EDITORIAL: Don’t rush the public decision on UM deal

By the Coral Gables Gazette editorial board

The University of Miami’s proposed 30-year development agreement did not appear overnight.

That matters.

UM submitted an earlier version of the package in January, held a neighborhood meeting in February and submitted substantially amended materials in June. City staff and university representatives have spent months working through its terms.

So when the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval Wednesday of six related amendments, with Felix Pardo casting the sole recorded dissent, it was not voting on something the university had thrown together at the last minute.

But that is not the same thing as saying the public decision should now move quickly.

In fact, the opposite is true.

What took months for UM and city staff to negotiate deserves enough time for the City Commission — and the public — to understand exactly what those negotiations produced.

This is one of the most consequential development agreements Coral Gables is likely to consider for decades. It would replace UM’s existing 6.8 million-square-foot development ceiling with a floor-area-ratio system allowing roughly 10.5 million square feet. It would increase the enrollment level described by UM and city staff as the current 13,000-student cap to 17,500, expand the Multi-Use Area along Ponce de Leon Boulevard, increase the retail allowance there and permit a hospital of up to 100 beds without a separate conditional-use hearing.

And it would do all of that for 30 years.

There is nothing inherently objectionable about those ambitions. UM is one of Coral Gables’ defining institutions, and its continued success matters enormously to this city. A university planning three decades ahead should seek the flexibility to grow, compete and respond to needs that cannot be predicted today.

UM is doing its job.

Now Coral Gables must do its own.

Pardo’s most important question Wednesday was why a package of this size and complexity could not receive more time before the board was asked to recommend it.

He noted that staff and UM had been working together “for a prolonged amount of time” and asked why the resulting agreement could not have been examined across additional meetings. He said an explanation of those negotiations and how they produced the final recommendations would help the board understand what it was voting on.

This is a distinction between negotiation and scrutiny.

Months spent negotiating between the two parties are not months spent publicly examining the bargain those negotiations produced. The more complicated that bargain is, the stronger the case for allowing commissioners, advisory-board members and residents enough time to understand its implications.

That is particularly important because the city is not simply approving a group of buildings UM intends to construct next year.

It is establishing the rules under which the university can make decisions for decades.

UM has said it has no immediate plans to build to the full 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR), reach 17,500 students or construct a hospital. That is reassuring as a statement of present intention, but present intentions are not what Coral Gables is being asked to approve.

The city is being asked to approve capacity.

And once the larger framework is adopted, some substantial future projects that comply with it may proceed administratively rather than returning for the same level of public review. That is not merely theoretical. Last year, city staff administratively approved a UM campus master-plan amendment reallocating development capacity for roughly 578,000 square feet of student housing and about 1,736 beds, without hearings before Planning and Zoning or the City Commission.

Pardo specifically warned about the implications of granting broader authority now.

That should concentrate everyone’s attention on the decision presently before the Commission.

The time for the most rigorous scrutiny is now because there may be less scrutiny later.

Public participation deserves similar perspective.

There was no groundswell of opposition Wednesday. Nor should the Gazette manufacture one.

The city mailed 2,327 notices for the Planning and Zoning hearing. UM held a February neighborhood meeting, where Bass estimated that 15 to 25 people attended and roughly three spoke.

That matters. Commissioners are entitled to recognize that residents have not mobilized against the agreement.

But sparse opposition is not affirmative public consent, and neither is a substitute for governmental due diligence.

Commissioners are not elected merely to count the people in the chamber. Their responsibility to examine a 30-year agreement exists whether 300 residents appear or three.

Traffic offers a good example of what that examination should look like.

Pardo objected to the Public Works determination that a full traffic study was unnecessary, saying Coral Gables’ existing congestion and infrastructure warranted knowing “the real numbers.”

UM has a legitimate counterargument. The university says it conducts annual traffic counts on adjacent roads and a broader regional traffic study reported to the city every five years. It also cited transportation measures including restrictions on freshman cars, assigned parking and the Hurricane Shuttle.

Those facts should be weighed.

But a history of traffic management does not necessarily answer a different question: what would the additional development capacity authorized by this agreement mean over 30 years?

The Commission should satisfy itself on that question before voting.

The proposed 5.52-acre Lee Lincoln conveyance would formalize public ownership of land that has functioned for years as a de facto park and buffer between UM and surrounding neighborhoods. That has value. But the deed restriction and easement governing the property were not final when Planning and Zoning recommended the agreement. Bass said he was willing to continue working with city officials on the language while making clear that the ultimate terms would require UM’s agreement.

That is exactly the kind of detail that should be settled before approval.

The Commission also should put the economics of the agreement plainly before the public: what Coral Gables receives in land, payments and other benefits; what it gives up in parking resources or revenue; and what additional development value UM receives in exchange.

There is also an appearance issue worth addressing. As the Gazette has reported, Coral Gables First received $25,000 on June 23 through five $5,000 contributions from Manuel Kadre P.A. and four auto dealerships that the Gazette reported as part of Kadre’s business network. Kadre chairs the University of Miami Board of Trustees. No evidence shows those contributions influenced a vote, but the timing creates an appearance the mayor should address publicly before voting on UM’s agreement.

None of that requires hostility toward the university.

Quite the contrary.

A strong university and a strong city should be capable of negotiating a deal that withstands serious examination.

And UM should not be faulted for seeking maximum flexibility. That is what a sophisticated institution planning for an uncertain future should do.

But the City Commission represents the other side of the table.

Its obligation is not simply to ask whether UM’s requests are understandable. It is to decide whether the resulting agreement protects Coral Gables over the same 30 years that it protects the university’s ability to grow.

Planning and Zoning has made its recommendation.

The decision that counts is still ahead.

The Commission does not need to reject this agreement, and it should not delay it merely for the appearance of deliberation. But neither should its two hearings become formalities for a bargain whose important decisions have already been made elsewhere.

Resolve the traffic question. Finalize the park restrictions. Explain exactly which future projects will receive administrative approval and which will return to public hearing. Put the economics of the exchange on the table. Address the appearance created by the Kadre-linked contributions. Make sure commissioners and residents have those answers before the second and final vote.

UM and city staff had months to negotiate a deal intended to last 30 years.

Coral Gables should use the two hearings it has left to make sure it gets those 30 years right.