light to take majority control of local se-
curities firms. Morgan Stanley is still
awaiting a decision on an application
submitted in August.
The process is also shrouded in se-
crecy, and layers of regulation. An ap-
plication can be rejected without expla-
nation or just left sitting with regulators.
Debt rating company Moody’s last year
shelved its plan to take control of China’s
largest ratings company amid regula-
tory inaction, people with knowledge of
the matter have said.
The trade deal offers some respite
for those struggling through the slow
process. China has pledged to review
banking licenses on an “expeditious ba-
sis,” accept applications from credit card
companies within five working days of
submission, review and approve credit
raters in 90 days, and treat U.S. asset
managers the same as Chinese compa-
nies when granting licenses.
“Having clearer timelines is quite
positive, because in the end it boils
down to China’s willingness to actually
dole out these approvals,” said Marro.
TALENT HUNT
The biggest hurdle could be finding
enough qualified people.
Goldman wants to double its staff
over five years, with UBS Group AG is
in the midst of a similar plan for its in-
vestment banking business. Nomura is
looking to get to 500 employees in China
by 2023 and JPMorgan has signaled it’s
adding staff, expanding by a third its of-
fice space in China’s tallest skyscraper.
“All of us are trying to get to 100%,
so the race for talent is going to be sig-
nificant,” said Todd Leland, co-president
of Goldman’s Asia-Pacific operations
outside of Japan, in a recent interview.
“Whether or not you’re able to compete
and compensate people and find the
right individuals that are a fit, that’s by
far the biggest challenge.”
Citigroup had 25 commercial banking outlets in China as of last April, down by half from the
end of 2015.
Wall Street Wants to Conquer
China. Here’s What May Go Wrong
BANKING/ FINANCE
DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2020 dailybusinessreview.com A7
by Elliot Spagat
A U.S. judge ruled the Trump admin-
istration is operating within its authority
when separating families stopped at the
Mexico border, rejecting arguments that it
was quietly returning to widespread prac-
tices that drew international condemnation.
The American Civil Liberties Union
argued that the administration was
splitting families over dubious allega-
tions and minor transgressions, includ-
ing traffic offenses.
It asked the judge in July to rule on
whether the government was justified in
separating 911 children during the first
year after the judge halted the general
practice in June 2018.
U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in-
dicated he was uncomfortable second-
guessing government decisions to sepa-
rate children on grounds that parents
were considered unfit or dangerous, or
in other limited circumstances such
as criminal history, communica-
ble diseases and doubts about
parentage. He found no evi-
dence that the government
was abusing its discretion.
“It is an invitation that is
potentially massive in scope,
invades an area that is particu-
larly within the province of the exec-
utive branch to secure the nation’s bor-
der, and goes beyond this court’s class
certification and preliminary injunction
orders, which were focused on the ad-
ministration’s practice of separating
families at the border for the purpose
of deterring immigration, and failing to
reunify those families,” Sabraw wrote in
a 26-page decision.
In a partial victory for the ACLU, the
judge said the government must settle
any doubts about parentage before sep-
arating families by using DNA tests that
deliver results in about 90 minutes.
The ruling was a rare instance of the
San Diego judge siding with the admin-
istration. In June 2018, he halted the
practice of separating families under a
“zero tolerance” policy to deter illegal
immigration and ordered that about
2,800 children be quickly reunited with
family. Lack of adequate tracking sys-
tems at the time made reunification a
monumental task.
The judge later ordered the adminis-
tration to identify more than 1,500 ad-
ditional children who were separated
earlier in Trump’s presidency, start-
ing in July 2017. The government
is providing information to the
ACLU, which, in some cases,
has volunteers going door to
door in Guatemala.
The ACLU said it was con-
sidering its next move.
“The court strongly reaf-
firmed that the Trump admin-
istration bears the burden if it at-
tempts to separate families based on
an accusation that the adult is not the
child’s parent,” said ACLU attorney Lee
Gelernt. “We are evaluating the deci-
sion to determine next steps on how to
ensure that children are not separated
from their parents based on minor in-
fractions.”
The Justice Department didn’t im-
mediately respond to a request for com-
ment.
The judge noted that the administra-
tion acknowledged it erred by separat-
ing a mother who needed emergency
surgery and a father who was HIV-
positive. He rejected the ACLU’s con-
tention that some accusations of gang
affiliation were unfounded, saying that
the government relies on “objective evi-
dence, not allegations or intuition.”
Elliot Spagat reports for the Associated Press.
by Edith M. Lederer
The U.N. envoy for Colombia warned
that peace won’t be achieved if former
combatants who laid down their weap-
ons and social leaders continue to be
killed.
Carlos Ruiz Massieu said Sunday’s
announcement by Colombian authori-
ties that they thwarted a planned at-
tempt to kill Rodrigo Londono, who had
been the top military commander of the
country’s largest rebel group and now
heads its legal political party, “under-
scored the risks” facing former rebels
“and the peace process itself.”
He told the U.N. Security Council it
also underscores “how crucially im-
portant it is to guarantee … security” of
former rebels from the Revolutionary
Armed Forces of Colombia or FARC.
Ruiz Massieu stressed that “perpetra-
tors of attacks against social leaders and
former combatants must be brought
swiftly to justice, including both mate-
rial and intellectual authors.” He also
stressed that “more effective measures
are still imperative to protect these indi-
viduals, and their communities.”
Colombia’s Foreign Minister Claudia
Blum told the council that the recent thwart-
ing of the plan to attack FARC’s Londono “is
the result of robust measures which are be-
ing adopted by the government.”
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio
Guterres said in his recent report to
the Security Council that 2019 was the
most violent year for former FARC fight-
ers since it signed a peace deal with the
government in 2016.
Edith M. Lederer reports for the Associated Press.
ALEJANDRO CEGARRA/BLOOMBERG NEWS
The American Civil Liberties Union argues
that the Trump administration was splitting
families over dubious allegations and minor
transgressions, including traffic offenses.
Judge Refuses to Second-Guess
Family Separations at Border
UN Envoy for Colombia: Peace
Depends on Stopping Killings
FOCUS LATIN AMERICA
NOTICE BY THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA,
OF THE CITY’S INTENT TO USE
THE UNIFORM METHOD OF
COLLECTION OF NON-AD
VALOREM ASSESSMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City of Miami Beach (“City”) intends to use the uniform method
for collecting the non-ad valorem assessments to be levied by the City pursuant to Section 197.3632,
Florida Statutes, with regard to the Biscayne Beach Security Guard Special Taxing District (“Special
Taxing District”). The City Commission will hold a Public Hearing on this matter on February 12, 2020
at 2:01 P.M. at City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 3rd Floor, Commission Chambers, Miami Beach,
Florida, 33139.
The purpose of the Public Hearing is to consider the adoption of a Resolution authorizing the City to
use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments to be levied by the City pursuant to
Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes. The City intends to use the uniform method for collecting non-ad
valorem assessments after the transfer of control of the Special Taxing District from Miami-Dade County
to the City in accordance with Section 18-3.1 of the Miami-Dade County Code.
The City may levy non-ad valorem assessments for the purpose of the continued operation and
maintenance of the Biscayne Beach Guard Special Taxing District, including but not limited to the
making of infrastructure and security improvements. The area or boundaries of Biscayne Beach Security
Guard Special Taxing District are as follows:
A portion of Sections 3, Township 53 South, Range 42 East, Dade County, Florida; being
more particularly described as follows:
Lots 1 thru 52, Block 15; and Lots 5 thru 58, Block 16 of “Biscayne Beach Second Addition”
according to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 46 at Page 39.
All the aforementioned plats being recorded in the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.
The City intends to use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments for a period
of more than one year. This non-ad valorem assessment will be levied by the City for the first time;
however, Miami-Dade County has previously levied the non-ad valorem assessment for the Special
Taxing District.
The City’s non-ad valorem assessments shall be subject to the same discounts and penalties, and the
issuance and sale of tax certificates and tax deeds, for non-payment as for the non-payment of ad
valorem taxes. The non-payment of such non-ad valorem assessments will subject the property to the
potential loss of title.
INTERESTED PARTIES may appear at the Public Hearing, or be represented by an agent, to be heard
regarding the use of the uniform method of collecting such non-ad valorem assessments, or may
express their views in writing addressed to the City Commission, c/o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention
Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This item is available for public inspection
during normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor,
City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This item may be continued and, under such circumstances,
additional legal notice need not be provided.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat., the City hereby advises the public that if a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting
or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not
constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant
evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in alternate format, a sign language interpreter (five-day notice required),
information on access for persons with disabilities, and/or any accommodation to review any document
or participate in any City-sponsored proceedings, call 305.604.2489 and select 1 for English or 2 for
Spanish, then option 6; TTY users may call via 711 (Florida Relay Service).
City of Miami Beach
Rafael Granado, City Clerk
305-673-7411
1/15-22-29 2/5 20-26/0000450703M
A8 dailybusinessreview.com WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2020 DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Commentary by
Charles M. Tatelbaum
and Brittany Hynes
On Dec. 10, 2019, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled 8-1 that the one-year fil-
ing deadline for Fair
Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA) lawsuits is
determined from when
the alleged violation oc-
curs, not when it is dis-
covered. The case was
an appeal of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit’s ruling in
Rotkiske v. Klemm, 890 F.3d 422 (3d
Cir. 2018), where the court found that
the statute of limitations
starts to run when the
defendant violates the
FDCPA. This resolution
will greatly benefit credi-
tors and those collecting
debts for the creditors.
In 2008, a debt collec-
tor sued Kevin Rotkiske
due to defaulted credit
card debt and attempted to serve him at
a prior address. At such address, an in-
dividual unknown to Rotkiske accepted
service on his behalf. As
a result, the debt collec-
tor eventually withdrew
its lawsuit after it was
incapable of locating
Rotkiske personally.
In 2009, the debt collector filed a
second lawsuit against Rotkiske, again
serving the complaint on an individual
unknown to Rotkiske at the same ad-
dress. Because the debt collector chose
not to withdraw the suit the second time
around, it received a default judgment
after Rotkiske failed to answer.
On June 29, 2015, Rotkiske filed his
FDCPA action alleging that the debt
collector wrongfully collected a de-
fault judgment on a debt. According to
his complaint, Rotkiske only became
aware of the lawsuit and the judgment
when he was applying for a mortgage
in September 2014, as every notice was
sent to his previous mailing address. In
the district court, the debt collector ar-
gued that the claim was barred by the
statute of limitations. Rotkiske respond-
ed by arguing that the FDCPA is subject
to the discovery rule.
According to the discovery rule, the
statute of limitations for specific actions
does not start to run until the plaintiff
knows or has reason to know of the in-
jury giving rise to the claim. Therefore,
under Rotkiske’s theory, the one-year
statute of limitations did not start un-
til September 2014, which would have
made his lawsuit timely. However, the
district court rejected his argument
finding that the statutory language is
clear in suggesting that the one-year
time period starts on “the date on
which the violation occurs.” The district
court’s ruling was then affirmed by the
Third Circuit.
Notably, the Supreme Court con-
sidered the operation of the discovery
rule in a 2001 ruling involving the Fair
Credit Reporting Act. TRW v. Andrews,
534 U.S. 19. The Supreme Court re-
versed a Ninth Circuit ruling by holding
that the discovery rule, if to be applied
at all, must be justified by the “text
and structure” of the statute. Applying
that standard, both the Fourth and the
Ninth Circuit have ruled that the limi-
tation period for the FDCPA is subject
to the discovery rule, generating an
apparent divide among lower courts
when the Third Circuit held the con-
trary in the Rotkiske case.
When it agreed to review the
Rotkiske case, the Supreme Court
seemed to be driven to settle the cir-
cuit split and to establish conformity to
the use of the FDCPA’s limitations pe-
riod. Nevertheless, when analyzing the
case, the Supreme Court upheld the
Third Circuit’s ruling by deciding that
Rotkiske brought his FDCPA claim too
late. Applying a strict textualist reading
to the statute by basing the words “vio-
lation” and “occurs” on their dictionary
definitions, Justice Clarence Thomas
stated that the statute “unambigu-
ously sets the date of the violation as
the event that starts the one-year limi-
tations period.” He further recognized
that it is Congress who determines the
limitations, and therefore its intent
should not be second guessed by the
court.
Thomas went on to discuss the use of
the “discovery rule” in situations involv-
ing fraud, known as the “fraud-based
discovery rule,” which
differs from the tradi-
tional equitable tolling
doctrine. In the major-
ity opinion, the court
reasoned that while the
fraud-based discovery rule may apply,
Rotkiske failed to preserve the issue be-
fore the Third Circuit nor raised it in his
petition for certiorari.
In her dissenting opinion, Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg affirmed the Third
Circuit and believes Rotkiske preserved
the issue on appeal and adequately
raised the question in the certiorari pe-
tition. According to Ginsburg, “the or-
dinary applicable time trigger does not
apply when fraud on the creditor’s part
accounts for the debtor’s failure to sue
within one year of the creditor’s viola-
tion.”
Meanwhile, in a concurring opinion,
Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed with the
majority’s opinion that Rotkiske had not
preserved the “equitable, fraud-specific
discovery rule” and simply mentioned,
“nothing in today’s decision prevents
parties from invoking that well-settled
doctrine.” As a result, Sotomayor’s con-
curring opinion is the most compelling
for future litigation on the FDCPA’s stat-
ute of limitations.
The decision in Rotkiske resolves a
split among federal circuit court of ap-
peals by putting an end to the applica-
tion of the traditional discovery rule in
FDCPA cases. This ruling eliminates
an ambiguity for creditors and their
representatives attempting to collect a
debt to the detriment of creditors seek-
ing to assert rights and remedies under
the FDCPA. However, the fraud-specific
discovery rule may have a narrow ap-
plication to FDCPA claims. It seems
Rotkiske just did not plead the required
elements to claim fraud, as the bar is
higher to allege a fraudulent act and
he did not allege that the debt collector
purposely hid the debt collection law-
suit from him.
Charles M. Tatelbaum is a director and Brittany Hynes is an associate at Tripp Scott in Fort Lauderdale.
Possibility of Applying Fraud-Specific
Discovery Rule to FDCPA Suits Left Open
Tatelbaum
Hynes
BOARD OFCONTRIBUTORS
PRACTICE FOCUS / BANKRUPTCY
NOTICE BY THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA,
OF THE CITY’S INTENT TO USE
THE UNIFORM METHOD OF
COLLECTION OF NON-AD
VALOREM ASSESSMENTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the City of Miami Beach (“City”) intends to use the uniform method
for collecting the non-ad valorem assessments to be levied by the City pursuant to Section 197.3632,
Florida Statutes, with regard to the Allison Island Security Guard Special Taxing District (“Special Taxing
District”). The City Commission will hold a Public Hearing on this matter on February 12, 2020 at 2:00 P.M.
at City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 3rd Floor, Commission Chambers, Miami Beach, Florida, 33139.
The purpose of the Public Hearing is to consider the adoption of a Resolution authorizing the City to
use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments to be levied by the City pursuant to
Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes. The City intends to use the uniform method for collecting non-ad
valorem assessments after the transfer of control of the Special Taxing District from Miami-Dade County
to the City in accordance with Section 18-3.1 of the Miami-Dade County Code.
The City may levy non-ad valorem assessments for the purpose of the continued operation and
maintenance of the Allison Island Guard Special Taxing District, including but not limited to the making
of infrastructure and security improvements. The area or boundaries of Allison Island Security Guard
Special Taxing District are as follows:
A portion of Sections 11, Township 53 South, Range 42 East, Dade County, Florida; being
more particularly described as follows:
Lots 2 thru 52 of “Indian Creek Subdivision” according to the plat thereof, as recorded in
the Plat Book 31 at page 75.
All the aforementioned plats being recorded in the Public Records of Dade County,
Florida.
The City intends to use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments for a period
of more than one year. This non-ad valorem assessment will be levied by the City for the first time;
however, Miami-Dade County has previously levied the non-ad valorem assessment for the Special
Taxing District.
The City’s non-ad valorem assessments shall be subject to the same discounts and penalties, and the
issuance and sale of tax certificates and tax deeds, for non-payment as for the non-payment of ad
valorem taxes. The non-payment of such non-ad valorem assessments will subject the property to the
potential loss of title.
INTERESTED PARTIES may appear at the Public Hearing, or be represented by an agent, to be heard
regarding the use of the uniform method of collecting such non-ad valorem assessments, or may
express their views in writing addressed to the City Commission, c/o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention
Center Drive, 1st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This item is available for public inspection
during normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 1st Floor,
City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. This item may be continued, and, under such circumstances,
additional legal notice need not be provided.
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Stat., the City hereby advises the public that if a person decides to
appeal any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting
or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which
record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not
constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant
evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in alternate format, a sign language interpreter (five-day notice required),
information on access for persons with disabilities, and/or any accommodation to review any document
or participate in any City-sponsored proceedings, call 305.604.2489 and select 1 for English or 2 for
Spanish, then option 6; TTY users may call via 711 (Florida Relay Service).
City of Miami Beach
Rafael Granado, City Clerk
305-673-7411
1/15-22-29 2/5 20-25/0000450712M