somebody tell me this is old news

 

 

Marlins winners, ballpark loser?

May 27, 2008 - No ResponsesMy spies in the street say that the "nuts and bolts" agreement between, the city, the county, and the the Marlins is being cobbled together and should be ready for a July ratification. The fate of the new roofed baseball stadium for the Orange Bowl site rests on this agreement and its approval by the commissions involved. I am told by those in the know that of this day (May 26th) the votes are not there to secure passage by the Miami-Dade County Commission. "No one is budging and that is it going in," a source familiar with the story tells me. Meanwhile the Marlins are performing miracles in the ball yard that Joe Robbie built. Winners or losers it does not matter, for now the Fish big shots are looking at strike three on the ballpark issue.

He is a field reporter for the NBC local news station in Miami. He does some of those in depth stories as well. I don't know what to make of this story.

Isn't this guy one of those people who have blown the police ordeal WAY out of proportion. I don't understand what votes need to be passed. There is no more voting besides approval of those who will design the stadium, and I don't see why the county would deny anyone to build the stadium after already giving the Marlins permission to have the stadium built. I don't know who this guy has in the know but it seems to me that I may have better sources and I am just 20 years old, which says a lot about the media in this town. From what I know, we are just waiting on the Braman thing and the Marlins plans to come through to be given to the city and county officials. THAT'S IT! I don't get the voting issue if their won't be any more votes regarding the stadium. I don't even think that the approval for the release of designs goes to voting, I think it's just a review by the board. It seems like this guy has no idea what he is talking about. This article seems "iffy" to me, especially when no sources are named and there is no other agreement to be settled between the Marlins and city and county officials. I really don't understand the article. I have to say it's probably a poor attempt at stupid propaganda.

If I understand correctly...and someone more "in the know" please correct me if i'm wrong...the parties have already agreed to the financing of the stadium when they voted on the BSA. The next vote is to ratify the construction and labor agreements. That is the actual contracts with designers, builders, etc. That's it. I suppose the commission could vote against the agreement brought before them, but they aren't voting on whether or not to build a stadium(they already decided to do that), but to approve the actual contracts related to the building of the stadium. Perhaps voting no on the contracts could effectively delay the construction, but I would hope that they wouldn't do that after previously supporting the project. Afterall they have already spent money(I assume) in the development phases as well as the legal fees fighting Braman.

If I understand correctly...and someone more "in the know" please correct me if i'm wrong...the parties have already agreed to the financing of the stadium when they voted on the BSA. The next vote is to ratify the construction and labor agreements. That is the actual contracts with designers, builders, etc. That's it. I suppose the commission could vote against the agreement brought before them, but they aren't voting on whether or not to build a stadium(they already decided to do that), but to approve the actual contracts related to the building of the stadium. Perhaps voting no on the contracts could effectively delay the construction, but I would hope that they wouldn't do that after previously supporting the project. Afterall they have already spent money(I assume) in the development phases as well as the legal fees fighting Braman.

 

You are 100% correct. With that, I don't see why anyone would vote against the labor agreements because they have a general layout already of how that will work, especially since the Marlins and officials have been sitting down together and discussing closely. And Braman basically has no chance, his case is as ridiculous as the Mets' record... Whoops did I say that?

You guys are missing the whole point. Because of Florida's strict open government laws, all agreements that are entered into by local governments (or all government for that matter) must be adopted in a duly noticed public hearing by a vote of the governing body. Therefore, while the financial aspect of the deal has been approved, the next step is the operating agreements, of which the County and City are parties. The County and City CANNOT agree to the contract without a vote of the governing body at a duly noticed public hearing. That being said, a "NO" vote doesn't mean that the deal is dead, it only means that the agreement, as drafted, is unacceptable and must be revised to be acceptable to all the parties. The only way a "NO" vote would "KILL" the project would be if the matter is brought to a vote, it fails, and the parties then refuse to negotiate a deal -- something that will not happen.

 

Also remember that many of the development approvals need to be completed as well. I know for a fact that the stadium will not need to undergo a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review because they are using the vested rights of the old OB stadium. This process cut development time considerably (something that COULD NOT BE DONE at any other site in South Florida!). Everybody just has to relax and let the powers that be sort this out pursuant to the rules and regulations that are set forth for this kind of thing.

You guys are missing the whole point. Because of Florida's strict open government laws, all agreements that are entered into by local governments (or all government for that matter) must be adopted in a duly noticed public hearing by a vote of the governing body. Therefore, while the financial aspect of the deal has been approved, the next step is the operating agreements, of which the County and City are parties. The County and City CANNOT agree to the contract without a vote of the governing body at a duly noticed public hearing. That being said, a "NO" vote doesn't mean that the deal is dead, it only means that the agreement, as drafted, is unacceptable and must be revised to be acceptable to all the parties. The only way a "NO" vote would "KILL" the project would be if the matter is brought to a vote, it fails, and the parties then refuse to negotiate a deal -- something that will not happen.

 

Also remember that many of the development approvals need to be completed as well. I know for a fact that the stadium will not need to undergo a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review because they are using the vested rights of the old OB stadium. This process cut development time considerably (something that COULD NOT BE DONE at any other site in South Florida!). Everybody just has to relax and let the powers that be sort this out pursuant to the rules and regulations that are set forth for this kind of thing.

 

So what do you make of this talk of not having the 9 votes to pass the agreement? I would assume that the comissioners voting NO would have to state some sort of reason not to vote on the agreement before them so that the agreement could be ammended. What you are saying is that they cannot simply vote NO because know they don't want to spend the money on a ballpark? Or they could vote NO because of that but then would be voting on something entirely different than the issue before them?

Frankly, that name sounds made up.

So what do you make of this talk of not having the 9 votes to pass the agreement? I would assume that the comissioners voting NO would have to state some sort of reason not to vote on the agreement before them so that the agreement could be ammended. What you are saying is that they cannot simply vote NO because know they don't want to spend the money on a ballpark? Or they could vote NO because of that but then would be voting on something entirely different than the issue before them?

 

I know this may sound complex, but you cannot use common-use language and apply it to governmental actions. A local government can only vote on the matter that is before them on the agenda. When the operating agreement is presented to them at a duly noticed public hearing, that is all they are voting on -- the agreement. They are not voting on the overall project or whether or not to proceed. Therefore, when the operating agreement is presented to them, they must vote "YAY" or "NAY" as to whether to approve the agreement as written. Basically, to put it in laymen's terms, all the Commission is voting on is to give the Chair or Mayor the authority to put his name on the dotted line. The negotiations on the part of the County Staff do not constitute the Official Action of the County. An act is not "official" until it is voted upon by the collective body. For example, I have worked as a County Attorney and I'm currently one of the attorneys for a municipality in Miami-Dade County. I can negotiate on behalf of the County or City at either a mediation or at a settlement conference, or even on a contract which is to be ratified. However, all I can offer the other parties as the attorney for the local government is that the agreement/settlement we've drafted in all of our conferences will be presented to the Council/Commission with a recommendation of approval. It will then be up to the Council/Commission to either (a) approve; (b) deny; or © approve with conditions the draft agreement I present to them.

 

Do you see what I mean right now? Perhaps Tester's "sources" are saying that the draft agreement as it is written now, will not have the necessary votes for unconditional ratification. However, that does not mean the deal is dead, it just means that more work has to go into the details of the agreement to satisfy each governing body.

 

Trust me, as someone who saw the first draft of the operating agreement for the original OB baseball stadium (the one that was going to be built next door to the OB), you cannot even begin to imagine the level of detail these agreements have. This is not a two-page document that says County does this, City does this, and Team does this. This is a hundred-plus page document that details every responsibility and every instance of wrong doing and who is responsible for what and when. Negotiations take time, especially when they involve multi-million dollar projects. Everybody needs to take a collective breath and calm down.

So what do you make of this talk of not having the 9 votes to pass the agreement? I would assume that the comissioners voting NO would have to state some sort of reason not to vote on the agreement before them so that the agreement could be ammended. What you are saying is that they cannot simply vote NO because know they don't want to spend the money on a ballpark? Or they could vote NO because of that but then would be voting on something entirely different than the issue before them?

 

I know this may sound complex, but you cannot use common-use language and apply it to governmental actions. A local government can only vote on the matter that is before them on the agenda. When the operating agreement is presented to them at a duly noticed public hearing, that is all they are voting on -- the agreement. They are not voting on the overall project or whether or not to proceed. Therefore, when the operating agreement is presented to them, they must vote "YAY" or "NAY" as to whether to approve the agreement as written. Basically, to put it in laymen's terms, all the Commission is voting on is to give the Chair or Mayor the authority to put his name on the dotted line. The negotiations on the part of the County Staff do not constitute the Official Action of the County. An act is not "official" until it is voted upon by the collective body. For example, I have worked as a County Attorney and I'm currently one of the attorneys for a municipality in Miami-Dade County. I can negotiate on behalf of the County or City at either a mediation or at a settlement conference, or even on a contract which is to be ratified. However, all I can offer the other parties as the attorney for the local government is that the agreement/settlement we've drafted in all of our conferences will be presented to the Council/Commission with a recommendation of approval. It will then be up to the Council/Commission to either (a) approve; (b) deny; or ? approve with conditions the draft agreement I present to them.

 

Do you see what I mean right now? Perhaps Tester's "sources" are saying that the draft agreement as it is written now, will not have the necessary votes for unconditional ratification. However, that does not mean the deal is dead, it just means that more work has to go into the details of the agreement to satisfy each governing body.

 

Trust me, as someone who saw the first draft of the operating agreement for the original OB baseball stadium (the one that was going to be built next door to the OB), you cannot even begin to imagine the level of detail these agreements have. This is not a two-page document that says County does this, City does this, and Team does this. This is a hundred-plus page document that details every responsibility and every instance of wrong doing and who is responsible for what and when. Negotiations take time, especially when they involve multi-million dollar projects. Everybody needs to take a collective breath and calm down.

 

Thanks, that is a little clearer. I guess what has me nervous is that you read comments like this from today's Miami Today article:

 

Commissioners such as Joe Martinez and Katy Sorenson have said openly they do not think the stadium has the nine votes it needs.

Hank Goldberg, dean of Miami sports radio and now of ESPN, said on AM 790 The Ticket Sunday that his sources say if a vote were taken today, the stadium would lose "8 to 5." A preliminary baseball agreement passed 9-3 in February.

 

http://www.miamitodaynews.com/news/080529/story2.shtml

 

So either these commissioners don't know what they are talking about( or what they will be voting on, since they already agreed to this plan), or they are going to vote against it in hopes of killing it. It's still a long time until they vote so guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out in July.

So what do you make of this talk of not having the 9 votes to pass the agreement? I would assume that the comissioners voting NO would have to state some sort of reason not to vote on the agreement before them so that the agreement could be ammended. What you are saying is that they cannot simply vote NO because know they don't want to spend the money on a ballpark? Or they could vote NO because of that but then would be voting on something entirely different than the issue before them?

 

I know this may sound complex, but you cannot use common-use language and apply it to governmental actions. A local government can only vote on the matter that is before them on the agenda. When the operating agreement is presented to them at a duly noticed public hearing, that is all they are voting on -- the agreement. They are not voting on the overall project or whether or not to proceed. Therefore, when the operating agreement is presented to them, they must vote "YAY" or "NAY" as to whether to approve the agreement as written. Basically, to put it in laymen's terms, all the Commission is voting on is to give the Chair or Mayor the authority to put his name on the dotted line. The negotiations on the part of the County Staff do not constitute the Official Action of the County. An act is not "official" until it is voted upon by the collective body. For example, I have worked as a County Attorney and I'm currently one of the attorneys for a municipality in Miami-Dade County. I can negotiate on behalf of the County or City at either a mediation or at a settlement conference, or even on a contract which is to be ratified. However, all I can offer the other parties as the attorney for the local government is that the agreement/settlement we've drafted in all of our conferences will be presented to the Council/Commission with a recommendation of approval. It will then be up to the Council/Commission to either (a) approve; (b) deny; or ? approve with conditions the draft agreement I present to them.

 

Do you see what I mean right now? Perhaps Tester's "sources" are saying that the draft agreement as it is written now, will not have the necessary votes for unconditional ratification. However, that does not mean the deal is dead, it just means that more work has to go into the details of the agreement to satisfy each governing body.

 

Trust me, as someone who saw the first draft of the operating agreement for the original OB baseball stadium (the one that was going to be built next door to the OB), you cannot even begin to imagine the level of detail these agreements have. This is not a two-page document that says County does this, City does this, and Team does this. This is a hundred-plus page document that details every responsibility and every instance of wrong doing and who is responsible for what and when. Negotiations take time, especially when they involve multi-million dollar projects. Everybody needs to take a collective breath and calm down.

Glad to see you contribute your opinion, soFlaFish, especially with your legal background). I persobnally was never confused about the voting so far and the future. It's this 100 plus page document that I'm a little concerned about. That's mainly the construction contract with Hunt I assume. Is there anythinkg in your mind that could de-rail this project, temporarily. As I understand things the financing is 515M. And the Marlins have pledged to cover 20M in cost-overruns. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So, as long as they can sign a contract with Hunt that fits those parameters it's ok, right? If not, and Hunt says it will cost more(just 1 example of issues that could arise), is that a problem? I read where the cost of the steel alone will be 9m higher than expected. And of course fuel and things related(just about everything) have risen quite a bit of late.

Glad to see you contribute your opinion, soFlaFish, especially with your legal background). I persobnally was never confused about the voting so far and the future. It's this 100 plus page document that I'm a little concerned about. That's mainly the construction contract with Hunt I assume. Is there anythinkg in your mind that could de-rail this project, temporarily. As I understand things the financing is 515M. And the Marlins have pledged to cover 20M in cost-overruns. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So, as long as they can sign a contract with Hunt that fits those parameters it's ok, right? If not, and Hunt says it will cost more(just 1 example of issues that could arise), is that a problem? I read where the cost of the steel alone will be 9m higher than expected. And of course fuel and things related(just about everything) have risen quite a bit of late.

 

I'm under the assumption that the contract that needs to be approved is the stadium operating agreement (SOA), which details how the completed stadium is to be run (i.e., how much does each party get, naming rights, concession contracts, advertising rights, seat licensing, etc.). As I said, I've seen the original SOA and construction is not an issue. The SOA is very detailed in setting out who (City, County, Team) does what when it comes to the day-to-day operations of the stadium.

 

This has nothing to do with the Hunt contract and I wouldn't be too worried about the fact that there were some bidders and not others.

So is there any way the failure of an SOA can queer the deal? Or is this just the obligatory posturing with all parties tacitly agreeing that this thing is eventually gonna fly? Somebody needs to step up and put this thing together.

Glad to see you contribute your opinion, soFlaFish, especially with your legal background). I persobnally was never confused about the voting so far and the future. It's this 100 plus page document that I'm a little concerned about. That's mainly the construction contract with Hunt I assume. Is there anythinkg in your mind that could de-rail this project, temporarily. As I understand things the financing is 515M. And the Marlins have pledged to cover 20M in cost-overruns. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So, as long as they can sign a contract with Hunt that fits those parameters it's ok, right? If not, and Hunt says it will cost more(just 1 example of issues that could arise), is that a problem? I read where the cost of the steel alone will be 9m higher than expected. And of course fuel and things related(just about everything) have risen quite a bit of late.

 

I'm under the assumption that the contract that needs to be approved is the stadium operating agreement (SOA), which details how the completed stadium is to be run (i.e., how much does each party get, naming rights, concession contracts, advertising rights, seat licensing, etc.). As I said, I've seen the original SOA and construction is not an issue. The SOA is very detailed in setting out who (City, County, Team) does what when it comes to the day-to-day operations of the stadium.

 

This has nothing to do with the Hunt contract and I wouldn't be too worried about the fact that there were some bidders and not others.

Thanks for your opinion SoFla. Interesting. I had thought the items you mention as being part of the SOA were already settled(naming rights, concession splits, ad rights, etc.) but I guess not.

Construction contract, costs, cost-over-runs, etc. then wouldn't be part of a SOA, if I understand you correctly.

.

.

Still can't get over the concern about the Hunt contract and the lack of bidders. As reported, there were 3 able companies invited to place a bid. 2 of the 3 declined, with 1 making the comment, "we've been down that road before, no thanks". So it's not like there were some bidders, there was only 1 bidder, Hunt. It concerns me when 2 able companies decline to even place a bid on a 500 million dollar stadium. It's not like they're building stadiums right and left.

.

.

.

Also, if you could address the point that I bolded I'd appreciate it, if you know the answer.

You guys are missing the whole point. Because of Florida's strict open government laws, all agreements that are entered into by local governments (or all government for that matter) must be adopted in a duly noticed public hearing by a vote of the governing body. Therefore, while the financial aspect of the deal has been approved, the next step is the operating agreements, of which the County and City are parties. The County and City CANNOT agree to the contract without a vote of the governing body at a duly noticed public hearing. That being said, a "NO" vote doesn't mean that the deal is dead, it only means that the agreement, as drafted, is unacceptable and must be revised to be acceptable to all the parties. The only way a "NO" vote would "KILL" the project would be if the matter is brought to a vote, it fails, and the parties then refuse to negotiate a deal -- something that will not happen.

 

Also remember that many of the development approvals need to be completed as well. I know for a fact that the stadium will not need to undergo a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review because they are using the vested rights of the old OB stadium. This process cut development time considerably (something that COULD NOT BE DONE at any other site in South Florida!). Everybody just has to relax and let the powers that be sort this out pursuant to the rules and regulations that are set forth for this kind of thing.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

What it says to me is that the politicians believe that they are in a position of relative leverage (although many of us did think that the Marlins had nowhere else to go) now that the County/City has "committed" to putting in funds for a stadium, or something similar to the Washington scenario whereby that city's government "obligated" MLB to commit to putting the Expos in Washington (even though they still overpaid) rather than risk that Portland or Charlotte win out in a bid. The key phrase you put down is "...and must be revised to be acceptable to all parties." That would be code for "We want a bigger say on how the facility is used" to pressure Loria to agree to give them a bigger cut of the revenues from all events at the stadium, including everything other than Marlins games. Remember that Loria really needs this stadium in order to get out of Huizenga-land and expand the payroll. So I would not be surprised if they're going to now squeeze him because of those facts.