CONTACT US!
For more information, contact us via email at mrc@rsmas.miami.edu

MIAMI RIVER COMMISSION 
c/o Rosenstiel School
4600 Rickenbacker Cswy,
Miami, Fl. 33149
305-361-4850
Fax: 305-361-4755
  e-mail: mrc@rsmas.miami.edu

This site
prepared and designed by
Mark Sell Communications, Inc. Public Relations

Jim McDonald opened the meeting and all members provided self-introductions.

Miami River Economic Impact Study: Phil Everingham provided a report on the Miami River Economic Impact Study. Phil stated that Dr. Ken Lipner (FlU economist) has completed a drafl report and it is being transcribed. Fran Bohnsack reported that the transcription is completed and it looks good for the shipping industry on the river; however, the hotel, restaurant, commercial fishing and small boating industry data was minimal. Fran and David Miller will go back to these industries and attempt to obtain this additional data for Dr. Lipner. Fran reported that the data on the shipping industry reveals significant increases since the Beacon Council report of 1991 era. Fran did not speculate on when the report will be complete.

Riverside Land Use & DERM Permitting Issues: Case Studies: Jim McDonald opened the discussion. David Miller related the minutes of the last meeting where the group decided to review why marine businesses were having difficulty with construction permits on the river and specifically one case where a land owner (Calvin Kreidt) requested a zoning change for his property from marine industrial to residential. Apparently this zoning change was a result of potential marine industrial buyers that were fearful of purchasing the property because of “perceived” DERM requirements that would prohibit a. profitable new marine business. Commissioner Barreiro was invited and present during the meeting. DERM Director John Renfrow was invited but unable to attend; however, Assistant Director Carlos Espinoza and Susan Markley were in attendance.
      Cleve Jones was concerned that when a marine industrial property was rezoned to residential it would be a permanent loss to the marine industry potential of the river and that marine industry is water dependent for their operations. He stated that residential structures can be built in practically all locations and are not water dependent land uses. Cleve emphasized that the Manatee Protection Plan limits marine industry by historical uses and if this marine industrial property is lost to a residential use it is a pertinent loss to the marine industry on the river. Cleve was also concerned that there is no method of transferring this historical marine industrial use to another property on the river. He believes these decisions will eventually destroy the marine industry on the river.
      Jim McDonald asked the landowners present if the county was user friendly toward development of property along the river for marine uses. Calvin Kreidt responded “No, and it has been no for quite awhile”. Calvin advised the group that residents near the marine industrial facility complained about the 24-hour operation and when they complained the county authorities would visit the facility and issue requirements, complaints would continue and additional requirements would be issued until such time that it became so costly that it was not fiscally viable to operate the facility. Calvin stated that he has hired experts to evaluate his property for marine use and they cannot develop a business plan that is profitable because of the land size and the extensive regulatory requirements including replacing or constructing docks. Calvin stated he could not replace an existing dock because of regulations. Carlos Espinoza responded to this issue and stated that he was unaware of any DERM decisions on this property. Carlos believes the problem is a lack of communications Carlos explained that the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) was developed over several years in a public forum and the requirement for the plan was mandated by the State of Florida.
     Carlos believes there is a lot of misunderstanding between DERM and the marine industry. Susan Markley agrees that the permitting process is cumbersome and there are state and federal requirements that also provide barriers to maritime construction. Susan says it is not correct to say there is a blanket prohibition against river marine industry improvements, but it is a cumbersome process with state and federal requirements in addition to the DERM requirements. Carlos stated DERM is trying to reduce the time required for review of permit requests by adding more personnel in the permitting review section and DERM’s goal is to eventually utilize the internet and electronic processing and tracking of permits. Susan wanted to emphasize that DERM supports water related and water dependent uses on the river.
     Cleve wanted to allow some sort of “banking” of boat slips when these historical slips are lost to residential development. Susan disagreed with the “banking” of boat slips for use on other riverfront property that did not have a historical use as a marina as detailed in the MPP. Fran Bohnsack, who was a member of the MPP Review Committee, asked about the status of the requirement for periodic review of the MPP. She also stated that the MPP restrictions are so incredible that for all practical purposes it is economically impossible for the development of a new boat marina on the river. Susan Markley discussed a lawsuit filed by a group of environmental organizations concerning the lack of manatee protection. Susan feels this will increase the number of restriction on boating and marina development. Phil Everingham asked about the MPP and whether there was a requirement for a yearly review. Susan said it was in there with a bunch of other recommendations. Phil suggested that the annual review should be completed because there may be areas where the plan can be improved. Phil asked Mr. Kreidt if the decision to rezone the property was driven by economics or regulations preventing a marine related facility. Mr. Kreidt explained that his family wanted to sell the property to a marine related business, but regulations limited economic feasibility for a marine business and it became prudent for his family to request rezoning and sell to a residential developer. Phil concurred that the economics of developing a marine business is the basic problem due to the costs of capital outlay and time and expense of obtaining the required permitting makes it less and less attractive to put in a marine facility and more and more attractive to put in a residential hi-rise building. Phil stated that without some sort of incentive the boating marine industry is fighting a losing battle on the river.
      Commissioner Barreiro requested that the discussion be kept in general terms and not address specific issues.
      Steve Owens discussed in general terms his situation on Brickell Key where they have developed the island and are in a dilemma in that the island has no access to the waters of the bay or the river. The master plans of the island development included a marina when the island was zoned years ago. This plan was part and parcel of the development plans and approved by the county. Steve has been attempting to get a marina approved for the island for 10 years and attested to the extremely cumbersome federal, state, and local process necessary to get approval for a simple marina. Steve stated that many items and issues overlap between the agencies. An example is that a prospective marina developer needs to get federal, state and local permits. The federal permit solicits comments from the state and local agencies. If the federal permit is approved it then can go to the state and the comment solicitation process occurs again, if the state permit is granted then it goes to the local agency for a similar review. Steve believes that if all levels of pemiittiug are required then each permitting process should stand on its own. Steve explained it is a very complicated process and the cost of going through the process is exorbitant. Steve asked an interesting question - How many new private interest marinas (other than public marinas) have been permitted and approved in Dade County in the last 4- 5 years? He also commented that the process was not user friendly, because of the shear magnitude of the permitting time and costs. lie believes that a small landowner or developer would simply give up on the process.
       Cleve Jones commented on his situation. For Jones Boatyard’s floating dry docks to work they must have sufficient water depth under them and periodically Jones Boatyard must dredge river sediments out from under the dry docks. Cleve explained that it took a year to gain approval from DERM to dispose of the dredge spoils. During that year period he had to maintain the sediments on his property significantly reducing useable space causing a loss of business opportunities. Carlos Espinoza suggested that people caii him if they feel that DERM is acting slowly on a. permit or any other problem.
      Jim McDonald asked if Phil Everingham had a motion concerning a requirement for periodic review of the MPP. Phil thought this would be good idea. Discussion ensued. The question was asked who would conduct the MPP review and Susan Markley felt it would be a county staff report. Steve Owens stated that any plan is only as good as the enforcement of the plan and enforcement is not handled by DERM. Steve Owens and most of the group felt the waterways enforcement of manatee slow speed zones were minimal The group did not make a formal resolution but concurred that some review of the MPP was necessary.
     Dick Bunnell provided an article from the magazine “Florida Business Insight” profiling David Struhs, Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) In the article, Secretary Struhs stated, “You have a lot of the same people (at DEP) today who were here when the rules were written. What happens is sometimes you become almost unconsciously more concerned with the process than you are with the product. You become more concerned with protecting the rules than you are with the enviromnent.” Dick feels that this is happening with DERM, too. Dick questioned why the Miami River is in an “Aquatic Preserve” when it is an industrial river and the fifth largest port in the state. Dick feels the agency rules and permitting processes are so difficult promotes non-compliance by many who would typically comply with the rules. Disçussion ensued.
      Dick provided a general item concerning the replacement of a hurricane-damaged dock on the river. Dick requested a permit on behalf of the dock owner and a. permit has riot been issued. In essence this waterfront facility has not been able to utilize a large section of their dock since October 15, 1999, significantly reducing their ability to operate a marine business. Carlos Espinoza indicated that there might be other issues such as State Sovereign Lands, etc. and invited Dick Bunnell to talk with him about the specific problem.
     Steve Reoch, a marina manager with extensive maritime experience in south Florida and on the Miami River, read a statement for the committee, DERM and Commissioner Barreiro. Jim McDonald requested Steve’s statement be made part of this meeting summary (see attached). Phil Everingham asked Steve if the missed maritime business opportunities were a result of regulatory issues. Steve answered yes and Calvin Kreidt stated that was the same problem with his family’s property.
     Carlos Espinoza believes that there is a communication problem and that perception by the marine industry is not a reality. Calvin stated that factual events have created the perception that DERM is against the marine industry.
     Commissioner Bamero felt this dialog is important and recommended that this committee continue this dialog and provide specific recommendations to the Miami River Commission for improving this situation. Commissioner Barreiro suggested that the waterfront permitting system is confusing and complicated and he could well understand why small business owners would not want to expend thousands of dollars to formally apply for permits when the “perception” is it will never get approved by DERM.
      Jim McDonald would like a continuation of this discussion at the next meeting and Carlos Espinoza will ensure DERM representation.
      The meeting concluded at 1:40 PM.

    HOME        CALENDARS       ABOUT THE RIVER          ABOUT THE COMMISSION         DREDGING      GREENWAYS     
URBAN INFILL PLANS           STORMWATER RETROFITTING            MINUTES OF MEETINGS      LINKS