Buying Silence?
City Approves Mysterious Legal Deal With Former
Orange Bowl Project Manager

“I don’t know all the details, that’s my problem … it’s very weird, very confusing.”

College football fans celebrate in the Orange Bowl. Miami opts to settle with Hammes Sports Development of Florida, LLC for breach of contract to manage the Orange Bowl’s renovation. But will the exact details in the case ever be known?

By Ryan Brown

There are many effective ways a city can spend $750,000, especially a city with one of the highest poverty rates in the country.

Unfortunately, the city of Miami has gotten itself into a legal quagmire — and handing this large sum of money over to a company in Wisconsin, for no goods or services in return, may actually be a bargain, some city officials reason.

Item RE.12 06-01877 on the last Miami City Commission meeting agenda, a resolution brought forth by City Attorney Jorge Fernandez, authorizes the director of finance to pay 750,000 taxpayer dollars to settle a lawsuit brought against the city and Joe Arriola by Wisconsin-based Hammes Sports Development, Inc. and Hammes Sports Development of Florida, LLC for breach of contract. In short, Fernandez wants to, as he said during the meeting, “buy the case off.”

Hammes Sports Development, Inc. and Hammes Sports Development of Florida, LLC sued the city of Miami for “compensatory damages in excess of $2 million” for breaking a project management agreement, or PMA, signed last year by the city when Arriola was still city manager, which put Hammes of Florida, LLC in charge of the $150 million Orange Bowl renovation. The city’s reason for breaking the deal: It wanted to hire Hammes, Inc., not its subsidiary, Hammes Sports Development of Florida LLC, and says officials were tricked into a contract with a company that would be less liable for mistakes and mismanagement. Hammes responds that this argument is “belied by the fact that numerous drafts and communications exchanged between the parties included the name of Hammes, LLC.” Hammes also notes in its lawsuit that “the City presumably read the PMA carefully before the City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City’s Risk Management Administrator signed the PMA, so the City must have known the identity of the Hammes entity with whom it had contracted.”

At the Nov. 9 meeting, Commissioner Tomas Regalado was the strongest voice opposing the resolution to settle the Hammes case. “The truth needs to be told; the city needs to know what went on with that contract. [If you settle this case] you won’t be buying closure, you’ll be buying silence,” he said.

When Commissioner Linda Haskins first brought the motion to approve the settlement forward, it died. None of Haskins’ colleagues on the dais seconded her motion.

This was the emotional tipping point for City Attorney Fernandez, who loudly protested that the settlement is a “bitter pill this commission has to swallow.” Fernandez also added that if he were forced to take the case to court, his job as city attorney “is to defend the players involved at all costs. Don’t look to me to do anything but defend them!”

Fernandez also claimed that the city could lose up to $13 million if it went to court against Hammes. This number was refuted by both Commissioner Regalado and Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones.

“That is not a correct figure,” said Regalado.

“The figure you gave is not what I [just] heard,” said Spence-Jones.

In fact, the actual lawsuit against the city reads “in excess of $2 million.”

Eventually, Spence-Jones made a motion to reconsider, and the commission soon passed the resolution. The majority’s opinion was that paying Hammes off would protect the taxpayers, as paying $750,000 was better than paying millions.

“If this case goes to court, there will be public disclosures,” Regalado said to the SunPost, “so they put a gun to the commission’s head and said ‘if you don’t settle, we’ll have to pay $13 million.’”

“We still need to discuss the facts of the case,” said Haskins, whose original motion to approve the resolution included an amendment to hold a public hearing for that purpose.

Has a date or place been set for this public discussion? “No,” Fernandez said, adding that the commissioners are free to disclose whatever information they want.

Unfortunately, the sitting commissioners don’t have, or won’t give, the details. Even Regalado, who was part of the commission when the Hammes deal began, admits confusion. “I don’t know all the details, that’s my problem … it’s very weird, very confusing,” Regalado told the SunPost, adding “[the public discussion idea] just seems like a cover.”

If none of the commissioners know the details, who will get the facts out? “I don’t know … somebody,” Fernandez replied, refusing to discuss any details of the case with the SunPost.

“He’s trying to protect his ass,” said ex-city manager Joe Arriola, referring to the city attorney. “His department made a mistake [not catching that the city was dealing with Hammes LLC] and now that I’m gone, they can sweep it under the rug and settle the case … and he scared the commission into voting for the resolution by saying it would cost $14 million, when the most it could cost is $6 million.”

Arriola told the SunPost he’s outraged by the proposed settlement, insisting that the legal consensus has been that the city of Miami has a strong case, and was obviously tricked by Hammes. “I hope the mayor vetoes the decision [to allow the city to settle],” Arriola said. “This is $750,000 of the people’s money wasted.… They [Hammes] are getting away with murder.”

Comments? E-mail letters@miamisunpost.com.