99-23051 RESO
RESOLUTION NO.
99-23051
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, EXTENDING
THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICES WITH THE FIRM OF
JORDEN, BURT, BERENSON, AND JOHNSON LLP, IN THE
TOT AL AMOUNT OF $81,588, TO PROVIDE
GOVERNMENTAL REPRESENT A TION AND CONSULTING
SERVICES IN WASHINGTON, D.C. ON AN ON-GOING
BASIS FOR THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 19, 1999,
UNTIL FEBRUARY 18, 2000.
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of obtaining lobbying and consulting services before
Federal agencies located in Washington, D.C. for the 1999/00 Federal Legislative Session; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 1996, the City issued Request for Proposals No. 13-96/97, for
providing governmental representation and consulting services in Washington, D.C. (RFP); and
WHEREAS, the RFP was requested and issued to twenty-one (21) firms, resulting in ten
(10) responses; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 1996, a Selection Committee comprised of the City Attorney,
Deputy City Manager, representatives from the Office of the Mayor and City Commission, the
Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce, and a citizen-at-large from the City, convened to review all
proposals submitted in response to the RFP, with each of the ten (10) proposals evaluated for
compliance with submission requirements, documentation of qualifications, and experience and
capability to provide the necessary services; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on January 22, 1997, the Mayor and City Commission
accepted the recommendations of the Selection Committee, finding the firm of Jorden, Burt,
Berenson and Johnson LLP (firm) to be the top-ranked proposer; and
WHEREAS, the Administration and City Attorney's Office negotiated the attached
Professional Services Agreement to provide governmental representation and consulting services
in Washington, D.C., said Agreement having an initial two (2) year term, with an option to renew
for an additional year at the City's discretion, at an annual fee of $70,000 per year, plus a maximum
of $8,000 per year for reimbursable expenses; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant has performed very satisfactorily and has effectively produced
results for the City by achieving desired legislation, and has assisted with the processing of
significant grants; and
WHEREAS, the City now wishes to extend the Agreement for an additional year for the
term commencing on February 19, 1999, through February 18,2000; and
WHEREAS, the City also now wishes to increase the total amount of the compensation for
the Consultant by 4.6 percent or $3,588.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission herein approve an extension of the attached Professional Services Agreement for
Federal Legislative Services with the firm of Jorden, Burt, Berenson, and Johnson LLP, in the total
amount of$81,588, to provide governmental representation and consulting services in Washington,
D.C. on an on-going basis for the period from February 19, 1999 until February 18, 2000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of February
,1999.
~cr flUcLv
CITY CLERK
~MMAYOR
aq
APPROVED }S TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
1ti 14it/>>/J-:-
eHy Attorney
?-\z..J ~ 1
Dati
]ORDENBURT
f :' C l" r- I' ,_. "
\ l_ ,':: I '/ ,~. I
('~ "., '11 r.~ !r-,. Ij--
w _I ,), \;., '-. ;,. j ',1' " \ : ~
- , ,
(;".,. . , , ,:. : I ,
Fiscal Year 1999
Accomplishments and Outcomes
for'
the City of Miami Beach, Florida
]ORDENBURT
IOl5 THOMAS JEFFERSON STREET, N.W.
SUITE 400 EAST
WASHINGTON, D.C. l0007-0805
(l02) 965-8100
TELECOPIER: (lOl) 965-8104
HITP:/ /WWW.JORDENUSA.COM
January 7, 1999
777 BRICKELL AVENUE, SUITE 500
MIAMI, FLORIDA BI3I-l803
(305) 371-l600
TELECOPIER: (305) 37l-99l8
Memorandum:
To:
The Honorable Neisen Kasdin, Mayor &
Members of the Miami Beach City Commission
From:
Marilyn Berry Thompson
Rebecca Tidman
F. Marion Turner
Patricia Branch
Re:
Fiscal Year 1999 Accomplishments for the City of Miami Beach
It gives us great pleasure and pride to present to the City of Miami Beach, Florida, an outline of
the federal relations activities undertaken on behalf of the City over the last twelve months.
We are pleased to report a year of great success on the 1999 Miami Beach F ederaI Agenda.
Specifically, we are proud to highlight the following accomplishments:
· Electrowave Electric Shuttle: For this project, we achieved successes in two separate
pieces of legislation;
~ $ 1.5 million was included for the project in the TEA 21 authorization bill.
~ $ 1.75 million was earmarked in the FY99 Transportation Appropriations
Bill.
· Beach Renourishment Funding: Obtained a specific earmark of $5.8 million in the
FY99 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for beach erosion control projects in Dade
County .
· Erosion Control Breakwater Project: Obtained statutory language in the Water
Resources Development Act defining Miami Beach as a potential location for an
innovative shore erosion control project. The legislation, while not finalized in 1998, will
be reintroduced in 1999, with the Miami Beach language.
· Private Property Rights (Takings) Legislation: Worked with other local government
groups to defeat this bill, which would have seriously undermined the rights of local
governments.
JORDEN BURT BOROS CICCHETII BERENSON & JOHNSON LLP
APPIUATI!D CoUNSI!L:
JONI!S &: BLOUCH LL~ - WASHINGTON, D.C.
FUMING &: PHILUPS - SAN FRANCISCO. CA
Again, we are excited to report on the great progress we have made -- and in those areas where
our goals have not been completely met as of yet -- we c~rtainly look forward to reopening these
issues in the I06th Congress. Attached you will find a detailed overview of all of the federal
relations activities undertaken on the City's behalf by Miami Beach"s Washington office in
conjunction with Miami Beach City officials, departments, and the Florida Congressional
Delegation. The report will be divided into the following sections:
QQ Targeted Federal Appropriati ons---------------------------------------------- 3
Electrowave Electric Shuttl e--------------------------------------------------- 3
Beach Renourishment F unding--------------------------------------------------4
Waterway & Water Sewer Restoration Initiative----------------------------------5
QQ General Federal Appropriations-----------------------------------------------7
Transportation F unding---------------------------------------7
{.nvironmental Infrastructure Funding------------------- 8
Federal Building and Security Funding------ ----------- 8
Dnployment and Training-------------------------9
Criminal Justice------------------------------9
Census 2000 --------------11
Housing/Homeless Programs-- ------12
Arts and Humanities--- ------------------14
Health and Human Services-----------------------------16
QQ Targeted F ederal Authorizations-----------------------------------------------18
Electrowave Electric Shuttle---------------- --18
Bridge & Waterway Restoration-- -19
Erosion Control Breakwater Project-------------------------19
QQ General F ederal Authorizations------------------------------------------------ 21
Takings (Private Property Rights) Legislation-------------------- 21
SuperjUnd-------------------------------------------------------21
Internet Tax---------------------------------------------22
Public H ous ing Overhaul------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 2
Immigration------------------------------------------25
QQ Grant Campaigns & Federal Agencv Funding Efforts----------------------26
QQ Special Reports and Research -------------------------------------------------- 27
Targeted Federal Appropriations
As you know, the City of Miami Beach sought federal support and partnership for 3 priority
projects in Fiscal Year 1999, out of 3 appropriations subcommittees. Through the collective
efforts of your Washington office, the hard work of Miami Beach City officials, and the
collaborative support of the Florida Congressional Delegation, we achieved success on the
majority of these items.
At our urging, Miami Beach started the year off by coming to Washington on numerous
occasions to testify before the Appropriations Subcommittees on behalf of the specific Miami
Beach initiatives. As you know, we have always emphasized the importance of appearing in
person before the Subcommittees where possible, and in submitting testimony into all
Subcommittees with jurisdiction over the projects for .which the City is seeking support.
Working in tandem with City officials, we ensured that Miami Beach covered all the bases with
regard to testimony submission, whether presented orally or in written form.
-
In addition, Mayor Neisen Kasdin came to Washington in January and met with the House and
Senate Members of the Florida Delegation, where he formally presented the FY99 Miami Beach
Federal Agenda. The purpose of these meetings With the delegation was to ask their assistance in
bringing attention to and support for projects that have benefits not only for Miami Beach, but
also the entire State of Florida. Mayor Kasdin met with both Florida Senators, as well as the
Members of the South Florida House Delegation.
The following will provide you with a brief overview of the activities undertaken on behalf of
each project, and will discuss the progress made in advancing each of these 3 agenda items.
Electrowave Electric Shuttle
Appropriations Outcome:
$1.75 million
Legislation:
FY1999 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill
Recommended next step:
Work with the U.S. Department of Transportation and Florida
Department of Transportation to implement funds.
Specific Lobbving Actions: Our greatest success this year has to be the $1.75 million included in
the FY99 Transportation Appropriations Bill for the Electrowave shuttle. These funds were
included in two separate earmarks within the Bus and Bus Facilities account. One for $750,000,
which results from the authorization also achieved for the project in the TEA 21 bill (this will be
addressed in more detail later in the "Targeted Federal Authorizations" section of the report), and
the second for $1 million, which was added for the project by the Appropriations Committee
based on its merits and the fact that the appropriators felt it deserved additional funding above
3
and beyond the authorized $750,000 level.
Testimony on behalf of the Electrowave was presented in late January of 1998 before the House
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee by Commissioner Jose Smith, with an introduction
before the subcommittee from Congressman E. Clay Shaw, Jr. Thaftestimony was then further
strengthened by letters of support, drafted by our office and City Officials, from Representatives
Shaw and Ros-Lehtinen. These letters were sent to the Appropriations Committee shortly after
the City's testimony, and a series of meetings were then held, the first by our office and Mayor
Kasdin, with follow-up meetings being done by our office, with Representatives Shaw, Ros-
Lehtinen, Meek and Diaz-Balart to instill additional support for the project.
On the Senate side, written testimony was submitted by the City to the Senate Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee (no public \Nitness hearings were held), and the project was
included in the joint request letter from Senators Mack and Graham. Mayor Kasdin also met with
Senators Mack and Graham, with subsequent staff level meetings being conducted by our office.
The project received wide support from Members on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses
of Congress as the legislative session progressed. When completed in July, the House
Transportation Appropriations Report included a total of $1.75 million for the project, with the
Senate Report including a listing for the project, but not specific funds (specific funding levels
were not included for any Bus projects in the Senate report). As a result of this disparity between
the House and Senate bills, we conducted additional meetings with both Senators Mack and
Graham and Representatives Shaw, Ros-Lehtinen, Meek and Diaz-Balart to ask for a final push
from their respective offices to have the project included in the final version of the legislation at
the level of $ 1. 75 million. All these Members agreed to take additional action on the proj ect, and
when the final bill was crafted in October, the full House amount was enacted.
Beach Renourishment Funding
Appropriations Outcome:
$5.8 million
Legislation:
FY1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill
Recommended next step:
The City needs to work with Dade County to ensure that these
annually appropriated funds are used for projects within the City of
Miami Beach, as the City comprises the majority of the County's
beaches.
Specific Lobbying Actions: We are proud to report a second great year of success in obtaining a
substantial amount for beach renourishment activities within Dade County. A figure of $5.8
million was included in the FYI 999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for
Dade, which exists as only a slight decrease from the FY98 level of $6.2 million (you may recall
that we had originally been told that the FY98 level of $6.2 million was "very generous" and that
4
the FY99 level would be significantly less.)
As a result of the desire by the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittees of both the
House and Senate not to have public witness testimony, we were forced to only submit written
testimony in support of the County's request. Our office worked with City Officials to prepare
this testimony which was submitted in a timely manner to both subcommittees. The need for
beach renourishment funds was also included in the initial delegation meetings conducted by our
office with Mayor Kasdin, and we were again successful in obtaining letters of support from
Representatives Ros-Lehtinen, Meek and Diaz-Balart, in addition to Senators Mack and Graham.
Further, Commissioner David Dermer came to Washington along with Environmental Specialist
Bruce Henderson to discuss, among other Miami Beach Agenda items, the continuing need for
beach renourishment funding. We accompanied the Commissioner and Mr. Henderson to
meetings with Representative Shaw, Ros-Lehtinen and Senators Mack and Graham, where we
again requested their support for the highest possible level of funding.
Upon the completion of the House and Senate Energy and Water Bills, Dade County received a
different amount in each bill. In the House Bill, a very positive figure of $6.3 million was
included for Dade County, but in the Senate Bill, a disappointing $2.5 million was listed. Noting
this disparity, our office again conducted a round..of meetings with the Florida Senators and the
House Members representing Dade County, to alert them to this alarming gap in the two levels of
funding. These meetings were successful in that we were able to properly engage these Members
to again weigh in with Members on the Appropriations Committees to request the inclusion of
the $6.3 million figure in the final version of the legislation.
Prior to the final "Conference" between the House and Senate, where the Members meet to
resolve the differences between their respective bills, the Florida Members worked hard to
communicate, either through a letter or verbally, the need for increased beach Renourishment
funds. As a result, when the final bill was presented for signature, it contained the compromise
figure of $5.8 for Dade County, which is vastly better that the usual "split the difference" rule
that is used in the creation of final appropriations bills.
Miami Beach Waterway & Water Sewer Revitalization Initiative
Appropriations Outcome:
Strong congressional support (no specific funding)
Legislation:
FYl999 Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill
Recommended next step:
Continue to work to obtain funding through either a direct
appropriation or through Federal Agency grant opportunities.
Specific Lobbving Actions: An additional appropriations item requested by the City in FY1999
was the Miami Beach Waterway and Water Sewer Revitalization Initiative. While we were
5
unsuccessful in obtaining a specific set-aside for this two pronged initiative through the
Environmental Protection Agency, we are proud to report on the great success we have had in
educating Florida Delegation Members to the waterway and sewer needs currently being
experienced by the City, and the unique situation that exists for the City of Miami Beach, with
regard to its existence as a barrier island.
As with the other City-specific appropriations requests submitted by the Miami Beach in its
FYl999 Federal Agenda, this project was discussed in the initial agenda presentation meetings
which occurred in January of 1998 between Mayor Kasdin and Senators Mack and Graham and
Representatives Shaw, Ros-Lehtinen, Meek and Diaz-Balart.
Due to the tendency of the V A, HUD and EP A Appropriations Subcommittees to hold their
hearings in late spring, its was not until April that Commissioner David Dermer and
Environmental Specialist Bruce Henderson came to Washington to testify before the House
Subcommittee (the Senate subcommittee again chose not to hold public witness hearings,
therefore we were only able to submit written testimony.) During that visit we conducted a
series of meetings where we focused primarily on the environmental needs of Miami Beach,
which included this initiative, as well as the beach renourishment problem. Meetings were held
with the offices of Senators Mack and Graham and Representatives Shaw, Ros-Lehtinen and
Meek, and we received commitments from these Members to work to obtain funding for these
important initiatives.
In addition to the verbal commitment from these Members, we were also successful in obtaining
letters of support on behalf of the Waterway and Water Sewer Revitalization Initiative. Further,
we have received a strong commitment from the Offices of both Florida Senators and the
Representatives of the South Florida Delegation to work with the City of Miami Beach with
regard to its environmental needs now and into the future. Therefore, while we were
unsuccessful in obtaining a specific earmark in the FY99 process, we feel that we have laid a
significant foundation of education with regard to the environmental needs of Miami Beach and
generated strong support to solve some of its problems through Federal assistance.
6
General Federal Appropriations
Transportation Funding
As a result of the reauthorization of the massive Transportation Bill (formerly ISTEA. now TEA
21), funds for transportation programs are at an all time high. The final Transportation
Appropriations Conference Report appropriates $13.7 billion in net new budget authority for
transportation programs in FY 1999, $1 billion more than last year and $1.4 million more than
the House-passed bill. It also provides $32.1 billion in limitations on obligations (consistent
with TEA-21), $4.3 billion more than the FY 1998 level and $151.4 million more than the
House-passed level. A major change brought about by the passage of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21; P.L. 105-178) was the creation of "firewalls" which guarantee
appropriations for highway and transit programs at certain minimum levels for the next six years.
Guaranteed within the new firewalls is total highway spending of $25.8 billion ($4 billion more
than FY 1998) and total transit spending of $5.4 billion ($546 million more than last year). In
total, includingal} obligation authority (i.e., new budget authority, guaranteed obligations
contained in TEA-21, limitations on obligations, and exempt obligations), the conference
agreement includes $47 billion, an increase of $4.9 over the 1998 level and $153 million more
than the House-passed level. -
Specifically, the conference report allocates $13.6 billion to Department of Transportation
programs (a $957 million increase over the FY 1998 level). Of this amount, the measure
provides:
* $9.5 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration (a $430.9 million increase),
including $5.5 billion for operations and $1.9 billion for facilities and equipment (a
$230.6 million increase and $477,000 decrease, respectively). Specifically, the measure
includes $1.95 billion for the Airport Improvement Program, an increase of $250 million
over the FY 1998 level;
* $461.4 million in budgetary resources for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration-including $89.4 million in budget authority and $372 million in contract
authority-$127.9 million more than last year;
* $26.7 billion for the Federal Highway Administration (a $3.2 billion increase);
* $749.8 million for the Federal Railroad Administration ($187 million less than the FY
1998 level); and
* $5.4 billion for the Federal Transit Administration ($521.2 million more than last year).
7
Environmental Infrastructure Funding
The Environmental Protection Agency is funded at $7.56 billion, $192 million more than FY98,
$230 million below the President's request.
* Superfund is funded at the FY98 level of $ 1.5 billion. Subject to authorization,
conferees agreed to fund the President's additional request of $650 million for cleanups.
* Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds are funded at the President's requested
level of $775 million, $50 million more than FY98.
* Clean Water State Revolving Funds are increased $275 million over the President's
request, bringing FY99 funding to $1.350 billion. Clean Water Action Plan is
fully-funded at the President's requested level, which is a $145 million increase over
FY98.
* State Air Grants are increased $5.3 million over the President's request, bringing FY99
funding to $200 million.
Federal Security and Building Funding
The following highlights are from the FY99 Treasury Postal Appropriations Bill and pertain to
funding for Federal security programs, be they for drug trafficking, federal buildings, or other
F ederallaw enforcement entities.
* $1.8 billion for the United States Customs Service, $151.4 million more than last year.
This amount includes $54 million for narcotics detection technologies, $13 million for
maintaining air and marine interdiction programs, $5 million for narcotics and money
laundering investigations, $54.5 million for Operation Hardline III, and $3.4 million to
combat child pornography and related Internet cybersmuggling;
* $608.4 million for the Secret Service, $35.2 million more than last year;
* $541.6 million for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), $7.6 million
more than last year;
* $593.9 million for the General Services Administration, $450.3 million more than last
year;
* $462 million for courthouse construction; and
* $132 million for the crime trust fund, $1.2 million more than last year.
8
The bill provides a total of $2 billion for drug-related activities, including $182.5 million for
high intensity drug trafficking areas (HIDT A), $20 million to carry out the 1997 Drug Free
Communities Act, and $13 million to make counter-drug technology available to state and local
law enforcement agencies.
In addition, the bill appropriates $132 million for violent crime reduction programs, including (I)
$1.4 million for the financial crimes enforcement network, (2) $24 million for interagency crime
and drug enforcement, and (3) $ 13 million for Gang Resistance Education and Training
(GREAT).
Funding for Employment and Training Programs
Employment and Training programs were funded at $6.8 billion, an increase of $280 million, or
4% above FY 1998. Working in tandem with a number oflocal groups and advocates, we are
happy to report to the following outcomes:
· Title-II-A - Adult Traininfj: Funded at $955 million, the same level as FY 1998.
· Title II-B Summer Youth: Funded at $871- million, the same level as FY1998. This
program was slated for elimination by the House.
· Title II-C Youth Training: Funded at $130 million, the same level as FY 1998.
· Title III Dislocated Workers: Funded at $1.406 billion, an increase of $55 million, or 4%
over FY 1999. In addition, $7.2 million in federal funds will be available for competitive
grants to fund demonstration projects that provide assistance to new entrants in the
workforce and incumbent workers.
· Opportunity Areas for Out-of-SchooI Youth: A new program authorized under the
Workforce Investment Act funded at $250 million to be available from April 1, 1999 to
June 30, 2000, to fund innovative community-based approaches to help young people in
high poverty areas find jobs.
· Employment Service and One Stop Career Centers: Funded at $969 million, an increase
of $5 million above the President's budget request, but $ I 2 million below FY 1998. The
$5 million increase is for Alien Labor Certification activities. The final bill also includes
$10 million for the Administration's Learning Anytime/Anywhere initiative.
Funding/or Criminal Justice Programs
Over the past year, securing a strong federal commitment of resources for the most important
sources of support for criminal justice activities for local governments has been one of our major
areas of activity. We are pleased to report an extraordinarily positive outcome that should mean
9
both the continuation and stabilization of core support through a series of StatelLocal Formula
Block Grant sources, and the potential of significantly increased funding in several areas of crime
prevention, particularly in the area of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention.
The final FY 1999 Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations
Conference Report provides $ 18.2 billion ($449 million more than FY 1998) for Justice
Department programs. However, because of the controversy over funding for the 2000 census
pending a court decision, the entire spending measure is effective onlv until June 15, 1999.
Although appropriators did provide full-year funding for all agencies except the census, agencies
will not be allowed to spend more than the first two quarters worth of funding until a full-year
budget is enacted to cover the remainder of fiscal year which ends September 30, 1999. Federal
guidance on how programs will operate is expected to become available soon.
As you know, we have been working with a range of local government organizations to retain
funding for a number of very critical programs for local governments for which the
Administration did not request funding this year. We are pleased to report the following major
outcomes:
· The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant-was retained at $523 million despite the fact
that the President proposed to terminate the program again this year. Of the total amount
appropriated for the block grant, $40 million was transferred to the Boys and Girls Clubs
of America. We were also successful in fighting efforts to change the LLEBG formula
so that 100% of the funds will continue to remain available to localities. Gainesville
should have already received its LLEBG allotment of $502,747 a slight increase over
last year's FY 1997 LLEBG of $408,006.
· The Byrne Grant StatelLocal Law Enforcement Block Grant was funded at $552 million,
$54 million more than last year. Of the total amount available, $505 will be available for
formula grants to states and $47 million will be available for competitive grants, an
increase of $500,000 over last year for the latter. Included in the discretionary account is
$3 million for the Community Law Enforcement and Recovery program (CLEAR), where
city and county law enforcement agencies collaborate with community agencies to target
gang leadership and hard-core gang members to remove them from the community.
· The WEED and SEED program was retained as a separate program again this year and
funded at $33.5 million, the same level as appropriated in FY1998.
· Juvenile Crime Prevention and Control programs were funded at $284.5 million, an
increase of $46 million over last year. This funding includes: (1) $250 million for the
second year of the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant, (2) $89 million for
state formula grants, (3) $42.75 million for discretionary grants for national and special
emphasis programs, (4) $12 million for the youth gangs program which provides grants
to public and private nonprofit organizations to prevent and reduce youth involvement in
10
gangs, (5) $ I 0 million for state challenge grants, (6) $ I 2 million for the Juvenile
Mentoring Program (JUMP); and $95 million for Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency
Prevention programs.
. The Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) program'was funded at $1.4 billion.
The bill allows COPS to use $180 million to fund innovative community policing
initiatives such as: (I) providing bullet proof vests to local law enforcement personnel
($25 million); (2) school violence prevention programs ($17.5 million); (3) hiring
personnel for methamphetamine trafficking and drug "hot spot" monitoring operations
($35 million); (4) technology enhancements ($80 million); (5) increasing supervisory
personnel over D.C. parolees and probationers by the D.C. Offender Services Trustee
Office ($5 million); (6) hiring more community prosecutors ($5 million); and (7)
domestic violence prevention initiatives ($17.5 million).
. The Violence Against Women Program received $283 million, $12 million more than last
year and the President's request.
. A new Safe Schools Initiative was funded at $210 million for crime prevention and
technology. Within the total amount available, the following activities will be funded: (1)
$15 million will come from the Juvenile Justice At-Risk Children's Program for
communities to implement approaches unique to their particular area, (2) $167.5 million
to hire police officers and school resource officers to combat violence in schools within
the COPS hiring program; (3) $17.5 million from the COPS Program for programs aimed
at preventing school violence and community-based organizations.
. Counter terrorism efforts received $145 million ($93 million more than last year) for state
and local antiterrorism training, to provide grants to firefighters, to acquire technical
equipment and for other activities to protect against biological and chemical weapon
attacks.
Census 2000
During this session of Congress, we have been particularly active in tracking, monitoring and
influencing the controversial census issue to ensure that a fair and accurate census count in 2000,
working closely with the U.S. Conference of Mayors and a coalition of local government
representatives. Because of the continued disagreement over how to conduct the 2000 census,
spending for the Commerce/Justice/State and the federal judiciary will run out on June 15, 1999,
unless Congress passes a separate bill determining how the census will be conducted. By
delaying the census issue until June 15th, Congress is giving the Supreme Court a chance to rule
on the constitutionality of a method favored by the White House and most Democrats to use
traditional head-counting methods to reach 99% of the households in a given census tract and
then employ a sampling method to account for the hardest-to-reach 10%.
11
Sampling is a statistical method of using a precise count in one area to estimate the uncounted
population in other areas. Sampling is likely to yield a higher count of people in the inner cities
who are hard-to-reach (mostly poor, immigrants and minorities) because they do not respond to
the census questionnaire, phone calls or follow-up site visits for whatever reason.
Lawmakers have been arguing over whether sampling should be used in the decennial count and
have forced the issue by putting $33 billion and three Cabinet departments on the line. Congress
and the White House will have to resolve the sampling issue between the time the Supreme
Court rules and June 15th.
According to a U.S. Census Bureau Post-Enumeration Survey, 258,929 people were missed in
Florida by the 1990 Census, of which 133,997 were children. In Dade County alone 74.206
people were missed. or 3.69 percent of Dade County's total population.
Nationally, 4 million people were missed during the 1990 Census. Moreover, a total of 10
million people were missed during the count, while 6 million others were double-counted. Those
that were missed included about 4.4% African-Americans and close to 5% Latinos. That means
that one person in 20 in these two minority groups were missed during the 1990 Census.
Like the national results, a disproportionate number of Florida residents that were undercounted
during the 1990 Census were minorities:
Population
Estimated People Missed Estimated Percent Missed
African-Americans
Asians
Latino/Hispanic Origin
Native Americans
73,319
2,881
87,654
1,006
4%
1.8%
5.3%
2.7%
The Census Bureau estimates that about 5.5 million people nationally will go uncounted in the
2000 Census if sampling is not used. As you are aware, an accurate census count is extremely
important for determining Congressional districts and for allocating federal dollars to cities for a
variety of programs such as: Community Development Block Grants, Summer Youth Jobs,
Adult Training, Dislocated Workers, Welfare Jobs program, ISTEA, etc. Because of the
importance of the census, we have and will continue to work with state and local groups and
advocates in an effort to ensure a fair and accurate census count in 2000.
Funding for Housing and Homeless Programs
We continue to be active in tracking, monitoring and influencing housing, community
development and homeless legislation, working closely with the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the
National League of Cities and other local government representatives. Overall funding for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development increased by $3 billion -- $24.3 billion in FY
12
1999 compared to $21.4 billion appropriated in FY 1998. We are happy to report successful
outcomes "in obtaining funding increases (and preserving funding) for several key programs that
are of particular importance to local governments. These include the following:
· Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): Funded at $4.75 billion, $80 million
more than the FY 1998 funding level of $4.67 billion.
· Public Housing Capital Fund: Funded at $3 billion, an increase of $500 million over the
FY 1998 funding level of $2.5 billion.
· Public Housing Operating Fund: Funded at $2.8 billion, $ I 00 million less than the $2.9
billion appropriated in FY 1998.
· Housing Vouchers: $283 million is provided to create 50,000 new housing vouchers to
help people on welfare or who have been on welfare in the past year, to move closer to
available jobs. The vouchers will be used to subsidize rent in private apartments.
· Homeless Assistance Grants: Funded at $975 million, $152 million over FY98 funding
level of $823 million.
· The HOME Program: Funded at $1.6 billion, an increase of $1 00 million over the
FY1998 appropriation of $1.5 billion.
· HOPE VI: Funded at $625 million, an increase of $75 million over the FY 1998 funding
level of $550 million.
· Section 8 Subsidized Housing: Funded at $10.32 billion, an increase of$53.5 million
over the FY 1998 funding level of $9.37 billion.
· Severely Distressed Public Housing: Funded at $625 million, an increase of$75 million
over the FY 1998 funding level of $550 million.
· Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA): Funded at $225 million, $21
million over FY1998.
· Federal Housing Authority (FHA) - Increases the value of homes that can be insured by
FHA from $86,317 to $109,032 in most areas, and from $170,362 to $192,620 in high
cost areas.
13
Funding for the Arts
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA): We count as major victories increased funding for
the Arts. Congressional attempts were made again this fiscal year to end funding for the
National Endowment for the Arts because of the continued controvetsy over a relatively few
grants that have received NEA support in the past.. We are happy to report that Congress funded
NEA at $83,500,000 for grants and administration, an increase of $2.260.00 above or 2.7 percent
above the FY 1998 funding level. In addition, Congress provided $14,500,000 for matching
grants. for a total of 100,060,000 for FY 1999. The President's budget included a total of
$ I 20,500,000. Congress stressed in the conference report that it expects NEA to direct additional
effort to its outreach program in order to gain greater participation from currently underserved
communities. Congress also expects NEA to give rural and underserved communities priority
consideration.
· Organizational Grants
Any nonprofit, tax-exempt organization may apply for a grant, including local arts
organizations and official units of city government, .as long as they have been operating
programs for at least four years prior to the application deadline. Priority will be given
under all four categories to projects of national or particular regional significance that can
serve as models.
In FY 1999, the NEA will make financial awards for projects in the following four broad
categories:
-- Education and Access
-- Creation and Presentation
-- Planning and Stabilization
-- Heritage and Preservation
· Education and Access
Funds under this category are provided under to support projects that expand educational
arts experiences for individuals of all ages to make the arts available to a wider audience.
Projects can be classroom-based, or in a community setting, and should involve hands-on
experience. Such projects can involve pre-K through post-secondary education or teacher
training, career development or master-apprentice partnerships. In addition, the NEA
supports touring performance, publication distribution and other "outreach" activities.
Other essential elements for project support include artist involvement -- when
appropriate -- and the us of original works of art.
14
· Creation and Presentation
Grants under this category support the production of new works and encourage the
exhibition or performance of art to the public. Funds are also provided to support
workshops, festivals, rehearsals, residencies as well as publication and broadcast costs.
· Planning and Stabilization
Grants under this category can be used to assist art organizations to clarify and/or
strengthen their "missions and identities," build their capacity to handle current funding
limitations placed on arts programs, sustain the arts, enhance existing or new
partnerships, widen audiences, or develop plans to diversity resources (i.e., stabilization
grant projects). Other eligible activities under this category include: product or service
development that will generate revenue, research to identify target audiences, consultant
fees and technical assistance.
Funding is limited to organizations that have a minimum annual operating expenditure of
$200,000. Planing grants range from $15,000 - $500,000. Grants of $75,000 or less
require a one-for-one match. Larger awards require a three-to-one match.. Stabilization
grants range from $40,000 - $500,000.
· Heritage and Preservation
NEA supports projects that "reflect the cultural diversity of American arts" or preserve
significant works of art. Documentation or presentation of art forms that focus on
cultural diversity, passing on of techniques or principles to future generations through the
support of apprenticeships or other forms of instruction, technical assistance (i.e.,
assistance to traditional folk artists) are all eligible activities under this category.
National Endowment for the Humanities: Congress funded the National Endowment for the
Humanities (NEH) at $96,800,000, the same as the FY 1998 appropriation and $25,200,000
below the level requested by the President. In addition, Congress provided $13,900,000 for
matching grants, equal to the FY 1998 funding level and $100,000 less than the President's
budget request. While the NEH has not been under fire to the same extent as the NEA, it is still
not a favored by many conservative Members of Congress. The NEH has not been accused of
issuing controversial grants, but many question the necessity of a federally funded endowment
for humanities studies. While there has not been a move to eliminate the Endowment, funding
has not kept pace with inflation, and there have been suggestions of gradually shifting the federal
funding base to the private sector.
Institute of Museum and Library Services: Congress included $23,405,000 for the Institute of
Museum and Library Services (ILMS), an increase of $125,000 above the FY 1998 appropriation
of $23,280,000 and 2,595,000,00 below the President's budget request.
15
The IMLS funds general operations support grants, museum and conservation assessments,
assistance -in conserving of special collections, training for museum staff and professional
organizations, and funding for partnerships between museums and community-based
organizations (CBOs), including libraries and other museums.
Health and Human Services Funding
. HIV/AIDS: We successfully fought for increases in AIDS funding, particularly under the
Ryan White CARE programs, funded at $1.41 billion, $262 million over FY98, and
CDC, funded at $657 million, $32 million over FY98. Moreover, Congress and the
White House agreed upon a Congressional Black Caucus HIV / AIDS appropriations
package targeting $156 million in funding to address HIV / AIDS among minority
populations. Funding for the CBC Minority Initiative will spread throughout various
agencies. Highlights of HIV / AIDs funding and the Department of Health and Human
Services' (HHS) planned use of the CBC minority AIDS funding package has been
provided under separate cover. We will be working closely with you to develop a strategy
for Gainesville to take advantage of this new funding source.
. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Total funding for disease prevention
under CDC is $2.554 billion, an increase of $222 million over FY 1998.
· Tuberculosis: The account was funded at $119.9 million, an increase of $2 million over
the FY 1998 funding level of $11 7.9 million.
· Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Funded at $123.7 million, an increase of $11.6 million
over the FY 1998 funding level of $112.1 million.
· Lead Poisoning Prevention: Funded at $38.2 million, an increase of $341 ,000 over the
FY 1998 funding level of $37.8 million.
· Childhood Immunization: Funded at $421 million, an increase of $11 million over the FY
1998 funding level of $41 0 million.
· Preventive Health Services Block Grant: Funded at $150 million, $1 million above FY
1998 of$149 million.
· The Maternal and Child Block Grant: Funded at $700 million, an increase of $ I 9 million
over FY 1998 funding level of $681 million.
· Substance Abuse Block Grant: Funded at $1.585 billion, an increase of $275 million over
FY 1998.
16
· Social Services Block Grant: Funded at $1.9 billion, a reduction of$390 million from FY
1998.
· The Child Care Development Block Grant: Funded at $ I. I 82 billion, the amount
requested by the President with $172 million earmarked for child care quality
improvements.
. Head Start: Funded at $4.66 billion, an increase of $313 million over FY 1998.
. Child Welfare Services: Funded at $292 million, the same level as in FY 1998. The
measure provides $20 million for a new adoption incentive program.
· Low-Income-Home Energv Assistance Program (LIHEAP) We count as another major
successful outcome funding for LIHEAP at-$1.1 billion, the same level as in FY 1998.
As in FY 1998, $300 million will be available upon a declaration of an emergency by the
President. The House bill would have eliminated the program altogether.
17
Targeted Federal Authorizations
In addition to working through the annual appropriations process to secure specific funding
sources for Miami Beach projects, we also work to influence authori:?ation legislation.
Authorization bills are created, drafted and passed by authorizing committees, examples of which
being the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Labor and Human
Resources Committee, and "authorize to be appropriated" amounts of money to be spent on
various programs and projects. Authorization bills are usually multi-year bills, some lasting as
long as six years, like the TEA 21 transportation funding bill which was passed in May of 1998.
Electrowave Electric Shuttle
Authorization Outcome:
$1.5 million (to be distributed over FY1999 and FY2000)
Legislation:
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA 21)
Recommended next step:
The City is currently working with the Florida Department of
Transportation to implement these authorized funds, the $750,000
that has been appropriated this year and the $750,000 that will be
appropriated in the FY2000 Transportation Appropriations Bill.
Specific Lobbving Actions: As you know, we began work on this important initiative in 1997,
shortly after beginning work as the City's Federal Representative. Officials came to Washington
numerous times over the course of 1997, first to testify formally on the project and later to
conduct meetings to keep the interest in the project at a high level. In November of 1997, when
the first session of the 105th Congress came to a close, Congress had not completed work on this
reauthorization bill, formerly known as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (or
Ice-T), which thereby forced us to include the project on the FY1999 Miami Beach Federal
Agenda.
In the spring of 1998, we again included the shuttle as the highest priority on the City's Federal
Agenda, and the project was again presented by Mayor Kasdin in the agenda presentation
meetings we conducted in January. Commissioner Jose Smith, when testifying before the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, also mentioned the City's efforts to have the
project included in the TEA 21 legislation, the name eventually given to this reauthorization bill.
Throughout the course of the spring of 1998, we worked with Representative Shaw and Ros-
Lehtinen's offices to keep the pressure on the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee to include the project in its initial draft. As a result of this persistence, we were glad
to see that the project was included in the Bus and Bus Facilities section of TEA 21. The project
received an authorization of $1.5 million to be divided over Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 (which
is why a separate $750,000 is included in the FY1999 Transportation Appropriations Bill.)
18
Further, the City should expect another appropriation of $750,000 in next years Transportation
Appropriations Bill.
Bridge and Waterway Restoration / Revitalization Initiative
Authorization Outcome:
$1.35 million
Legislation:
Transportation Equity Act for the 2 I st Century (TEA 21)
Recommended next step:
The City is working with the Florida Department of Transportation
to implement this "high priority project" for which funding will be
spread over six years.
Specifi"c Lobbying Actions: As with the Electrowave project, this project was also included in
our initial request to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The actions taken
over the course of 1997 and 1998 on the shuttle were also taken on behalf of this project,
therefore we wi-Il refrain from rehashing them at this point.
We are proud to report a very positive final outcome for this project in the TEA 21 legislation
passed in May of 1998. $1.35 million was included for this project in the High Priority Projects
section of TEA 21. This listing is somewhat different that the listing for the Electrowave, as the
projects included as "high priority" are authorized for the full six years, with the funding
included being divided over those six years.
Erosion Control Breakwater Project
Authorization Outcome:
Statutory Language defining Miami Beach as a site for an
innovative project through the Shoreline Erosion Control
Demonstration Program.
Legislation:
Water Resources Development Act (This bill was not finalized in
1998 and is scheduled to be re-introduced in the 106th Congress.)
Recommended next step:
As a result of the legislation not being finalized in 1998, we will
continue to work to have this language included, if not
strengthened, in the re-introduced version and see it through to
final passage.
Specific Lobbving Actions: In the spring of 1998 , we learned that the Congress would attempt to
reauthorize the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), a two-year authorization bill which
formally authorizes projects to be carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers (i.e. Dade County
has a 50 year authorization through this bill to perform beach renourishment activities, which
results in the yearly appropriation the county receives through the Energy and Water
19
Appropriations Bill.) As a result of this opportunity, we worked with Environmental Specialist
Bruce Henderson to come up with a project for possible inclusion in this legislation. What Mr.
Henderson brought to us was a project he was currently working on to place groins along the
Miami Beach Shoreline to "even out" the beach a prevent the sand from washing in a southerly
direction down the beach away from city property. We dubbed this project the Erosion Control
Breakwater Project and submitted it to Senator Mack and Representative Shaw, who requested
its inclusion as a new authorization in the bill. During the visit to Washington by Commissioner
Dermer and Nu. Henderson, they brought this project to the attention of Representative Shaw and
Senator Mack, who committed their support for this innovative solution to beach erosion.
Unfortunately, the House was unable to get past some unrelated political differences with regard
to its version of the bill, thereby derailing the entire process for the 105th Congress. However,
we were successful in obtaining language in the Senate bill that would provide funding for a
project through a newly authorized "Shoreline Erosion Controt Demonstration Program." The
included language redefines the target areas for projects to include "Miami Beach" as a specific
location for a project. Furthermore, the Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the project and
has expressed support.
At this point, we are in a holding pattern as Congress reconvenes and a new bill is introduced.
We have been assured by Senator Mack's office that any reintroduced version will again include
this language referencing Miami Beach, and we will work to see that this new version is enacted
into law. Also, when a new bill is introduced, we will explore options to further strengthen the
language, with the possibility of including a specific funding amount.
20
General Federal Authorizations
Private Property Rights (Takings) Legislation
The Citizens Access to Justice Act, more commonly known as Private Property Rights or
"Takings" legislation, was a bill considered by Congress this year that would have been very
detrimental to local governments should it have been passed. It was not, however, due to the
work of our office, along with other local government representatives, to generate opposition
among Members of both Houses to this harmful legislation.
The bill would have allowed developers and property owners to circumvent the local land use
and zoning approval process, and instead, allow petitioners to take their cases immediately to
federal court, if a local land use and zoning agency denies their land use request. Under current
law, federal courts usually abstain from getting involved in such cases until a claimant has
exhausted all appeals at the local and state levels.
-
After making it through House in 1997, the bill was taken up this year in the Senate, where the
Judiciary Committee marked the bill in March. Throughout the spring, our office, along with the
U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities and the National Association of
Counties, conducted a campaign to increase opposition to the bill. When the bill finally made it
to the Senate floor, enough noise had been made by local governments in opposition to the bill
that there were not enough votes to break the filibuster waged by a number of democratic
Senators.
Local governments dodged a bullet this year with this particular bill, but we need to be aware
that the bill's supporters may try again in the coming Congress.
Superfund Reform
Efforts to tackle meaningful Superfund reform failed again in the Second Session of the I05th
Congress, as disputes between Congress and the Administration, coupled with partisan bickering,
proved too difficult to overcome.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Chairman John Chaffee (R-Rhode
Island)) made efforts early in the year to move legislation (S. 8), but the bill only received party
line approval in Committee, resulting in it languishing on the Senate Calendar for the rest of the
year.
Authorizing $7.5 billion more than five years to finance the program, the most difficult issues
were questions about the roles to be played by states and the Federal government. The
Republican Majority remains determined to shift more power to states to decide how sites should
be cleaned up.
21
Over in the House, things are much more fractured. A bill (H.R. 2727) sponsored by more
moderate Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), and supported by the local government community, was
approved by in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment. As in the Senate, the 18-12 partisan vote was enough to force Chairman Bud
Shuster (R-P A) to shy away from bringing the bill before the full committee.
1ntemet Tax
The taxing of electronic commerce via the Internet was another big issue this year with the
enactment of legislation imposing a three-year moratorium on new taxes on Internet access and
commerce. During that period, a 19 member commission will study how taxes should be applied
to the Internet. This controversial legislation, which passed both Houses by slim margins after
heated debate, was included in the final Omnibus Spending Bill (RR. 4328).
Upon its initial introduction, the bill drew harsh criticism from the local government community
in Washington, who believed it would unfairly preempt their taxing authority. However, over
the course of the year, we were granted concessions which made the bill acceptable.
Key changes included a grandfather clause allowing states that were collecting Internet access
taxes before Oct. 1, 1998, to continue doing so. Also inserted was language instructing the
commission to examine whether to require companies to collect state sales taxes from customers
instates where the companies do not have a physical presence. Under current law, companies are
not required to collect such levies, a loophole that we believe has cost local governments billions
of dollars on telephone and mail-order catalog sales. With Internet sales expected to grow
enormously in coming years, the states are eager for a comprehensive sales tax policy.
Public Housing Overhaul
We have been actively engaged in monitoring and influencing public housing reform legislation-
- working as a part of a housing task force to ensure that the interests of Gainesville were
protected. The public housing overhaul is included in the FY 1999 V NHUDIEP A
Appropriations Bill. We are happy to report that the final bill includes mixed incomes in public
housing. This provision is supported by many urban cities that agree that mixed income in
public housing will improve conditions. Specifically, the measure requires that at least 40
percent of public housing units and 75 percent of Section 8 vouchers (used to help pay rent in
private apartments) be reserved for the very poor, those earning less than 30 percent of median
area income. The rest could go to anyone making less than 80 percent of median area income.
Public Housing authorities located in census tracts identified as poverty-stricken could admit 10
percent more higher-income residents if they gave more than 75 percent of vouchers to the very
poor. The measure also includes provisions to ensure that PHAs do not concentrate low-income
families in certain housing projects.
22
It should be noted, however, that this change will not be fully implemented for eight to 10 years
because they will be made only when current tenants move out and people who hold vouchers
give up their assistance.
The new measure replaces the public housing and low-income rentar assistance program with
block grants to local housing authorities, giving them greater flexibility to choose tenants, set
rents and make funding decisions. In making these changes, the measure amends but does not
repeal the Housing Act of 1937 as the House-passed measure would have done.
Following are further highlights of the measure:
· Public Housing Block Grants: Federal funding for public housing programs will be
converted into two block grants -- one for capital improvements -- the other for operating
costs. Under the measure, public housing capital improvement grants are authorized and
appropriated at $3 billion in FY 1999. While operating grants are authorized at $2.9
billion in FY 1999, $2.8 billion was appropriated in FY 1999. After FY 1999,
unspecified sums are authorized for both block grants through FY 2003.
· Changes in Rent: Allows Public Housing-Authorities (PHAs) to set lower rents. A
family's rent will be limited to no more than 30 percent of adjusted income (i.e., annual
income less exemptions allowed by HUD, such medical expenses or child support), 10
percent of monthly income, or that portion of a welfare payment that is designated for
housing assistance.
Also allows PHAs to give residents a choice of paying 30 percent of their income in rent,
or a flat-rate set by the PHA based on the rental value of the housing. Accordingly, a flat-
rate could be lower or higher than the rent level based upon income. Residents that chose
the flat-rate rents could revert back to income-based rents in the event of a financial
hardship.
· Minimum Rents - PHA's are required to establish minimum rents for public housing and
rental vouchers with minimum rents not to exceed $50 a month. PHAs would be allowed
to grant hardship exemptions from the minimum rent requirement.
· Communitv Work Requirements - Requires unemployed, able-bodied adults living in
public or subsidized housing to engage in community work or self-sufficiency program at
least eight hours per month. This mandate would not apply to the elderly, disabled, those
in school, work training programs, or those who are complying with work or training
requirements under the 1996 welfare reform law.
· Other Occupancv Changes - In addition to allowing PHAs to determine occupancy
preference rules and the promotion of a greater mix of incomes in public and assisted
housing described in great detail above, PHAs will be allowed to deny public housing or
23
rental assistance and/or evict such persons that provide reasonable cause for the PHA to
believe that they may pose a threat to the health, safety, and peaceful surroundings of
other residents.
. Local Housing Authorities - PHAs that have been designated by BUD as "troubled" are
required to submit plans outlining specific goals for improving their projects and services.
HUD would be required to take over the local PHA or seek appointment of a receiver if
the troubled PHA fails to meet those goals. The measure also requires HUD to study the
current performance evaluations, as well as alternative methods of evaluating
performance including the creation of an independent accreditation organization to assist
or replace BUDs role in assessing housing authorities.
. Home Rule Flexible Grants - Creates a four-year demonstration program under which
100 local governments in jurisdictions where PHA' s have scored in the lowest 40 percent
performance rate nationwide -- could develop their own flexible low-income housing
programs. Of the 100 localities, not more than 55 authorities participating in the
demonstration program may be "troubled" (as designated by BUD), and no more than 45
may be "non-troubled." Under the demonstration program, these local communities will
receive all of the public housing and assisted housing funding that would otherwise go to
the local housing authority.
. Disposal of Obsolete Housing: The measure eliminates the require that PHAs replace, on
a one-for-one basis, every public housing unit that the PHA disposes of or demolishes. It
establishes the conditions under which PHAs may demolish housing, requiring that it be
obsolete -- either in condition, location or other factors -- and that it would not be cost
effective to rehabilitate. The measure also reauthorizes the HOPE VI program through
FY 2002. HOPE VI provides funds to local authorities to help with demolishing
dilapidated public housing units and to replace many of them. Congress appropriated
$625 million for the program in FY 1999, an increase of $75 million over the FY 1998
funding level of $550 million.
· Section 8 Rental Assistance: As indicated above, the measure consolidates into a new
block grant program, existing tenant-based rental assistance and Section 8 certificates
and voucher programs. Unspecified sums are authorized in Fiscal Year 2000 and FY
2001 to fund 100,000 new "incremental" vouchers each year.
· Reverse Mortgages - The measure expands and makes permanent HUD' s reverse
mortgages program called Home Equity Conversion Mortgages, which allows cash-
strapped senior citizens to borrow against the equity in their home for everyday expenses
without having to make monthly interest or principal payments. Loans are repaid when
the home is sold. The number of reverse mortgages will be expanded from 50,000 to
150,000. In addition, the measure prohibits organizations from charging excessive fees
24
for advising senior citizens on the availability of HUD-insured "reverse mortgages" and
prohibits lenders from dealing with such organizations.
Immigration
We count as an exceptional victory the further progress made this year in securing relief for the
City's non-citizen elderly, disabled, and disadvantaged immigrant population from the
restrictions on benefits contained in the 1996 welfare reform law. Working closely with
Congressional leaders (including Florida Representative E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Carrie Meek, and others), Administration officials and a coalition of local
government representatives and immigration advocates, Congress approved a handful of
significant immigration provisions this year including:
· Restoration of Public Benefits - The 1996 welfare law eliminated SSI, Medicaid and food
stamp benefits to legal immigrants. Last year Congress voted to restore SSI and Medicaid
to most legal immigrants who were in the United States when the welfare bill was signed
into law in August 1996. Those non-immigrants whose status was in doubt were allowed
to continue receiving benefits thrOl:lgh September 30, 1998. The Social Security
Administration estimates that the vast majDrity of these immigrants were on the SSI rolls
when the welfare law was signed, were legal immigrants, or had become naturalized
citizens. Rather than approve another short-term extension, Congress approved legislation
that would make all immigrants in this category (referred to as non-qualified),
permanently eligible for benefits.
In addition, Congress approved a measure to restore food stamp benefits to 250,000
elderly and disabled legal immigrants as well as children under the age of 18 who were in
the United States when the welfare law was signed in August 1996.
· Haitian Refugees -- Congress also provided relief to nearly 50,000 Haitian refugees,
allow them to remain in the United States permanently. Similar allowances were made
last year for Nicaraguans and Cubans fleeing from political persecution in their
homelands. Senators Connie Mack and Bob Graham led the successful fight to grant this
relief to Haitian refugees.
25
1998 City of Miami Beach Projects
and Special Federal Agency Funding Efforts
We continue to provide the City, on a timely basis, very detailed, targeted, and specific
guidance on federal funding opportunities in the arenas of highest interest for the
City-including criminal justice, hurricane recovery and FEMA, beaches, transportation
and intermodal programs, immigration, community and economic development, housing
and urban development, homeless-and many others. We conduct daily reviews and tap
a large number of federal grant and funding information services. We continue to watch
closely for any funding opportunities particularly dealing with beach renourishment, a
high priority for the City.
Since early detection, specially targeted information, and organization are critical to the
needs of the City, data on federal funding opportunities is organized, summarized, and
transmitted to you every 48-72 hours. This information is updated and supplemented
throughout the course of the week as necessary. After a thorough and detailed analysis of
the appropriations bills, federal regulations, and agency initiatives and program plans, we
have also advised the City of any potential funding opportunities or grant competitions
which may have an impact on the City.
Moreover, in addition to the weekly grant notices on federal funding and grant
opportunities we forward to you by priority category, we also send you special alerts for
upcoming solicitations, application kits, or grant notices of special interest; and, finally,
special reports-either requested by Miami Beach officials or sent independently by us-
dealing with high profile issues.
Knowing of your interest in law enforcement, in June 1998, we advised the City of its
eligibility to receive FY 1998, Third Round, of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
Program annual monies in the amount of$502,747-which represents a slight increase of
$94,741 over last year's FY 1997 funds. We advised you of the deadline for the
applications, and information on when the award would be announced by the Department
of Justice. We followed up by letting you know of your award amount when it was
announced in October, 1998. Along these lines, also in October, 1998, we advised the
City of its COPS MORE '98 award of $347,673 for 10 public safety specialists and 27
laptops with supporting hardware and software.
HIGH PRIORITY, SUCCESSFUL FEDERAL FUNDING PROJECTS
Highlights
Although we had no opportunities to conduct "grant campaigns" on grant proposals
26
submitted to federal agencies from the City (i.e., advocacy efforts with federal agencies)
with Members of the Florida Congressional Delegation, we were pleased, none the less,
that the City of Miami Beach was able to receive significant grants in the criminal
justice/Iaw enforcement arena for both Local Law Enforcement Block Grant monies and
COPS MORE '98. We were also pleased that the City was able to achieve a successful
outcome with its grant proposal to the National Park Service to develop and implement
the Indian Creek/Collins Canal Recreation Corridor Master Plan and Design Guidelines.
We continue to look forward to working with you on issues of concern, and to have an
opportunity to conduct grant campaigns at your request.
. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (DOJIBJA)
Status: We advised the City of its FY 1998 eligible
jurisdiction award amount of$502,747, as well
as the deadline for submitting applications.
. COPS MORE '98 (DOJIBJA)
Status: We advised the City of its award of $347,643 for
10 public safety specialists and 27 laptops with
supporting hardware and software.
OTHER FEDERAL PROJECTS/SPECIAL SEARCHES AND REPORTS
Our searches and special reports on various subj ects of interest are one of the most vital
functions we perform for the City. We provide many special searches, both when
requested and independently. We send the City many other reports, encompassing new
initiatives and current programs of interest.
Highlighted below are the following projects or special reports relating to federal
agencies or the Congress in which the Government Relations Department assisted the
City of Miami Beach:
· Hurricane Preparedness Strategy/Contacts and Next Steps (FE.MA)-Pursuant
to our conversations with City officials, we contacted top FEMA officials and the
Director's most senior advisor, advising you of the status of Hurricane Georges
from FEMA's perspective; provided you with FEMA forms/guidance/manuals;
gave advice to you on how we were counseled regarding documentation of the
storm; chains of command; and recommended next steps.
· Empowerment Zone Legislation, and Other Tax-Code Related Economic
Development Incentives and Provisions (House Tax Committee Action)-We
reported to you on the immediate action of the House Ways and Means
Committee on the tax bill package on September 17, 1998, which contained a
number of economic development tax-code-based provisions of potential value to
27
the City, including: 20 Renewal Communities; Tax-Exempt Bond Provisions for
School Construction; and Tax-Exempt Bond Provisions (Private Activity
. BondslEconomic Development Facilities).
. Criminal Justice Grants-Pursuant to a request for further criminal justice
information, we were pleased to provide you in March, 1998, with an update on
specific criminal justice programs which City of Miami Beach Police officials
indicated were of interest after reading our Final FY 1998 Criminal Justice
Funding Report. They included Incentive Grants for Local Delinquency
Prevention Programs (Title V); Combating Underage Drinking; State Grant
Funds; Discretionary Funds; Juvenile Mentoring Program.
. Federal Fundingfor Police-We prepared a Memorandum dated January 3 I,
1998, prepared for the Mayor at his request following his visit to Washington,
DC, wherein the objective was to identify federal resources that are passed on to
both the State and Metro-Dade County which the City may want to
pursue-including the identification of several criminal justice/violence
prevention activities that fit into this category-such as the Byrne State Block
Grant Program; the annual allocation of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention
Block Grant Funds; or the possibility of some special project funding set-asides in
the appropriations bills. This memo was forwarded to the City's Chief of Police
on February 18, 1998.
· Update on the White House Community Empowerment Conference of July 14-
16, 1998-We provided you with this report, reiterating not only the details of the
conference, but highlighting its central theme of encouraging community
partnerships, coordination, and cooperation in leveraging federal dollars.
FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES/GRANT NOTES/SPECIAL ALERTS
Federal Funding and Grant Opportunities
As noted above, we submitted a weekly series of grant notices of federal funding and
grant opportunities to City officials, both in accordance with your Federal Agenda, and
organized by priority category-ranging from solicitations in the law enforcement,
criminal justice, crime prevention, juvenile justice, and hurricane recovery-to
environment and beaches, community and economic development, housing and urban
development, homelessness, and the transportation areas.
Grant Notices
We submitted a weekly series of grant notices of federal funding and grant opportunities
not only to the Assistant City Manager and his associates, but to the Miami Beach Police
28
Department.
Grant Special Alerts
In addition to the weekly series of grant notices, we also forwarded to the City of Miami
Beach the following special grant alerts, application kits, or grant notices of special
interest:
· Special Alert-EPA Invites Proposals Under the Science to Achieve Results
Program (Environmental Protection Agency) (12/14/98)
· Special Alert-ED Invites Applications for Technology Innovation Challenge
Grants (Department of Education) (12/14/98)
· Special Alert-SAMHSA Announces Non-School Applicants Could Tap New
Safe Schools Opportunities (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration) (12/18/98)
· Special Alert-EP A Seeks Investigator-Initiated Grant Applications
(Environmental Protection Agency) (12/7/98)
· Special Alert-FEMA Gives Notice of the Availability of$30 Million of
Appropriated Grant Funds to Project Impact Communities and States with Project
Impact Communities (Federal Emergency Management Agency) (1 1/18/98)
· Special Alert/New Initiative-Federal Emergency Management Agency's
"Project Impact"/Disaster Resistant Universities Initiative (11/10/98)
· Alert-FY 1998 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Monies (10/28/98)
· Alert-Federal Emergency Management Agency: Manuals/Forms/Guidance in
Preparation for Hurricane Georges (9/22/98)
· Alert-Hurricane Preparedness Strategy/Contacts and Next Steps Per FEMA
Director's Office (9/22/98)
· Alert-Congress Passes COPS Legislation/Violence Prevention As Part ofFY
1999 Justice, Commerce Department Appropriations Bill (8/11/98)
· Grant Notice-Brownfields: Public Health Interventions (Agency for Toxic
Substance and Disease Registry) (7/29/98)
· Update on the White House Community Empowerment Conference: July 14-16,
1998 (7/20/98)
· Special Alert-Availability of Applications for Y outhbuild-Department of
Housing and Urban Development (6/11/98)
· Alert-FY 1998 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Monies (6/9/98)
· Special Alert-Availability of Applications for University and College
Programs-Department of Housing and Urban Development (6/3/98)
· Special Alert-Application Kits for Two Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS) Programs: Universal Hiring Program and COPS MORE 98 (6/1/98)
· Special Alert-Availability of Applications for Drug Elimination in Public and
Assisted Housing programs and the Community Development Technical
Assistance Programs (5/28/98)
29
· Report-Office of Justice Programs Fiscal Year 1998 Program Plans and the
President's Crime Prevention Council Data Booklet (5/20/98)
· Special Alert/Immediate Attention-Report on May 12, 1998 EZ/EC Urban
Designation Round II Workshop (5/18/98)
· Alert-COPS MORE 98 Application (5/15/98)
· Special Alert-Department of Justice Program Information (5/12/98)
· Alert-Community-Based Family Resource Technical Assistance Centers
(Administration for Children and Families) (5/8/98)
· Special Alert-The New Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) (4/24/98)
· Report-Criminal Justice Grants: COPS MORE, Title V, Combating Underage
Drinking, Juvenile Mentoring Program (3/3/98)
· Special Alert-Economic Development Assistance Programs--A vailability of
Funds (2/27/98)
· Special AlertlNew Initiative-President Clinton's Announcement of New Child
Care Initiative (117/98)
30
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
AND JORDEN, BURT, BERENSON & JOHNSON llP
FOR THE PROVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL REPRESENTATION AND CONSULTING
SERVICES IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
THIS AGREEMENT made this 19th day of February , 1997 by and between the CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA (City), which term shall include its officials, successors, legal
representatives, and assigns, and JORDEN, BURT, BERENSON & JOHNSON, LLP, a law firm
organized as a limited liability partnership (Consultant).
SECTION 1
DEFINITIONS
Agreement:
This written Agreement between the City and the Consultant.
City Manager:
"City Manager" means the Chief Administrative officer of the City.
Consultant:
For the purposes of this Agreement, Consultant shall be deemed to be
an independent contractor, and not an agent or employee of the City.
When the term "Consultant" is used in this Agreement, it shall be
deemed to include any sub-consultants and any other person or entity
acting under the direction or control of Consultant.
Final Acceptance: "Final Acceptance" means notice from the City to the Consultant that the
Consultant's Services are complete as provided in Section 2 of this
Agreement.
Fixed Fee:
Fixed amount paid to the Consultant to allow for its costs and margin of
profit.
Project
Coordinator:
An individual designated by the City to coordinate, direct and review on
behalf of the City all technical matters involved in the Scope of Work
and Services.
Proposal
Documents:
Proposal Documents shall mean the a) Request for Proposals No. 13-
96/97 for Providing Governmental Representation and Consulting
Services in Washington, D.C., issued by the City, in contemplation of.
this Agreement, together with all Amendments thereto (if applicable);
and b) the Consultant's proposal and response thereto (Proposal), which
is incorporated by reference in this Agreement and made a part hereof.
Risk Manager:
The Risk Manager of the City, with offices at 1700 Convention Center
Drive, Third Floor, Miami Beach, Florida 33139.
-2-
Services:
-- All services, work and actions by the Consultant performed pursuant to
or undertaken under this Agreement described in Section 2.
Termination:
Termination of Consultant Services as provided in Section 4.9 of this
Agreement.
Task:
A discrete portion of the Scope of Services to be accomplished by the
Consultant, as described in Section 2 below, if directed and authorized.
SECTION 2
SCOPE OF WORK AND SERVICES REQUIRED
The scope of work to be performed by the Consultant is generally set forth in Exhibit "A,"
entitled "Scope of Services," and shall also include those services set forth in the Proposal
Documents (collectively, the Services).
SECTION 3
COMPENSATION
3.1
FIXED FEE
Consultant shall be compensated for providing the Services (as set forth in Exhibit "A"
and the Proposal Documents), on a fixed fee basis, not to exceed Seventy Thousand and
00/100 Dollars ($70,000), for each one year period of the term set forth in the Agreement.
3.2 METHOD OF PAYMENT
Payment shall be made to the Consultant on a monthly basis, pursuant to invoices
-3-
submitted by the Consultant which detail percentage or portion of completion of the Services.
Invoices shall be aceompanied by a narrative progress report which supports the invoices, and
shall contain a statement that the terms set forth therein are true and correct and in accordance
with the Agreement. Payment of such invoices, if deemed acceptable and satisfactory to the
City, shall be made within fifteen (15) days of receipt by City.
3.3
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to the compensation for the Services and
include actual expenditures made by the Consultant and its employees and sub-consultants
in furtherance of the Services contemplated in the Agreement. Reimbursable Expenses shall
include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Expenses such as pre-approved travel, long distance telephone,
delivery and messenger services, and incidentals and other costs
associated with performing the Services shall not exceed an
aggregate amount of $5,000 per one-year term under the
Agreement. (Airfare shall be the most economical rates available
at the time; hotel and meal expenses shall be in accordance with
Runzheimer's rates; expenses shall be prorated according to
percentage of representation for the City in relation to other
clients);
b. Other out-of-pocket expenses shall be reimbursed up to an
aggregate amount not to exceed $3,000 per one-year term under
the Agreement.
The maximum allowance for Reimbursable Expenses is established as a condition to this
Agreement, and is set forth above. Invoices or vouchers for Reimbursable Expenses shall be
submitted along with supporting receipts, and other back-up material reasonably requested
by the City, and the Consultant shall certify as to each such invoice that the amounts and items
claimed as reimbursable are "true and correct and in accordance with the Agreement."
-4-
4.1
SECTION 4
GENERAL PROVISIONS
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONSULTANT
With respect to the performance of the Services, the Consultant shall exercise that
degree of skill, care, efficiency and diligence normally exercised by recognized professionals
with respect to the performance of comparable Services. In its performance of the Services,
the Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws and ordinances, including but not limited
to applicable regulations of the City, County, State, Federal Government, and ADA, EEO
Regulations and Guidelines.
4.2
PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES
State of Florida Form PUR 7068, Sworn Statement under Section 287.133(3)(a) Florida
Statute on Public Entity Crimes shall be filed by Consultant.
4.3
PROfECT MANAGEMENT
The Consultant shall appoint a qualified individual acceptable to the City to serve as
Project Manager to oversee the Services and who shall be fully responsible for the day-to-day
activities under this Agreement and shall serve as the primary contact for the City's Project
Coordinator.
4.4 TERM OF AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of two (2) years from the date of
approval of this Agreement by the Mayor and City Commission. At its sole option and
discretion, the City may extend this Agreement for an additional one (1) year term.
-5-
4.5
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS AND EOUIPMENT
All documents prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are related
exclusively to the Services, and are intended or represented for ownership by the City. Any
reuse shall require the prior written approval of the City.
4.6
INDEMNIFICA nON
Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Miami Beach and its
officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all actions, claims, liabilities, losses,
and expenses, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, for personal, economic or bodily
injury, wrongful death, loss of or damage to property, in law or in equity, which may arise or
be alleged to have arisen from the negligent acts, errors, omissions or other wrongful conduct
of the Consultant, its employees, agents, sub-consultants, or any other person or entity acting
under Consultant's control, in connection with the Consultant's performance of the Services
pursuant to this Agreement; and, to that extent, the Consultant shall pay all such claims and
losses and shall pay all such costs and judgments which may issue from any lawsuit arising
from such claims and losses, and shall pay all costs and attorney's fees expended by the City
in the defense of such claims and losses, including appeals. The parties agree that one percent
(1 %) of the total Compensation to the Consultant for performance of this Agreement is the
specific consideration from the City to the Consultant for the Consultant's Indemnity
Agreement.
The Consultant's obligation under this Section shall not include the obligation to
indemnify the City of Miami Beach and its officers, employees and agents, from and against
any actions or claims which arise or are alleged to have arisen from negligent acts or
omissions or other wrongful conduct of the City and its officers, employees and agents. The
-6-
parties each agree to give the other party prompt notice of any claim coming to its knowledge
that in any way directly or indirectly affects the other party.
4.7
INSURANCE REOUIREMENTS
The Consultant shall not commence any work pursuant to this Agreement until all
insurance required under this Section has been obtained and certified copies of such insurance
have been filed with and approved by the City's Risk Manager. The Consultant shall maintain
and carry in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement the following insurance:
1. Consultant General Liability in the amount of $1,000,000.00.
2. Workers Compensation & Employers Liability as required pursuant to Florida Statutes.
3. Thirty (30) days' written notice of cancellation or substantial modification in any
required insurance coverage must be given to the City's Risk Manager by the
Consultant and its insurance company.
4. Original certificates of insurance for the above coverage must be submitted to the
City's Risk Manager for approval prior to any work commencing. These certificates will
be kept on file in the Office of the Risk Manager,. 3rd . Floor, City Hall.
5-. The Consultant is responsible for obtaining and submitting all insurance certificates for
its sub-consultants.
6. All insurance policies must be issued by companies authorized to do business under
the laws of the State of Florida. The companies must be rated no less than "B +" as to
management and not less than "Class VI" as to strength by the latest edition of Best's Insurance
Guide, published by A.M. Best Company, Oldwick, New Jersey, or its equivalent, subject to
the approval of the City's Risk Manager.
Compliance with the foregoing requirements shall not relieve the Consultant of the
-7-
liabilities and obligations under this Section or under any other portion of this Agreement, and
the City shall have the right to obtain from the Consultant specimen copies of the insurance
policies in the event that submitted certificates of insurance are inadequate to ascertain
compliance with required coverage.
4.7.1 Endorsements
All of Consultant's certificates, as required above, shall contain endorsements providing
that written notice shall be given to the City at least thirty (30) days prior to termination,
cancellation or reduction in coverage in the policy.
4.7.2 Certificates
Unless directed by the City otherwise, the Consultant shall not commence the Services
until the City has received and approved, in writing, certificates of insurance showing that the
requirements of this Section (in its entirety) have been met and provided for.
4.8
TERMINATION. SUSPENSION AND SANCTIONS
4.8.1 Termination for Caus~
If through any cause within the reasonable control of the Consultant, the Consultant
shall fail to fulfill in a timely manner, or otherwise violates any of the covenants, agreements,
or stipulations materia/to this Agreement, the City shall thereupon have the right to terminate
the Services then remaining to be performed. Prior to exercising its option to terminate for
cause, the City shall notify the Consultant of its violation of the particular terms of this
Agreement and shall grant Consultant fifteen (15) days to cure such default. If such default
remains uncured after fifteen (15) days, the City, may terminate this Agreement by giving
written notice to the Consultant of such termination, which shall become effective upon
receipt by Consultant of the written termination notice.
-8-
In that event, all finished and unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings,
maps, models, photographs, reports and other work products prepared by the Consultant and
its subcontractors shall be properly delivered to the City and the City shall compensate the
Consultant in accordance with Section 3 for all Services performed by the Consultant prior to
Termination.
Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall not be relieved of liability to the City
for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of the Agreement by the Consultant,
and the City may reasonably withhold payments to the Consultant for the purposes of set-off
until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Consultant is
determined.
4.8.2 Termination for Convenience of City
The City may, without cause and for its convenience, terminate the Services then
remaining to be performed at any time by giving written notice to Consultant of such
termination, which shall become effective upon receipt by Consultant of the written
termination notice. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents and other materials,
as described in Section 2, shall be properly delivered to. the City. If the Agreement is
terminated by the City as provided in this Section, the City shall compensate the Consultant
for all Services actually performed by the Consultant and reasonable direct costs of Consultant
for assembling and delivering to City all documents. Such payments shall be the total extent
of the City's liability to the Consultant upon a Termination for Convenience as provided for
in this Section.
4.8.3 Termination for Insolvency
-9-
I
I
The City also reserves the right to terminate the remaining Services to be performed in
the event the Consuhant is placed either in voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy or makes an
assignment for the benefit of creditors. In such event, the right and obligations of the parties
shall be the same as provided for in Section 4.8.2.
4.8.4 Sanctions for Noncompliance with Nondiscrimination Provisions
In the event of the Consultant's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions
of this Agreement, the City shall impose such sanctions as the City or the State of Florida may
determine to be appropriate including, but not limited to, withholding of payments to the
Consultant under the Agreement until the Consultant complies and/or cancellation,
termination or suspension of the Services. In the event the City cancels or terminates the
Services pursuant to this Section the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as
provided in Section 4.8.2.
4.8.5 Changes and Additions
Any such change by City shall be directed by a written Notice to and signed by the
duly authorized representatives of the Consultant. Said Notices shall provide an equitable
adjustment in the time of performance, a reallocation of the task budget and, if applicable, any
provision of this Agreement which is affected by said Notice. The City shall not reimburse the
Consultant for the cost of preparing Agreement change documents, written Notices to Proceed,
or other documentation in this regard.
4.9
ASSIGNMENT. TRANSFER OR SUBCONTRACTING
The Consultant shall not subcontract, assign, or transfer any work under this Agreement
without the prior written consent of the City. When applicable, and upon receipt of such
consent in writing, the Consultant shall cause the names of the consulting firms responsible
-10-
for the major portion of each separate specialty of the Services to be inserted into the pertinent
documents or data;- The Consultant shall include in such sub-contracts the appropriate
versions of the Sections of this Agreement as are necessary to carry out the intent of this
Agreement, as instructed by the City.
4.10 SUB-CONSULTANTS
The Consultant shall be liable for all sub-consultants' services, responsibilities and
liabilities under this Agreement and the services, responsibilities and liabilities of sub-
consultants, and any other person or entity acting under the direction or control of the
Consultant. When the term "Consultant" is used in this Agreement, it shall be deemed to
include any sub-consultants and any other person or entity acting under the direction or
control of Consultant.
4.11 EOUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/ADA NON-
DISCRIMINA nON POLICY
In connection with the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not
discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color,
religion, ancestry, sex, age, national origin, place of birth, marital status, or physical handicap.
The Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that
employees are treated during their employment without regard to their race, color, religion,
ancestry, sex, age, national origin, place of birth, marital status, disability, or sexual
orientation. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment,
upgrading, demotion, or termination; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or
termination; rates of pay, or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including
apprenticeship.
-11-
Consultant agrees to adhere to and be governed by all applicable requirements of the laws
listed below including, but not limited to, those provisions pertaining to employment, provision of
programs and services, transportation, communications, access to facilities, renovations, and new
construction.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA): Pub. L. 101-
336, 104 Stat 327, 42 D.S.C. 12101-12213 and 547 D.S.C. Sections
225 and 611 including Title I, Employment; Title II, Public Services;
Title III, Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private
Entities; Title IV, Telecommunications; and Title V, Miscellaneous
Provisions.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973: 29 D.S.C. Section 794.
The Federal Transit Act, as amended: 49 D.S.C. Section 1612.
The Fair Housing Act as amended: 42 D.S.C. Section 3601-3631.
Consultant must complete and submit the City's Disability Non-Discrimination Affidavit
(Affidavit). In the event Consultant fails to execute the City's Affidavit, or is found to be in non-
compliance with the provisions of the Affidavit, the City may impose such sanctions as it may
determine to be appropriate, including but not limited to, withholding of payments to Consultant
under the Agreement ~til compliance and/or cancellation, termination or suspension of the
Agreement. In the event, the City cancels or terminates the Agreement pursuant to this Section, .
Consultant shall not be relieved of liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue
of Consultant's breach of the Agreement.
4.12 CONflICT OF INTEREST
The Consultant agrees to adhere to and be governed by the Metropolitan Dade County
Conflict of Interest Ordinance (No. 72-82), as amended; and by the City of Miami Beach
Charter and Code, which are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth herein, in
-12-
connection with the contract conditions hereunder.
The Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any
interest, direct or indirectly which should conflict in any manner or degree with the
performance of the Services. The Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this
Agreement, no person having any such interest shall knowingly be employed by the
Consultant. No member of or delegate to the Congress of the United States shall be admitted
to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefits arising therefrom.
4.13 PATENT RIGHTS: COPYRIGHTS: CONFIDENTIAL FINDINGS
Any patentable result arising out of this Agreement, as well as all information, design
specifications, processes, data and findings, shall be made available to the City for public use.
No reports, other documents, articles or devices produced in whole or in part under
this Agreement shall be the subject of any application for copyright or patent by or on behalf
of the Consultant or its employees or subcontractors.
4.14 NOTICES
All communications relating to the day-to-day activities shall be exchanged between
the Project Manager appointed by Consultant and the Project Coordinator designated by the.
City. The Consultant's Project Manager and the City's Project Coordinator shall be designated
promptly upon commencement of the Services.
All other notices and communications in writing required or permitted hereunder may
be delivered personally to the representatives of the Consultant and the City listed below or
may be mailed by registered mail, postage prepaid (or airmailed if addressed to an address
outside of the city of dispatch).
-13-
Until changed by notice in writing, all such notices and communications shall be
addressed as follows:
TO CONSULTANT:
Jorden, Burt, Berenson & Johnson, LLP
Attn: Marilyn A. Berry Thompson
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007-0805
(202) 965-8100
TO CITY:
Office of The City Manager
Attn: Jose Garcia-Pedrosa, City Manager
1 700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
(305) 673-7010
WITH COPIES TO:
Office of the City Attorney
Attn: Murray H. Oubbin, City Attorney
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
(305) 673-7470
Notices hereunder shall be effective:
If delivered personally, on delivery; if mailed to an address in the city of
dispatch, on the day following the date mailed; and if mailed to an address
outside the city of dispatch on the seventh day following the date mailed.
4.15 ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT
This writing and the Scope of Services embody the entire Agreement and understanding
between the parties hereto, and there are no other agreements and understandings, oral or
written with reference to the subject matter hereof that are not merged herein and superseded
hereby. The Scope of Services are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement to
the extent that the terms and conditions contained in the Scope of Services are consistent with
-14-
the Agreement. To the extent that any term in the Scope of Services is inconsistent with this
Agreement, this Agreement shall prevail.
No alteration, change, or modification of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid
unless amended in writing, signed by both parties hereto, and approved by the Mayor and City
Commission of the City of Miami Beach.
4.16 LIMITATION OF CITY'S LIABILITY
The City desires to enter into this Agreement only if in so doing the City can place a
limit on the City's liability for any cause of action for money damages due to an alleged
breach by the City of this Agreement, so that its liability for any such breach never exceeds
the sum of $10,000.00. Consultant hereby expresses its willingness to enter into this
Agreement with Consultant's recovery from the City for any damage action for breach of
contract to be limited to a maximum amount of $10,000.00.
Accordingly, and notwithstanding any other term or condition of this Agreement,
Consultant hereby agrees that the City shall not be liable to the Consultant for damages in an
amount in excess of $10,000.00, for any action or claim for~reach of contract arising out of
the performance or non-performance of any obligations imposed upon the City by this.
Agreement. Nothing contained in this paragraph or elsewhere in this Agreement is in any way
intended to be a waiver of the limitation placed upon City's liability as set forth in Section
768.28, Florida Statutes.
4.17 VENUE
This Agreement shall be enforceable in Dade County, Florida, and if legal action is
necessary by either party with respect to the enforcement of any or all of the terms or
-15-
. .....
conditions herein, exclusive venue for the enforcement of same shall lie in Dade County,
Florida.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
by their appropriate officials, as of the date first entered above.
FOR CONSULTANT:
J
FOR CITY:
ATTEST:
By: eD V-<..t~ fQA.~
City Clerk
,~)~
Witness
By:
'lfliLJli J 4. QJJ.J )
Witness
F:V. TTOV.CURlPROFSfRV .AC1\JOROANBT.CON
APPROVED AS TO
-- fORM & lANGUAGE
& FOREXECUTlON
M~ Y~1
-16-
;ITY OF MIAMI BEACH
:TY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
lp:\\ci. m iam i-beach. fl. us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. -94 - qq
.
TO:
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City C mission
DATE: February 3,1999
FROM:
Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, EXTENDING THE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
WITH THE FIRM OF JORDEN, BURT, BERENSON, AND JOHNSON LLP,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $81,588 TO PROVIDE GOVERNMENTAL
REPRESENTATION AND CONSULTING SERVICES IN WASHINGTON,
D;C, ON AN ON-GOING BASIS FOR THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 19,
1999 UNTIL FEBRUARY 18,2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution
BACKGROUND:
On November 8, 1996, the City issued Request for Proposals No. 13-96/97, in order to provide
governmental representation and consulting services in Washington, D.C. On December 19, 1996,
a Selection Committee comprised of the City Attorney, Deputy City Manager, and representatives
from the Office of the Mayor and City Commission, the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce, and
a citizen-at-large from the City, convened to review all proposals submitted in response to the RFP,
with ten (10) proposals evaluated for compliance with submission requirements, documentation of
qualifications, and experience and capability to provide the necessary services. At its regular
meeting on January 22, 1997, the Mayor and City Commission accepted the recommendations of
the Selection Committee, finding the firm of Jorden, Burt, Berenson and Johnson LLP to be the top-
ranked proposer. The Administration and City Attorney's Office negotiated the attached
Professional Services Agreement to provide governmental representation and consulting services
in Washington, D.C., said Agreement having an initial two (2) year term, with an option to renew
for an additional year at the City's discretion. This memorandum recommends extending the
Agreement for an additional year from February 19, 1999 through February 18,2000.
DATE
Cl6
2 - 3-~C}
AGENDA ITEM
ANAL YSIS:
The Consultant has performed very satisfactorily over the last two years and has been able to
effectively produce results for the City, by achieving desired legislation and assisting with the
processing of significant grants. Also, the extension increases the amount of the Consultant's
compensation by an additional 4.6%. The increase combines 1.6 percent related to the Consumer
Price Index for 1998, and a 3.0 percent increase for performance. . The total increase of the
compensation totals $3,588.00.
The Fiscal Year 1999 Accomplishments and Outcomes for the City of Miami Beach is attached to
this memorandum which lists examples of the Consultant's accomplishments.
The Scope of Services remains the same during this extension period as delineated in the attached
Professional Services Agreement.
CONCLUSION:
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the attached resolution.
^~ t~_.
SR:CNtC:RM:AQ