I. CHAIRS REPORT:
 Mr. Parks asked for approval of the July minutes.   Janet McAliley made the motion to approve the July minutes.  Sandy O’Neil seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.  Mr. Parks asked David Miller, Managing Director of the MRC, to comment on the status of the proposed Miami River drawbridge operational rule amendment.  The Coast Guard proposes to close the bridge for 18 hours a day to tug and tow operations.  The leaves for this bridge are very long.  Due to their construction procedures, the leaves must be constructed in the down position and not the vertical position as every other bridge on the River was constructed.  With construction in the down position, it will restrict navigation in the River. The MRC Economic Development and Commerce subcommittee has held many meetings about this particular issue.  The MRC has asked that they figure out some other solution so that these lengthy closures do not hinder businesses along the River.   The MRC proposed a 6-10 hour closure for the River.  They have proposed that each week the marine industry will give an update about when the best time it would be to have the bridge in the down position.  This will still cause some delay and inconvenience but it will be fairer to the marine industry.  Comments were due to the Coast Guard September 5^th.  Nobody from the Coast Guard was at the meeting to comment but hopefully they will revise the proposed regulations.  The construction company will begin construction on the 1^st of October.   David will call the Coast Guard this week to find out more information about the regulations and any revisions.

                Mr. Parks stated that the Grant and TIF subcommittees are going to be abolished.  Dr. Ernest Martin, chairperson of the Grant subcommittee stated that Brett Bibeau, Assistant Managing Director of the MRC, has a firm grasp of grants and what applicable grants are out there for commission purposes and therefore there was no further need for the subcommittee to exist at this time.  Mr. Parks stated that the TIF subcommittee was also no longer needed at this time.  It was useful in researching TIF’s for the Urban Infill Plan but now that the plan is nearing completion this separate subcommittee will not be needed in the future.  Mr. Parks thanked Ernie for all of his hard work chairing not only the Grant subcommittee but also the TIF subcommittee as well.

II.            Urban Infill Plan Presentation

                Mr. Parks asked Jim Murley, FAU, to speak about the Urban Infill Plan.  Mr. Murley prepared an adoption resolution for the MRC.  He stated the MRC would adopt this as a strategic plan as called for in the enabling act of the MRC.   The strategic plan and the Urban Infill plan are the same document.  Once adopted by the MRC, this plan can be forwarded to both the City and the County so that they can take it under there guidelines and hopefully adopt it as an amendment to their comprehensive land use plans.  This plan can be amended as needed in the future.  We are setting a direction, but the city and state, etc. would have many things to do to for the plan to come to fruition.  Mr. Parks thanked Jim and the Urban Infill subcommittee for all of their hard work.  He then opened the floor to questions regarding the Urban Infill Plan and the resolution.  Mr. Javier Fernandez, Mayor of Miami Designee, asked for clarification regarding the 5^th bullet under “Investment in the River” and wondered what the rationale was for deleting that particular bullet.  This bullet states, “Request the City of Miami, Miami-Dade County and the MRC to undertake a detailed Economic Analysis and Market Study to address appropriate redevelopment and strategies and tools.”  Brett responded that the comparative analysis is in every step thereby making it redundant and the county is included in this implementation step and they are not requiring this subsequent economic analysis.  Javier requested that this bullet be left in.  Janet McAliley asked if someone has a concern like Javier’s, how it ranks in comparison to the comments originally received and incorporated into the plan.  Mr. Parks responded that there were no sticking points brought up at the last executive committee meeting, and only mere suggestions. He said that now we are soliciting general comments and nothing is on the floor for a decision to be made.  Ms. McAliley has a concern with the City requesting the deletion of the last bullet under “Neighborhood Improvements.”  Javier stated that they were not requesting a deletion but were in fact requesting a revision of the language and it was deleted since a suitable revision could not be made that did not convey the wrong message.  Ms. McAliley wanted to know if the staff memorandum were going to be incorporated into the plan.  David Miller responded that these memos were here to show how everyone stands and today is the day to iron all of these issues out.  There was a concern with the maritime land being reserved solely for maritime use and no other opportunity.  The city feels that they do not know the validity of the maritime operation on these properties and we want to do further analysis of what that may or may not be.  Most of the sticking points have to do with this.  David stated that some of the deletions came about because with subsequent review some of the recommendations became redundant.  The City is uncomfortable since they do not have the facts and figures to explain that yes, maritime use is the best use of the land and that is why the study was implemented.  Javier stated that one problem was that some of the language was too strict for the city commission to

pass the plan.  Ms. McAliley stated that she had a question regarding the 6^th bullet under Investment in the River.  She wanted to know if the funds were intended to be used specifically for parks.  Mr. Parks responded that it is our belief that the money has been sitting there for a long time and some of that money is designated specifically for parks along the River.  Capt. John Smith, Bojean Boat Yard, wanted to know if South Florida Water Management District was going to do a flow analysis in Tamiami Dumping Canal as was stated in a resolution passed in June.  Jim Murley stated that this was probably an oversight and it would probably be included under the section “River Environment.”  Jim recommended that this be added to the document.  Phil Everingham stated that he did not feel that this was a plan in the true sense of the word since it was missing an executive summary.  He stated that there are three pages of recommendations and he feels that there should be an executive statement attached spelling out what we are trying to accomplish.  He thinks that our strategic plan should say that we are trying to maintain the unique character of the River while at the same time bring in additional people and resources to the River.  These are the types of things he does not see in the plan that he feels should be stated.  Jim stated that this plan has followed different legislative plans regarding the river corridor.  Due to this fact, this document has incorporated a lot of different information regarding the whole river corridor into one place, and, over time, the plan lost some of its overarching theme.  Phil wants to see added to the executive summary a statement of what we are trying to accomplish which leads to the various recommendations we are making.  He stated that this should be added so that people who do not have time to read the report in its entirety still understand the basics of the report.  Jim said that some of Phil’s concerns would be address by number 2 of the resolution, which states, “the MRC hereby directs the Executive Committee to prepare a detailed timeline for implementation of the Strategic Plan for approval by the MRC.”  He also stated that this is a unique document, a comprehensive plan, and being such, some aspects of it will not follow the format of other studies.  Sallye Jude stated that she was concerned with a delay and if the government does not go along with this plan does that mean that we are going to lose the River to non-water related development along the River.  Jim commented that this issue has always been in the hands of the elected officials but you will be able to make comments throughout the entire economic analysis process to have your voice heard.  Javier stated that he would like to revise his timeline.  He stated that it would be difficult to bring the plan before the City Commission on September 26, 2002 since the plan first must go before the Planning Advisory Board so slippage in his timeline was likely to occur.  Dick Bunnell stated that the business along the River have an agreement that no one sector of the River would try to get rid of any other sector.  Now he is concerned that we have a document that is talking about leaving the maritime industry behind.  Dick said that he was concerned with the economic analysis.  He felt that it was like signing on to something blindly without knowing the outcome of what will happen, he also did not know why Miami-Dade County is being included in the governance section of the memo of 8-30-02 since they are not requiring the economic analysis.  Dick is concerned that the marine industry will not bear up in the economic study.  The marine industry will not provide that much money to the City in taxes but it has a significant contribution in commerce and making Miami the international City it is today.  He feels that we are attacking an industry that has no defense because you cannot move the shallow draft port to somewhere else.  He feels that this will be the death of the marine industry.  Mr. Parks said this is not the death of the shipping industry but he feels that it is inconsistent to only study the marine industry along the river and not any other type of industry.  Ms. O’Neil made a motion to adopt the resolution as it stands.  Mr. Parks clarified that the motion included the amendments Javier suggested as well as Capt. John Smith’s point about the Tamiami Canal.  Mr. Parks directed Capt. John Smith to get together with Brett Bibeau to come up with suitable language for the amendment.  Janet McAliley seconded the motion.  Tom Parker, Antillean, asked about the 7^th bullet on page 87 under “Neighborhood Improvements” and why it was removed.  This bullet states, “request the City of Miami and Miami-Dade County to require that new residential development not displace existing maritime industrial land uses, and should be suitably separated from marine industrial land uses.” Jim said that it can be added but even if it is not there it can be done because it is matter between the City and the County.  Mr. Parks said that he does not think that legally we can say that maritime industry land use can never change along the river, although he does think that this bullet should be left in.  Fran Bohnsack asked if we can change the word require to strive to continue.  Steve Lefton stated that deleting the last section is a mistake.  Javier seconded Steve’s point and stated that we should require buffering between the marine industry and residential uses.  Sandy O’Neil accepted the proposed amendment to her motion.  Mr. Parks stated that the memorandum containing the revisions to the plan is going to be incorporated into the plan.  Brett stated that he feels the 1^st page of the memorandum of revisions to the plan under the “Governance” section answers Dick’s concerns regarding the maritime industry.  Brett told Javier that the 5^th bullet under “Investment in the River” was deleted because they didn’t want to tie existing economic improvements to an economic study.  Javier stated that the 5^th bullet should remain in the plan because the City’s timeline ties in directly to that particular bullet point.  Mr. Parks said that this is turning into a drafting session and he is uncomfortable with it.  Robert Parente voiced his concerns over all of the various amendments.  He stated that he was confused as to what was being amended and therefore he was going to vote no to the Strategic Plan.  Mr. Parks asked if there was any further discussion regarding.  Mr. Parks stated that the motion stands to pass the Strategic Plan with two amendments.  The amendments are to change the wording of the last bullet under “Neighborhood Improvements” on page 87 as well as to add in language about the Tamiami Canal.  Javier made a motion to amend the motion to include keeping the 5^th bullet under “Investment in the River.”  Tom Parker seconded the motion.  The motion passed.  On the motion to approve the motion as amended the vote was 13 for and 2 against.  The motion passed.

                David Miller asked Steve how long it would take to amend the plan.  Steve Lefton said that it would take about 1 business week to get the final version of the plan available on CD.

III.          Status of “One Riverview Square” Setback

                Javier Fernandez reported that the City is looking at options.  The developer has encroached anywhere between 3-5 feet of the setback.  They are still finalizing where the setback was encroached exactly.  They might be trying to re-permit the construction of the seawall or they could ask for a variance.   He doesn’t have an answer for how the City will be rectifying the situation but there are a number of possibilities.  Janet McAliley stated that if they violated their own plan then it is outrageous and the MRC should make sure that they must follow their plan.  Rebuilding the seawall will make the river narrower.  She made a motion to say that we object strongly to re-permitting the construction of the seawall and that they should not grant any variances from the plans approved and recommended by this commission.  The motion was seconded Dr. Susan Markley stated that we add a request to be notified of any impending action taken on the developer.  The motion was passed.

IV.    Discussion of Environmental Protection Agencies, “Watershed Initiative”  Grant Opportunity

                David recommended applying to the Governor to make the River a Watershed Initiative.  Sandy O’Neil made a motion to pass this staff recommendation to apply for this grant.  The motion was seconded.  Sandy asked who we would be competing against, but it is unclear at this time.  David said that the staff would contact the Governor to find out if a different river has been designated for this purpose.  Janet asked what we would do to improve the watershed.  David responded that with the initiative, we would improve water quality and get the latest technology and design standards to improve stormwater systems and hopefully receive some funding to help implement that.  The motion passed unanimously.

IV. COMMITTEE REPORTS