2009-27056 ResoRESOLUTION NO. `~ ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING ON SECOND AND FINAL READING, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 163.3220 -163.3243,
FLORIDA STATUTES, ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE "FLORIDA LOCAL
GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT ACT", A SECOND ADDENDUM ("SECOND
ADDENDUM") TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH ("CITY")AND NEW WORLD SYMPHONY, INC. ("NWS"), DATED
JANUARY 5, 2004 (THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT), AS AMENDED BY THAT
CERTAIN FIRST ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, DATED
FEBRUARY 20, 2007 (THE JANUARY 5, 2004 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND
THE FIRSTADDENDUM MAY ALSO COLLECTIVELY BE REFERRED TO HEREIN
AS THE "NWS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT"); SAID SECOND ADDENDUM
PROVIDING, IN PART, THE FOLLOWING MAJOR TERMS: APPROVAL OF THE
FINAL GARAGE BUDGET, IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,085,000; AMENDING THE
DEFINITION OF "GARAGE COSTS" FROM $15,210,135, TO $17,085,000;
AMENDING THE "DESIGN-TO" AND "PRELIMINARY PARK PROJECT"
BUDGETS (RESPECTIVELY) FROM $14,960,000, TO $13,085,000; AND
AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF "GARAGE."
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2004, the City and NWS, entered into a Development Agreement
and Ground Lease Agreement (the Agreements), providing for design, development and construction
of an educational performance and Internet broadcast facility and exterior screen (formally known as
"Soundspace" and now known as the "NWS Campus Expansion Project") and a public parking garage
(the Garage), to be located on the westernmost portion of the 17`" Street surface parking lots, bounded
by 17t" Street to the north; North Lincoln Lane to the south; Drexel Avenue to the east; and
Pennsylvania Avenue to the west (collectively, the NWS Campus Expansion Project and the Garage
may hereinafter be referred to in this Resolution as the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the direction of the City Commission on September 8, 2004, and
consistent with the Planning Board's August 24, 2004, recommendation, the Project site was expanded
east to Washington Avenue to include both surface lots; and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 2007, the City and NWS executed the First Addendum to the
Development Agreement (First Addendum), which further established the Parties' respective
obligations (including processes, scopes for implementation, and estimated costs and budgets) forthe
NWS Campus Expansion Project, the Garage, and also pertaining to certain Additional Improvements,
Infrastructure Improvements, and the design, development and construction of a Park; and
WHEREAS, the First Addendum also established the City's Preliminary Budgets forthe Garage
at $15,210,135, and the Park Project at $14,960,000, and approved a $15 million Grant-in-Aid for the
NWS Campus Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, throughout the course of the Project's development, the City Commission has
consistently taken the position that the Project should not result in a net loss of parking spaces and has
contemplated the Garage designed by Gehry Partners, LLP and containing 500 to 600 parking spaces;
and
WHEREAS, the First Addendum requires that NWS secure the City's approval of the Final
Garage Budget prior to NWS entering into a Guaranteed Maximum Price contract with a contractor
("GMP Contract") to construct the Garage; and
WHEREAS, NWS and Hines (NWS's Project Manager) conducted aproposal/solicitation
process for adesign/build contractor for the Garage, which resulted in KVC Construction, Inc. (KVC) as
the lowest responsive bidder; and
WHEREAS, KVC's proposal to build the Garage (containing 550-562 parking spaces) came in
at $20,789,459, exceeding the Preliminary Garage Budget (as set forth in the First Addendum) by
$5,579,323; and
WHEREAS, on February 11, 2009, the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (the
Committee) discussed KVC's proposal and the costs involved, as well as the status and design of the
Park Project; and
WHEREAS, the Committee requested that NWS and Hines continue working with KVC to
reduce the proposed cost of the Garage; that NWS contact Gehry Partners, LLP to determine if its
proposed design fees for the Park could be reduced (in order to potentially free up funding for the
difference in the Garage cost); and that NWS proceed to the March 3, 2009, Design Review Board
meeting for approval of the Garage design; and
WHEREAS, the Committee also requested that NWS and Hines work with the City to identify
alternative options that might allow for the Park Project to be designed, permitted and constructed in
time for the opening of the NWS Campus Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 10, 2009, the Administration reported back to the Committee, indicating
that the proposed cost of the Garage had been reduced to $16,798,000 (for a difference of $1,588,000
from the Preliminary Garage Budget); and
WHEREAS, NWS stated that Gehry Partners would not lower its fee for design of the Park
Project; NWS and Hines recommended that the City consider an alternative/replacement design
professional for the Park, so that the projected difference in the Garage costs could be moved from the
Design-to Park Project and the Preliminary Park Project Budgets, without any reduction in scope to the
Park Project; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2009, the City Commission approved on First Reading, a Second
Addendum to the NWS Development Agreement, approving a Final Garage Budget, in the amount of
$17,085,000, and aDesign-to and Preliminary Park Project Budget, in the amount of $13,085,000; and
WHEREAS, the Second Addendum approved on First Reading also contained the following
terms: 1) amending the Development Agreement to eliminate the requirement that Gehry Partners, LLP
serve as the Architectural Consultant for the Park Project; 2) retaining the City Commission's final
authority over whether to add certain "architectural treatments" (steel mesh and LED lighting) to the
east facade of the Garage; and 3) providing that, upon final completion of the Garage, any unspent
funds would be transferred to the Park Project; and
WHEREAS, First Reading approval of the Second Addendum also approved the inclusion of all
four (4) proposed garage elevators as part of the Final Garage Budget (as opposed to just including the
cost of two (2) elevators and having NWS be responsible for the cost of the two (2) elevators to be
located in the middle of the Garage); and
WHEREAS, concurrent with the First Reading approval of the Second Addendum, but as a
separate motion (and not as a term of the Second Addendum), Commissioner Weithorn further
requested that the City and NWS enter into an agreement memorializing NWS` obligation to comply
with its required parking (175 spaces) under the City's Zoning Ordinance by either: (1) (upon expiration
of the current Parking Agreement between the City and NWS) demonstrating control of 175 spaces,
within the 420 Lincoln Road Project, or elsewhere within the minimum required distance under the
Code; or (2) if NWS' alternative is to satisfy the parking requirement by using spaces in the proposed
Garage then, as additional consideration, paying the City a stated amount for same; and
WHEREAS, prior to Second and Final Reading of the Second Addendum, the item was again
discussed at the April 14, 2009 Finance Committee; and
WHEREAS, at the Committee meeting, Commissioner Weithorn considered modifying her
motion of March 18, 2009, subject to the City and NWS putting certain milestones into place that would
provide the necessary assurances that the 420 Lincoln Road Project would be built; and, further that,
in the event that the 420 Lincoln, Road Project was not built (and NWS had to use the Garage to
comply with its parking requirement), then NWS would be required to pay the City some monetary
consideration for such use; and
WHEREAS, the Committee also addressed certain concerns that were raised regarding Gehry
Partners, LLP's participation as the architectural consultant on the Park Project, and discussed the
possibility of retaining Gehry to develop the conceptual design for the Park, and then entering into a
separate design-build contract to complete the Park Project; and
WHEREAS, NWS was directed to meet with Gehry Partners, LLP to negotiate a new fee based
on the anticipated reduction in scope for its participation; and
WHEREAS, once proposals were received in connection with the RFO/RFP process initiated by
NWS/Hines for an alternate/replacement architect of the Park Project, a final determination would be
made as to whether or not to proceed with Gehry as the architectural consultant for the Park Project;
and
WHEREAS, the Committee also recommended exploring the possibility of eliminating a floor of
covered parking from the Garage, as well as eliminating one of the two (2) central elevators (as a way
to put more money back into the Park Project); and
WHEREAS, in order to not compromise the critical path schedule for the Garage, it was
recommended addressing these options in the form of deductive alternates that could be implemented
after execution of the GMP Contract; and
WHEREAS, the Committee recommended adopting the Final Garage Budget that was
approved on First Reading of the Second Addendum (on March 18, 2009), to include the above
referenced deductive alternates, as well as the two additive alternates (to add the stainless steel mesh
and LED lighting to the east elevation); and
WHEREAS, during Second and Final Reading of the Second Addendum at the City
Commission Meeting of April 22, 2009, the City Commission approved the Second Addendum, with the
following final terms:
1) Approving the Final Garage Budget, and amending the definition of "Garage Costs," in the
amount of $17,085,000;
2) Amending the definition of "Garage" to mean a public parking garage that will have
approximately 535 (but not less than 520) parking spaces; six (6) stores, including five (5)
stories of covered parking plus roof top parking; two (2) FPL vaults; four (4 elevators); a
pedestrian bridge to the NWS Campus Expansion Building; and ground floor retail along 17tH
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue;
3) Amending the Design-to and Preliminary Park Project Budget from $14,960,000, to
$13,085,000;
4) Giving the City Commission final authority as to certain architectural elements in the Garage,
with the decision to approve or disapprove their inclusion to be made on or before October 15,
2009;
5) Providing that, upon final competition of the Garage, any unspent funds would be included and
transferred to the Park Project; and
WHEREAS, during the 4/22/09 City Commission meeting, the City Commission also directed
NWS to schedule a formal meeting with Gehry Partner's, LLP to discuss whether it would reconsider
remaining involved in the design of the Park Project; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the above direction, the City Commission further recommended
that NWS/Nines delay receipt of the proposals (in connection with the NWS Request for Qualifications
process for an alternate/replacement design professional for the Park Project), until such time that a
determination could be made regarding Gehry's involvement with the Park Project; and
WHEREAS, finally, upon recommendation of the City Manager, the City Commission also
recommended including language in the Second Addendum providing for the City's audit rights with
respect to the Project, and adding language clarifying the Parties' intent pertaining to disbursement of
the Grant Monies (pursuant to the Grant-in-Aid) and providing that (in light of the current economic
downturn) should the City not be able to disburse Grant Monies in accordance with the Grant, due to a
decline in Convention Center RDA revenues, then the Cityand NWS could, among otherthings, agree
to an alternate disbursement schedule.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission
hereby approve, on Second and Final Reading , in accordance with Sections 163.3220 - 163.3243,
Florida Statutes, also referred to as the "Florida Local Government Development Act", a Second
Addendum to the Development Agreement between the City of Miami Beach and New World
Symphony, Inc. (NWS), dated January 5, 2004, (the Development Agreement), as amended by that
certain First Addendum to the Development Agreement, dated February 20, 2007 (the January 5, 2004
Development Agreement and the First Addendum may also collectively be referred to herein as the "
NWS Development Agreement"); said Second Addendum providing, in part, the following majorterms:
approval of the Final Garage Budget, in the amount of $17,085,000; amending the definition of "Garage
Costs" from $15,210,135, to $17,085,000; amending the "Design-to" and "Preliminary Park Project"
Budgets (respectively) from $14,960,000, to $13,085,000; and amending the definition of "Garage."
PASSED and ADOPTED this 22"d Day of April, 2009.
MAT I HERRE B ER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
rd~ ~f ~
ROBERT PARCHER, CITY CLERK
T:WGENDA\2009\April 22\Regular\NWS -Second Addendum Reso -Second Reading2.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
;~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
ity tt a
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A resolution approving on 2nd Reading a 2nd Addendum to the Development Agreement between the City and the New World
Symphony (NWS), approving the final Garage Budget in the amount of $17,085,000, amending the Design-to Park Budget from
$14,960,000 to $13,085,000 and modifying certain provisions in the Development Agreement and the 1S` Addendum pertaining to the
Garage and the Park as noted in the following summary.
Ke Intended Outcome Su orted:
Increase community rating of cultural activities and ensure well maintained facilities.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): While a majority of residents say that the City has the right amount of
cultural activities, approximately 30% of those surveyed say there are too few cultural activities. The NWS Project will significantly
enhance the City's attraction as a cultural destination.
Issue:
Shall the City Commission approve the proposed 2"° Addendum to the Development Agreement between the City of Miami Beach and
Item
Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the Development Agreement between the City and NWS and the 1"Addendum thereto, dated
February 20, 2007, NWS is required to secure the City's approval of the Final Garage Budget prior to NWS entering into a Guaranteed
Maximum Price ("GMP") contract with a contractor to construct the Garage. On March 18, 2009, the City Commission approved the
proposed 2nd Addendum on First Reading, which provides fora Final Garage Budget in the amount of $17,085,000 and aDesign-To
Park Budget in the amount of $13,085,000,(which amounts reflect the inclusion of the two (2) elevators in the middle of the Garage in
the Final Garage Budget, with the difference to be funded from the Park Budget); waiving the "Key Man" requirement for Gehry Partners,
LLC., to design the Park component; authorizing NWS to proceed in selecting an Architect and/or Architectural Consultant forthe Park
project pursuant to a competitive process approved by the City Manager, and approval by the City Commission of the recommended
Architect and/or Architectural Consultant; and, providing for the City Commission to determine at the time of the Park Concept Plan
approval, to decide whether or not to place the architectural treatment on the east facade of the Garage. The Commission also voted to
include a provision recommended by Commissioner Weithorn that would make the $15 Million Grant-in-Aid contingent upon NWS
procuring 175 parking spaces at the time the Grant is payable or escrowing the amount of money equal to 175 spaces at $35,000 per
space or any combination thereof.
At the April 14 Finance Committee Meeting, Commissioner Weithorn agreed to reconsider this motion subject to certain milestones
being put into place that would provide the necessary assurances that the garage to be built by 420 Lincoln Road Associates will in fact
be built and to the extent that it doesn't, that the NWS be required to pay for its parking requirement upon expiration of the Parking
License Agreement. The Committee also addressed certain concerns that were raised regarding elimination of the Key-Man provision
and discussed the possibility of just retaining Gehry to develop the conceptual design for the Park and then entering into a separate
design-build contract to complete the project, similar to the arrangement involving the Pennsylvania Avenue Parking Garage. Howard
Herring said he spoke with Gehry and has indicated it will consider this type of an arrangement. NWS was asked to meet with Gehry to
negotiate a new fee based on this reduction in scope. Gehry has since informed NWS that they are no longer interested in undertaking
the design of the Park. Once proposals are received in connection with the RFQ/RFP process initiated by NWS/Hives, a determination
as to who will design the Park can be made. In addition, the Committee recommended exploring the possibility of eliminating a floor of
covered parking from the Pennsylvania Avenue Garage as well as eliminating one of the two central elevators, as way to put more
money back into the Park Project. The Committee recommended by a vote of 2 to 1 to adopt the Final Garage Budget that was
approved during 15` Reading of the 2"d Addendum on March 18, 2009, and to include the above referenced deductive alternates. The
Administration recommends approval of the 2"d Addendum on 2"d and final reading, so as not to adversely impact the Garage schedule.
Board Recommendation:
Finance & Citywide Projects Committee, Feb 11, Mar 10 and Apr 14, 2009: Recommendation in favor of proposed modifications to
the Development Aoreement and 1st Addendum as noted above.
Financial Information:
Source of Funds: I I Amount
OBPI Total 1,875,000
Account
Approved
Financial Impact Summary: The difference between the Preliminary Garage Budget and the Final Garage Budget in the amount of
$1,875,000 is being proposed to be funded from the FY 2009/10 appropriation for the Park, thereby reducing the overall Park Budget
from $14,960,000 to $13,085,000. No new appropriation of funding is required, just a reallocation from planned future capital
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
f1, /~ ~ JI,, ,~ /~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ AGENDA ITEM f~,
~~~ r ~1/ ~ f-~f v ` DATE
m MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manage SECOND READING
' `-~~PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: April 22, 2009
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS
163.3220 - 163.3243, FLORIDA STATUTES, ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE
"FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT ACT", A SECOND
ADDENDUM ("SECOND ADDENDUM") TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ("CITY") AND THE NEW WORLD
SYMPHONY ("NWS"), DATED JANUARY 5, 2004 (THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT), AS AMENDED BY THAT CERTAIN FIRST ADDENDUM TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, DATED FEBRUARY 20, 2007 (THE FIRST
ADDENDUM) (COLLECTIVELY, THE JANUARY 5, 2004 DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AND THE FIRST ADDENDUM MAY ALSO COLLECTIVELY BE
REFERRED TO AS THE "NWS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT"); SAID SECOND
ADDENDUM PROVIDING FOR THE FOLLOWING: 1) APPROVAL OF THE
FINAL GARAGE BUDGET, IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,085,000; 2) AMENDING
THE DEFINITION OF GARAGE COSTS FROM $15,210,135 TO $17,085,000
(SUBJECT TO FURTHER CONDITIONS AS MORE SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH
IN THE SECOND ADDENDUM); 3) AMENDING THE DESIGN-TO PARK
PROJECT BUDGET FROM $14,960,000, TO $13,085,000; AND, 4) AMENDING
THE DEFINITION OF "GARAGE."
Administration Recommendation
Adopt the Resolution.
Funding
Pursuant to the City's Capital Plan, the balance of funding for the Park component, in the
amount of $13,910,000 is anticipated to be appropriated as part of the FY 2009/10 Capital
Budget, to be funded from City Center Redevelopment Agency TIF. The Administration is
recommending to fund the difference between the Preliminary Garage Budget and the Final
Garage Budget in the amount of $1,875,000 from the FY 2009/10 appropriation for the Park,
thereby reducing the overall Park Budget from $14,960,000 to $13,085,000.
Background
On January 5, 2004, the City of Miami Beach (City) and the New World Symphony (NWS),
entered into a Development Agreement and Ground Lease Agreement (the Agreements),
Commission Memorandum -NWS Second Addendum
Apri122, 2009
Page 2 of 12
providing for design, development and construction of an educational performance and
Internet broadcast facility and exterior screen (formally known as "Soundspace") and a public
parking garage to be located on the westernmost portion of the 17th Street surface parking
lots, bounded by 17th Street to the north; North Lincoln Lane to the south; Drexel Avenue to
the east; and Pennsylvania Avenue to the west. Pursuant to the direction of the City
Commission on September 8, 2004 and consistent with the Planning Board's August 24,
2004 recommendation, the Project site was expanded east to Washington Avenue to
include both surface lots, to be designed as an integrated site, to include the development
of a Park and certain other public improvements.
The Agreements have NWS serving as the Developer of the site and, in this capacity, NWS
enters also into separate agreements with its vendors to plan, design, and construct the
Garage and the Park on the City's behalf. The City is obligated to provide funding for these
improvements upon approval of the scope of work and budgets for each.
On February 20, 2007, the City and NWS executed the First Addendum to the Development
Agreement (First Addendum) that established the City's Preliminary Budgets for the Garage
Project and the Park Project and established a $15 million Grant-in-Aid for the NWS
building. The Preliminary Garage Budget was established as $15,210,135, and the
Preliminary Park Budget was established as $14,960,000.
The First Addendum requires that NWS secure City approval of the Final Garage Budget
prior to NWS entering into a Guaranteed Maximum Price ("GMP") contract with a contractor
to construct the Garage. NWS has advised the City that it is ready to proceed with the
Garage design/build contract.
Architectural Consultant Criteria
The Development Agreement and the First Addendum contain language that names "Gehry
Partners, LLC", as the Architectural Consultant for the Project (including the Garage and the
Park components). A considerable amount of importance was placed on having the entire
project site developed in accordance with the "single design vision of the Architectural
Consultant... ". The City and NWS agreed that a "Gehry" designed Project (including Garage
and Park) was a material and integral part of the development of the site. In deciding that a
"Gehry" design was a material element, the City Commission carefully considered the
potential financial costs attached to making the Architectural Consultant a material
requirement.
The firm "Gehry Partners, LLC" is an architectural company created by Frank O. Gehry. The
services of Mr. Gehry and his firm, Gehry Partners, are in demand throughout the world. Mr.
Gehry is particularly known for the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain; the Millennium
Park in Chicago; the Walt Disney Concert Hall in downtown Los Angeles; the Experience
Music Project in Seattle; the Weisman Art Museum in Minneapolis; the Dancing House in
Prague, Czech Republic; and his private residence in Santa Monica, California. His work is
often sought by owners to distinguish themselves from others, as the buildings that he
designs become tourist attractions in and of themselves.
The projects designed by Gehry Partners are considered to be world class facilities. This
type of distinction, which carefully and uniquely combines art with function is, by its nature,
higher in expense than a typical municipal project. The firm is able to command a premium
in fees, and the projects that are designed by them are high end products with a
commensurate premium in the cost of construction. In approving the First Addendum, the
Commission Memorandum -NWS Second Addendum
Apri122, 2009
Page 3 of 12
City Commission considered the premium that went with making a Gehry design a material
element, and determined that the distinctive value of the end product, a world class design,
was worth the premium cost of design and construction.
Total Project Funding
The allocated funding for the NWS Project totals approximately $51 million (not inclusive of
land value) and comes from City Center RDA funds. At the time that the First Addendum
was approved, the revenue projections by the City staff indicated that this amount could be
contractually allocated in accordance with a specified schedule. It should be noted that the
revenue projections were developed prior to the legislative changes to property taxes
imposed by the State Legislature in 2007 and the dramatic erosion of property values and
corresponding reduction in RDA funds available for this year, next year and the foreseeable
future. Both of these events have greatly affected the projected revenue for the City Center
RDA and consequently have required the City to reevaluate and reprioritize the various
projects "in the cue."
Given the parameters of projected available funding at the time, the City Commission
generally considered the Garage, the Park, and the Additional Improvements of primary
importance. The Grant-in-Aid provided for in the First Addendum was an articulated need by
NWS and their original request was for aGrant-in-Aid of $30 million. In reviewing and
considering this request, the City placed the various components into priority order and
spread the funding among them -with the Garage, Park, and Additional Improvements
having highest priority for the City since the Development Agreement and First Addendum
assign these responsibilities to the City. From the City's perspective, this meant that the
Grant-in-Aid was largely backed into as the amount remaining after the Garage, Park, and
Additional Improvements were funded.
All parties recognized the significance of developing both a "world class" Park and "world
class" Garage to complement the significant addition of the NWS Campus Expansion to the
City Center landscape. That is why the budget for both the Park and the Garage were
significantly increased at the time of the First Addendum. The City's desire was clear at the
time: RDA funds should provide for "public" amenities which would complement the "private"
investment and make the entire improvement an extraordinary facility attracting visitors from
around the world. While important, the Grant-in-Aid was determined after the budgets for the
public amenities were established. These budgets, established in concert with the NWS and
based on information provided by the NWS were anticipated, at the time, to be sufficient to
meet the architectural and aesthetic requirements of the program.
The funding approved by the City is as follows:
Gara e FY 09 $15,210,135
Additional Im rovements FY 08 $6,400,000
Park (Desi n FY 09/Const FY 2010) $14,960,000
Grant in Aid FY 2010 $15,000,000
Total Fundin Commitment $51,570,135
As noted above, the funding commitments for the Garage, the Additional Improvements, and
the design for the Park have already been appropriated by the City Commission.
Commission Memorandum -NWS Second Addendum
Apri122, 2009
Page 4 of 12
The funding commitment for the construction of the Park and for the Grant-in-Aid will be due
as of October 1, 2009.
The Garage Project
From the inception of the Project, the Garage has been an integral component. The Project
site, including the Park and the Garage, was previously two (2) City surface parking lots that
contained just over 500 parking spaces. Throughout the course of the Project's
development, the City Commission has taken the position that the Project should not result
in a net loss of parking spaces. For this reason, the Project has consistently contemplated a
Gehry designed Garage containing 500 to 600 parking spaces.
The First Addendum increased the total Preliminary Garage Budget from approximately $7
million, to $15,210,135, to fund a projected 608 spaces (see attached proposed budget from
NWS/Hines as Attachment 5), and including the City Code required retail component on the
ground floor. The Preliminary Garage Budget provided by NWS and approved by the City
Commission in the First Addendum was generally divided as follows:
Total Architectural/En ineerin Cost $1,511,000
Total Construction Cost $12,106,000
Total Site Cost $650,680
Total Tax/Insurance Cost $215,608
Total Owner Ex enses $10,000
Total General/Admin Costs $568,755
Total Contin enc Cost $148,092
Total Project Cost $15,210,135
The First Addendum anticipated a potential change between the Preliminary Garage Budget
and the Final Garage Budget, and therefore requires NWS to bring back its Final Garage
Budget, for consideration and potential approval by the City Commission. As of March 10,
2009, NWS advised the City that it is prepared to present a Final Garage Budget.
Since execution of the First Addendum on February 20, 2007, NWS has proceeded with
both the construction of the NWS building (now known as the "NWS Campus Expansion")
as well as the conceptual design for the Garage with Gehry Partners. The recommended
and approved process (in large part to help limit the design fees) was to have Gehry
Partners do the conceptual design and obtain Design Review Board approval. Currently, the
conceptual design has been bid to design/build contractors, and the selected contractor and
its design professional will be responsible for finishing the design and engineering in
accordance with the DRB approved conceptual plans, and then construct the Garage. The
selected design/build contractor is contemplated to be asub-contractor of the NWS Campus
Expansion, general contractor, Facchina McCaughan, LLC.
Schedule
Successful completion of the Garage is on the same Critical Path as for completion of the
NWS Campus Expansion building, for two reasons: (1) the electrical power vaults for both
the Campus Expansion building and the Garage are located within the Garage. At this point,
permanent power cannot be provided to the Campus Expansion building without the Garage
commencing construction. In order to meet the Critical Path for the Campus Expansion
building, engineering for the Garage has commenced as of the beginning of April 2009; and
Commission Memorandum -NWS Second Addendum
Apri122, 2009
Page 5 of 12
(2) Pursuant to Resolution No. 2007-26704, the City Commission approved a temporary
License Agreement for NWS to count 175 parking spaces within the proposed Garage to
meet its City Code required parking for a period of five (5) years from the date of Certificate
of Occupancy (C.O.) of the Campus Expansion building. This requires that the Garage be
constructed and open in order for a C.O. to be granted on the Campus Expansion building.
In 2006, the City Commission approved athree-party Agreement between the City, NWS,
and 420 Lincoln Road Associates, known as a "Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in Lieu
of Unity of Title (aka "Parking Covenant")". The purpose of this Agreement, which is a
recorded document, was to allow NWS to locate its 175 Code required parking spaces
within a mixed use project owned by 420 Lincoln Road Associates. This project has been
delayed in its implementation and at the time that the temporary License Agreement noted
above was approved, it was contemplated by NWS that 420 Lincoln Road Associates would
construct the mixed use project within 5 years of TCO/CO of its Campus Expansion building.
To place these two Agreements into context, NWS has provided to meet its Code required
parking through the Parking Covenant which contemplates locating these 175 spaces in a
mixed use project to be built by 420 Lincoln Road Associates. The temporary License
Agreement essentially provides a temporary location for the Code required parking until
approximately 2016 for the mixed use project to be constructed and opened.
If this mixed use project by 420 Lincoln Road Associates is not constructed and open after
five (5) years of NWS obtaining a CO on its Campus Expansion building, the NWS would
need to provide for its 175 Code-required parking spaces at an alternate location.
As soon as approval from the City Commission is obtained, NWS will complete the contract
with the design/build contractor and finalize the design and initiate the permitting and
construction of the site. Initial design/engineering commenced after First Reading of the
Second Addendum was approved on March 18th. If this schedule is met, then completion of
the Garage is projected to be August/September 2010.
The Park Project
The planning effort for the Park has not yet officially commenced. Up until October 2008,
NWS was still in negotiations with Gehry Partners regarding the proposed design services
and fees for this component. The Preliminary Park Budget in the First Addendum is
$14,960,000. At the February Finance Committee, the NWS was asked to approach Gehry
Partners, through a personal appeal by Michael Tilson Thomas, in an effort to persuade him
to provide the design services for the park project at a more reasonable fee. The NWS has
informed the City that they were unsuccessful in this effort and as a result, the design fees
for the park project remain in excess of $4.5 million dollars if the City wishes to use Gehry
Partners as the design professionals. Furthermore, at the March 10, 2009 Finance and
Citywide Projects Committee meeting, representatives from NWS proposed that the City
consider an alternate design professional for the Park. After discussing this issue with the
representatives from NWS, the Committee ended up agreeing with NWS that this should be
explored. Based on this discussion, NWS has begun preliminary efforts to identify a suitable
alternate design team.
February/March 2009
The NWS/Hines development team has selected a low bidder for the Garage. The low
bidder for the Garage is a local company doing business as KVC Construction (KVC). The
principals of KVC are Miami Beach residents and, although not related, currently have a
Commission Memorandum -NWS Second Addendum
Apri122, 2009
Page 6 of 12
contract with the City as the Construction Manager at Risk for the Scott Rakow Youth Center
project.
As of the February 11, 2009 FCWPC Meeting, the cost projected for the proposed Garage
was as follows:
Total Architectural/En ineerin Cost $2,255,612
Total Construction Cost $16,235,372
Total Site Cost Included in Construction Cost
Total Tax/Insurance Cost $331,500
Total Owner Ex enses $0
Total General/Admin Costs $977,000
Total Contin enc Cost $989,974
Total Pro'ect Cost $20,789,458
The proposed Garage costs as of March 11, 2009 by NWS/Nines are:
Total Architectural/En ineerin Cost $2,155,612
Total Construction Cost $13,132,888
Total Site Cost Included in Construction Cost
Total Tax/Insurance Cost $181,500
Total Owner Ex enses $0
Total General/Admin Costs $578,000
Total Contin enc Cost $750,000
Total Pro'ect Cost $16,798,000
The proposed Garage costs following the March 18, 2009 City Commission Meeting are:
Total Architectural/En ineerin Cost $2,155,612
Total Construction Cost $13,419,906
Total Site Cost Included in Construction Cost
Total Tax/Insurance Cost $181,500
Total Owner Ex enses $0
Total General/Admin Costs $578,000
Total Contin enc Cost $750,000
Total Pro'ect Cost $17,085,018
At the current proposed total cost of $17,085,018, the projected amount over the
contractually allocated $15,210,135 is $1,874,883 (for purposes of the 2~d Addendum, this
amount has been rounded up to $1,875,000). KVC's design/build proposal projects
approximately 535+ parking spaces, although the final count will not be known until the full
engineering and permitting effort is completed.
The proposed Garage received approval by the DRB at the March 3, 2009 meeting. The
DRB approval calls for the stainless steel mesh on 3 sides of the structure with the proposed
LED lights. The DRB Order does not include the facade treatment on the eastern elevation,
but does allow for it if funds become available to add the treatment at a future date.
Commission Memorandum -NWS Second Addendum
Apri122, 2009
Page 7 of 12
A Second Addendum to the Development Agreement was negotiated between NWS and
City staff. The main purposes of the Second Addendum is to accept the Final Garage
Budget and reallocate funds from the Preliminary Park Budget to the Garage Budget; amend
the Preliminary Park Budget; remove the "Gehry Keyman" clause from the Park Project; and
amend the definition of the Garage Project.
The Second Addendum was presented to the City Commission for its consideration at First
Reading at its March 18, 2009 meeting.
March 18, 2009 City Commission Meeting
At the March 18, 2009 City Commission Meeting, the Commission approved the following
Motions:
Motion #1:
Motion made by Commissioner Weithorn to address the parking issue; seconded by
Commissioner Wolfson. Commission Weithorn stated that she has a very specific
motion and that is she wants the City's $15 million Grant-in-Aid to be contingent
upon either a) procuring the 175 spaces in time to give the grant-in-aid orb) escrow
the amount of money equal to 175 spaces at $35,000 a space or any combination
thereof.
Motion #2:
Motion made by Vice-Mayor Tobin to approve the Second Addendum of the
Development Agreement and moving $1.6 million from the park, add $275,000 to
capture the cost of the two elevators, which means that an estimated $1.875 million
is being removed from the Park and added to the Garage with the cost of the two
elevators coming from the Park Budget and if any money is left over should go to the
Park and the points raised by Mr. Goldsmith in his email will be negotiated at the
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC) meeting between the first and
second reading.
In approving the Second Addendum, the action also confirmed that NWS could proceed with
the initial design and engineering of the Garage with KVC. This is necessary in order to
maintain the current critical path of the project. A copy of the Second Addendum, as
amended by the above motions, and including amendments in affiliated agreements, is
attached as Attachment 1.
During the discussion, the City Commission considered a number of recommendations
brought forth by City resident William Goldsmith to be included in the Addendum. NWS has
indicated that, with the exception of the recommendation regarding the 175 Code-required
spaces, it had already addressed the issues raised that are within its control. For this
reason, these items do not appear in the proposed Addendum.
NWS has advised the City, in a letter dated April 9, 2009, that the provisions contained in
Motion 1 above are unacceptable and NWS will not agree to the proposed amendments. A
copy of this letter is attached as Attachment 3. The primary reason for objection by NWS on
this issue is that the City and NWS have already entered into Agreements that provide for its
Code required parking, specifically the Parking Covenant and the temporary License
Agreement noted above. The position of NWS is that these Agreements provide them a
specific time period for performance post construction and occupancy of the Campus
Expansion building; and not only has this time period not lapsed, it has, arguably, not yet
begun.
Commission Memorandum -NWS Second Addendum
Apri122, 2009
Page 8 of 12
As noted above, the current set of Agreements, specifically the Parking Covenant and the
temporary License Agreement, provide for the 175 Code required parking spaces to be
located in a proposed mixed use project to be constructed by 420 Lincoln Road Associates.
The temporary License Agreement allows for these Code required parking spaces to be
located within the City's proposed Garage Project for five (5) years from the time of CO for
the Campus Expansion building. The five (5) year time period temporary License Agreement
was provided in order to allow 420 Lincoln Road Associates additional time to construct and
open the proposed mixed use project.
Staff has spoken with representatives of NWS regarding their position on the Second
Addendum. NWS advised staff that their position on Second Reading is consistent with their
position on First Reading, in that NWS is agreeable to the Second Addendum originally
submitted for First Reading with the amendment of the City funding the two elevators on the
east side and center of the Garage.
Proposed Park Status and Potential Alternatives
As noted above, NWS advised the City that Michael Tilson Thomas discussed the proposed
Park fees with Frank Gehry over the February 28/March 1, 2009 weekend. NWS advised the
City that Gehry Partners will not lower their requested fees.
NWS/Nines is proposing that the City consider an alternative design professional for the
Park, such as a well-known Landscape Architect. NWS/Nines has advised the City that it
has had initial discussions with several firms since the February 11, 2009 FCWPC meeting
and believes that the design costs for the park can be substantially reduced from the Gehry
Partners proposed fee.
Presently, NWS/Hives is proposing to the City that if the design professional is changed,
then the projected shortage to the Garage can be moved from the Park project without any
reduction in scope to the proposed Park. NWS/Nines has advised the City that the current
Park construction budget can be increased under the NWS proposal described above. The
previous Park budget, as of February 11, 2009 was:
Total Architectural/En ineerin Cost $4,662,800
Total Construction Cost $8,628,600
Total Tax/Insurance Cost $300,000
Total Owner Ex enses $300,000
Total General/Admin Costs $878,600
Total Contin enc Cost $190,000
Total Project Cost $14,960,000
Commission Memorandum -NWS Second Addendum
Apri122, 2009
Page 9 of 12
The proposed Park Budget by NWS/Nines as of the March 18, 2009 Commission Meeting is
summarized below fora 535+ space Garage, if the Park design professional is changed:
Total Architectural/En ineerin Cost $1,500,000
Total Construction Cost $10,344,000
Total Tax/Insurance Cost $300,000
Total Owner Ex enses 0
Total General/Admin Costs $578,000
Total Contin enc Cost $650,000
Total Project Cost $13,372,000
The proposed Park Budget as amended by Motion 2 of the City Commission at the March
18, 2009 meeting is:
Total Architectural/En ineerin Cost $1,500,000
Total Construction Cost $10,057,000
Total Tax/Insurance Cost $300,000
Total Owner Ex enses $0
Total General/Admin Costs $578,000
Total Contin enc Cost $650,000
Total Project Cost $13,085,000
Under this proposal from NWS/Nines, the NWS would meet its commitments to provide a
500 to 600 space parking garage and a high end urban park to compliment the total campus
site and remain within the overall contractual amounts for the Project. It does require the City
Commission to approve the transfer of dollars between budgets ($1,875,000) within the
current NWS Development Agreement, as well as removing the Gehry "key man"
requirement for the Park design. This proposal would also increase the construction budget
for the Park by approximately $1.5 million above the current allocation.
Subsequent to the Commission meeting, and in an effort to maintain a schedule that would
have the Park completed in early 2011, NWS/Nines, in conjunction with the City, issued a
Request for Qualifications for a potential new design professional for the Park (Attachment
4). Should the City Commission determine that it will retain Gehry Partners as the
architectural consultant for the Park, then this RFQ can be withdrawn. However, the
schedule is constrained at this point and the loss of three weeks was deemed critical if the
Commission determines it would like to pursue an alternative design professional.
If an alternative design professional is sought, then the process, which contains two main
steps, is intended to proceed as follows:
1. The RFQ will be received in early May 2009. The RFQ submissions will be reviewed
by representatives of NWS and the City and a shortlist will be selected to move
forward to the next step of submitting a formal Request for Proposal. The shortlist is
currently scheduled to be brought to the City Commission at the May 13, 2009
Commission Meeting for approval.
Commission Memorandum -NWS Second Addendum
Apri122, 2009
Page 10 of 12
2. The short-listed firms would be invited to submit a formal Request for Proposal. This
proposal would include a refined concept for the Park, as well as a proposed fee for
service and projected construction budgets. NWS/Nines, with significant input from
City staff, would negotiate with the shortlist firms once the RFPs are received in
order to get to a lowest and best proposer. The City Commission, at its discretion,
will have the opportunity to select the best proposal from the shortlist firms once
defined. This process is currently scheduled to be brought to the City Commission at
the July 15, 2009 Commission Meeting for a final selection of the alternative design
professional.
Park Schedule
The schedule for the Park is largely dependent upon how the City elects to proceed at this
point. If Gehry Partners had been maintained as the Park Project consultant, then the
current Development Agreement allowed for a Planning and Design phase of 18 months,
followed by a construction period of 12 months. Based on this schedule, the opening of the
Park would have been 30 months from the time that Park notice to proceed was issued to
Gehry Partners. If this were to have been done on May 1, 2009, then the proposed opening
date would have been around November 2011.
If a decision is made to proceed with an alternative design professional to Gehry Partners,
then the timeline would be directly affected by the amount of time needed for the selection
process. Assuming that an alternative design professional can be selected by July 15`h, in
accordance with the process outlined above, then Planning and Design efforts may
commence by August 1, 2009. The projected Planning and Design period is 12 months,
followed by a 12 month construction period. Under this scenario, assuming authorization to
proceed is granted by August 1, 2009, the projected opening date for the Park would be
September 2011.
In any event, depending upon the quality of the design professional, it may be possible to
shorten both the design and construction timelines; however, staff is not prepared to adjust
these timelines until a design professional is selected.
April 14, 2009 Finance and Citywide Projects Committee Meeting Update
During the April 14, 2009, Finance and Citywide Projects Committee Meeting, Neisen
Kasdin, speaking on behalf of Ambassador Paul Cejas, confirmed that 420 Lincoln Road
Associates is in fact proceeding with construction of a parking garage facility, which would
satisfy NWS' parking requirements in accordance with the Parking Covenant between
NWS, 420 Lincoln Road Associates and the City. Plans for the garage are scheduled to be
reviewed by the Planning Board in May and by the Design Review Board in June. In
consideration of this announcement, NWS asked the Committee to reconsider
Commissioner Weithorn's motion made during the March 18 Commission Meeting to
withhold funds from the Grant-in-Aid subject to satisfaction of its parking requirements.
Commissioner Weithorn agreed to reconsiderthis motion subject to certain milestones being
put into place that would provide the necessary assurances that the garage will be built and
to the extent that it doesn't, that the NWS be required to payforits parking requirement upon
expiration of the Parking License Agreement.
Commission Memorandum -NWS Second Addendum
Apri122, 2009
Page 11 of 12
The Committee also addressed certain concerns that were raised regarding elimination of
the Key-Man provision and discussed the possibility of retaining Gehry to develop the
conceptual design for the Park and then entering into a separate design-build contract to
complete the project, similar to the arrangement involving the Pennsylvania Avenue Parking
Garage. Mr. Howard Herring, NWS Executive Director, stated to the Finance Committee that
he spoke with Gehry Partners and that Gehry has indicated it will consider this type of an
arrangement. Consequently, NWS was asked to meet with Gehry to negotiate a new fee
based on this reduction in scope. Once proposals are received in connection with the RFO
process in May, a determination would be made as to whether to proceed with Gehry or with
the RFP process for a new design consultant for the Park. In addition, the Committee
recommended exploring the possibility of eliminating a floor of covered parking from
Pennsylvania Avenue Garage as well as eliminating one of the two central elevators, as a
way to put more money back into the Park Project. In order not to compromise the critical
path schedule for the Garage, it was recommended to address these options in the form of
deductive alternates that could be implemented after execution of the GMP contract. The
additive alternate included in the First Reading of the proposed Addendum, potentially
adding the stainless steel mesh and LED lighting on the east elevation, remains a part of the
GMP Contract.
Lastly, the Committee recommended by a vote of 2 to 1 to adopt the Final Garage Budget
that was approved during First Reading of the Second Addendum on March 18, 2009, and
to include the above referenced options involving elimination of one level of parking and an
elevator as deductive alternates ,the amounts of which are to be determined.
On April 17, 2009, the City received correspondence from Howard Herring advising that
Gehry Partners has chosen not to undertake the design of the Park, but would be willing to
volunteer its time to review plans prepared by a design consultant selected through NWS's
RFQ/RFP process, and make recommendations to ensure that the Park is designed as
close as possible to Gerhy's original vision within the limitations of the Budget. A copy of this
correspondence is included as Attachment 6 to this Memorandum.
Proposed Second Addendum to the Development Agreement
In summary, the proposed Second Addendum has been revised to reflect the
recommendations made during First Reading on March 18, 2009, as well as during the
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee Meeting on April 14, 2009, which specifically
provide for
1) A Final Garage Budget in the amount of $17,085,000, with two deductive
alternates, the amounts of which are to be determined, involving elimination of
one floor of covered parking and the other to remove one of two elevators in the
middle of the Garage; and two additive alternates to add the stainless steel mesh
and LED lighting to the east elevation;
2) A Design-To Park Budget in the amount of $13,085,000;
3) Defines "Garage" as having approximately 535 parking spaces, but no less than
520 parking spaces;
4) Notwithstanding the approval of the Final Garage Budget, the City Commission
shall retain the authority and final approval over whether to a) reduce the size of
the Garage by removing one floor of covered parking and/or b) removing one of
Commission Memorandum -NWS Second Addendum
Apri122, 2009
Page 12 of 12
the two elevators in the middle of the Garage which are intended to primarily
service the NWS's patrons and guests; and/or c) adding the stainless steel mesh
and LED lighting to the east elevation, once the Park Budget is better defined;
and
5) The balance of funding to be transferred from the Design-to Park Budget to the
Final Garage Budget, in the amount of $1,875,000, shall not occur prior to
October 1, 2009; and any amounts remaining unspent upon final completion of
the Garage Project shall be transferred to the Park Project to be utilized at the
sole discretion of the City Commission.
Conclusion
As noted, further delay in approval of the Second Addendum would be detrimental to the
critical path for the Garage, since it would not only delay construction of the new electrical
vaults, but will also likely prevent NWS from being able to meet its parking requirement in
time for completion of the Campus Expansion, which in turn would delay its CO.
JMG:TH:KO~
Attachments
T:\AGENDA\2009Wpril 22\Regular\New World Symphony 2nd Addendum MEMO.doc
Second Reading 4-22-09
List of Exhibits
Exhibit "A" Legal Description of Land
Exhibit "B" Article 1 -Definitions from Original Development Agreement
Exhibit "C" Legal Description of Garage Property
Exhibit "D" Procedure for Obtaining Park Project Approval
Second Reading 4-22-09
Exhibit "A"
Legal Description of Land
(To be submitted)
Second Reading 4-22-09
Exhibit "B"
Article 1 -Definition from Original Development Agreement
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
All capitalized terms used herein and not specifically defined herein shall have the
meanings ascribed thereto in the "Ground Lease" (defined below). For all purposes of this
Agreement the terms defined in this Article 1 shall have the following meanings and the other
provisions of this Article 1 shall apply:
"Accounting Principles" shall have the meaning provided in the Ground Lease.
"Adjacent Property" means the parcel of land owned by Owner immediately adjacent to
the Land, which shall be legally described in Exhibit B, and attached hereto and made a part
hereof, to be identified upon approval of the Project Concept Plan by the Mayor and City
Commission.
"Architect" means a person or firm licensed to operate as an architect in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.
"Architectural Consultant" shall mean the firm of Gehry Partners, LLP.
"Building Permit" means a "Full Building Permit" as such term is defined in the Land
Development Regulations, issued by the Building Department of the City, which allows building
or structures to be erected, constructed, altered, moved, converted, extended, enlarged, or used,
for any purpose, in conformity with applicable codes and ordinances.
"Building Equipment" has the meaning provided in the Ground Lease.
"Business Day" or "business day" means a day other than Saturday, Sunday or a day on
which banking institutions in the State of Florida are authorized or obligated by law or executive
order to be closed.
"Certificate of Occupancy" means the document by that name that is required prior to the
occupancy of any premises by Section 307.1 of the South Florida Building Code as amended
from time to time; provided, however, that such definition shall not apply to a temporary
certificate of occupancy if issued only for a period not to exceed twelve (12) months prior to the
Project receiving a final Certificate of Occupancy. Such term shall include both a temporary
10
Second Reading 4-22-09
certificate of occupancy ("TCO") and a final certificate of occupancy ("Final CO"), as the
context may require.
"City" means the City of Miami Beach, Florida, a municipal corporation duly organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Florida.
"City Code" means the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, as amended through
the date hereof.
"City Commission" means the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach,
Florida the governing body of the City, or any successor commission, board or body in which the
general legislative power of the City shall be vested.
"City Manager" means the chief administrative officer of the City, or his or her designee.
"City Hall Parking Expansion" means the expansion by Owner, at its sole cost and
expense, of the existing City-owned parking facility located behind City Hall ("Expansion
Property") from its current parking capacity to approximately 450-600 parking spaces.
"Commence Construction" or "Commencement of Construction" means the
commencement of major work (such as pilings or foundations) for construction of the
Improvements in accordance with the Plans and Specifications to be performed in connection
with Construction of the Project. Promptly after Commencement of Construction, Owner and
Developer shall enter into an agreement acknowledging the date of Commencement of
Construction. Any and all preliminary site work (including, without limitation, any
environmental remediation and ancillary demolition) shall not be deemed to be Commencement
of Construction.
"Commencement Date" shall mean the date this Agreement and the Ground Lease
commence, which shall be the date of execution of this Agreement, and upon satisfaction of the
requirements of Section 26.18 herein.
"Completion Deadline" means the date that is ten (10) years from the Commencement
Date.
"Comprehensive Plan" means the Comprehensive Plan which the City adopted and
implemented for the redevelopment and continuing development of the City pursuant to Chapter
163, Part II, Florida Statutes.
"Concurrency Requirements" has the meaning provided in Section 2.5(b).
"Consenting Party" has the meaning provided in Section 20.2(c)(i).
11
Second Reading 4-22-09
"Construction" or "Construction of the Project" means the construction of Developer's
Improvements on the Land, and construction of the Garage on the Garage Property.
"Construction Agreement(s)" means, collectively, any general contractor's agreement,
architect's agreement, engineers' agreements, or any other agreements for the provision of labor,
materials or supplies entered into with respect to the Construction of the Project, as the same
maybe amended or otherwise modified from time to time.
"Construction Commencement Date" has the meaning provided in Section 2.8.
"Construction Work" means any construction work performed under any provision of this
Agreement and/or the Construction Agreements with respect to the Construction of the Project.
"Contractor" means any contractor, subcontractor, supplier, vendor or materialman
supplying services or goods in connection with the Construction of the Project.
"CPM" has the meaning provided in Section 4.2(b).
"CPM Schedule" has the meaning provided in Section 4.2(b).
"Default" means any condition or event, or failure of any condition or event to occur,
which constitutes, or would after the giving of notice and lapse of time (in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement) constitute, an Event of Default.
"Default Date" has the meaning provided in Section 2.7.
"Default Notice" has the meaning provided in Section 19.1(b).
"Design Review Board" or "DRB" means the Design Review Board of the City created
and established pursuant to the Land Development Regulations, or any board or body which may
succeed to its function.
"Detailed Plans" has the meaning provided in Section 4.2(a)(iv)(2).
"Developer" means The New World Symphony, anot-for-profit Florida corporation.
"Developer's Improvements" means the SoundSpace facility and related improvements to
be constructed or supplied by Developer, including but not limited to all buildings or structures
(including footings and foundations), the Screen, as defined in the Ground Lease, Building
Equipment, infrastructure improvements and other improvements and appurtenances of every
kind and description now existing or hereafter erected, constructed, or placed upon the Land
(whether temporary or permanent), and any and all alterations and replacements thereof,
additions thereto and substitutions therefore.
12
Second Reading 4-22-09
"Development Agreement" (or this "Agreement") means collectively, this Development
Agreement and all exhibits and attachments hereto, as any of the same may hereafter be
supplemented, amended, restated, severed, consolidated, extended, revised and otherwise
modified, from time to time, either in accordance with the terms of this Agreement or by mutual
agreement of the parties.
"Development Agreement Act" means the Florida Local Government Development
Agreement Act, Section 163.3220, et. S~ce ., Florida Statutes (1998).
"Development Approval" includes any final non-appealable zoning, rezoning,
conditional use special exception, variance or subdivision approval, concurrency approval under
Section 163.3180, Florida Statutes, or any other official action of local government having the
effect of approving development of land.
"Development Arbitrator" shall have the meaning provided in Section 22.1(j).
"Development Dispute" has the meaning provided in Section 3.5.
"Development Site" means the real property and air rights, if any, described collectively
in Exhibits A, B, and C, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and as illustrated in the
preliminary Master Plan in Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof. The preliminary
Master Plan shall be replaced by the Project Concept Plan, upon approval of same by the City
Commission, pursuant to Section 2.2 herein.
"Event of Default" has the meaning provided in Section 19.1.
"Fees" has the meaning provided in Section 6.2(a).
"Floor Area" means the floor area of any development (measured in square feet), as
defined in, and measured in accordance with, the Land Development Regulations.
"Garage" means the public municipal parking garage to be constructed by Developer for
Owner and funded as set forth in Section 23.2.2 hereof, and operated by Owner at its sole cost
and expense on City-owned property adjacent to the Land ("Garage Property"), legally
described in Exhibit C, which Garage shall contain approximately three hundred twenty (320)
parking spaces and which shall be available as a public municipal parking facility subject to the
terms and conditions of this Agreement.
"Garage Construction Costs" means all hard and soft construction costs incurred in
connection with the development and Construction of the Garage.
"General Contractor" means the general contractor for the Construction of the Project
pursuant to a construction contract to be entered into by Developer and such general contractor.
13
Second Reading 4-22-09
"Governmental Authority or Authorities" means the United States of America, the State
of Florida, Miami-Dade County, the City (in its governmental as opposed to proprietary
capacity) and any agency, department, commission, board, bureau, instrumentality or political
subdivision (including any county or district) of any of the foregoing, now existing or hereafter
created, having jurisdiction over Developer or any owner, tenant or other occupant of, or over or
under the Project Site or any portion thereof or any street, road, avenue or sidewalk comprising
apart of, or in front of, the Project Site, or any vault in or under the Project Site, or airspace over
the Project Site.
"Ground Lease" means that certain Agreement of Lease between Owner and Developer
dated as of the date hereof, pursuant to which Developer (as tenant) has agreed to lease the Land
from Owner (as Landlord).
"Hearing" has the meaning provided in Section 22.1(b).
"Infrastructure Improvements" means work to be done by Owner at its sole cost and
expense as a condition of Developer's obligation hereunder to construct the Developer's
Improvements. Owner shall only be responsible for Infrastructure Improvements as may be
agreed upon and approved by the City Commission in connection with Developer's obligations
to construct the Project and the Owner's obligations to construct and operate the City Hall
Parking Expansion.
"Institutional Lender" has the meaning provided in the Ground Lease.
"Land" means the real property and air rights, if any, described in Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated by reference herein, and subject to the provisions of Section 2.1(a) in the
Ground Lease.
"Land Development Regulations" means Subpart B (Chapters 114 through 142) of the
Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, as the same was in effect as of the effective date of
this Development Agreement.
"Loan Documents" means, collectively, any loan agreement, promissory note, mortgage,
guaranty or other document evidencing or securing a loan secured by, among other collateral,
Developer's interest in the Ground Lease or the Project.
"Mortgage" has the meaning provided in the Ground Lease.
"Mortgagee" means the holder of a Mortgage.
"Notice" has the meaning provided in Section 20.1(a).
"Notice of Failure to Cure" has the meaning provided in Section 10.1(a).
14
Second Reading 4-22-09
"Operating Equipment" has the meaning provided in the Ground Lease.
"Owner" means the City, acting in its proprietary capacity, and any assignee or transferee
of the City of the entire Owner's Interest in the Premises, from and after the date of the
assignment or transfer pursuant to which the entire Owner's Interest in the Premises was assigned
or transferred to such assignee or transferee.
"Owner's Consultant" means such Person as Owner may designate in writing to
Developer from time to time.
"Owner's Interest in the Premises" has the meaning provided in the Ground Lease.
"Payment and Performance Bond" has the meaning provided in Section 2. 7( f).
"Permits and Approvals" shall mean any and all permits and final non-appealable
approvals required to be issued by the City-its applicable boards, and Governmental
Authorities in connection with the Construction of the Project, including, without limitation, the
City of Miami Beach building permits, the final non-appealable approvals of the City of Miami
Beach Planning Board, Design Review Board, as applicable, the Miami-Dade County
Department of Environmental Resources Management permits, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection coastal construction permit, and any utility access agreements with all
applicable utility companies.
"Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, joint venture, limited liability
company, limited liability partnership, estate, trust, unincorporated association or other entity;
any Federal, state, county or municipal government or any bureau, department, political
subdivision or agency thereof, and any fiduciary acting in such capacity on behalf of any of the
foregoing.
"Planning Board" means the Planning Board of the City or any board or body which may
succeed to its functions.
"Plans and Specifications" means the final plans and specifications for the Project,
including, foundation, structural, electrical, plumbing and HVAC plans, the finish schedule, the
Project program, and such other plans and specifications customarily required to obtain a
Building Permit, each as established in accordance with Article 3, as the same may be modified
from time to time in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.1.
"Possession Date" has the meaning provided in the Ground Lease.
"Preliminary Plans and Specifications" has the meaning provided in Section 2.4(a) of this
Development Agreement.
"Premises" means Developer's Improvements and the Land.
15
Second Reading 4-22-09
"Project" means Developer's Improvements and the Garage.
"Project Opening Date" has the meaning provided in the Ground Lease.
"Project Site" means the Land and the Garage Property.
"Recognized Mortgage" has the meaning provided in the Ground Lease.
"Recognized Mortgagee" means the holder of a Recognized Mortgage.
"Requirements" has the meaning provided in Article 13.
"Substantial Completion" or "Substantially Complete" or "Substantially Completed"
means, with respect to the Project, that (1) it shall have been substantially completed in
accordance with the Plans and Specifications, (2) the certificate of the Architect described in
Section 2.8(c)(i) shall have been obtained, and (3) all of the Improvements therein shall have
been issued Certificates of Occupancy.
"Term" means the period commencing on the Effective Date of the Development
Agreement and, unless sooner terminated as provided hereunder, expiring on the issuance of a
Final CO and the completion of all remaining punch list items with respect to completion of the
Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, subject, however, to survival of any
provisions of this Agreement that are expressly stated herein to survive such expiration or
termination (as the case maybe).
"Unavoidable Delays" means delays due to strikes, slowdowns, lockouts, acts of God,
inability to obtain labor or materials, war, enemy action, civil commotion, fire, casualty,
catastrophic weather conditions, eminent domain, a court order which actually causes a delay
(unless resulting from disputes between or among the party alleging an Unavoidable Delay,
present or former employees, officers, members, partners or shareholders of such alleging party
or Affiliates (or present or former employees, officers, partners, members or shareholders of such
Affiliates) of such alleging party), the application of any Requirement, or another cause beyond
such party's control or which, if susceptible to control by such party, shall be beyond the
reasonable control of such party. Such party shall notify the other party not later than twenty (20)
days after such party knows of the occurrence of an Unavoidable Delay. Failure to provide
timely notice, as set forth herein, shall be deemed a waiver by the party alleging an Unavoidable
Delay. In no event shall (i) any party's financial condition or inability to fund or obtain funding
or financing constitute an "Unavoidable Delay" (except for an Institutional Lender's inability to
fund, which inability is not caused by Developer) with respect to such party and (ii) any delay
arising from a party's (or its Affiliate's) default under this Development Agreement or any of the
Construction Agreements constitute an "Unavoidable Delay" with respect to such party's
obligations hereunder. The times for performance set forth in this Development Agreement
(other than for monetary obligations of a party) shall be extended to the extent performance is
16
Second Reading 4-22-09
delayed by Unavoidable Delay, except as otherwise expressly set forth in this Development
Agreement.
17
Second Reading 4-22-09
Exhibit "C"
Legal Description of Garage Property
(To be submitted)
18
Second Reading 4-22-09
Exhibit "D"
Procedure for Obtaining Park Project Approval
THE PROGRAM -Park Project Concept Plan
1) Visioning Session
Developer, Owner and Architectural Consultant shall meet in a Visioning Session on a
mutually agreeable date following the approval of this Amendment. Such Visioning Session
shall clarify the project goals and prepare the Developer, Owner and Architectural Consultant for
the Community Design Workshops. Issues to be discussed shall include, but will not be limited
to, the Park layout and siting, streetscape improvements, infrastructure improvements and
landscape improvements and other appurtenances proposed upon the Project Site. The budget
and schedule for the Park shall be discussed at this meeting. The Architectural Consultant shall
present its initial concept for the Park Project at this Visioning Session and shall document
comments and conclusions of the proceedings of this meeting.
2) Preparation of the Design Concept
Developer shall be solely responsible for the execution of the design of the Project, and
such design shall be substantially in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the decisions
reached at the Visioning Session. The design and construction of Project shall be at the sole cost
and expense of the Owner. After the Owner, Developer and Architectural Consultant have
agreed on the project goals as established during the Visioning session the Architectural
Consultant shall develop the Design Concept. The Architectural Consultant shall submit the
Design Concept to the Owner for review and approval within one hundred twenty (120) Calendar
Days following the Visioning session. The Design Concept shall include, but not be limited to, a
detailed site plan, concepts for public spaces, performance venues, landscape concept drawings
and preliminary utility, drainage, sewer and water plans (the "Design Concept").
The Owner, Developer and Architectural Consultant shall consult together as often as
necessary during the one hundred twenty (120) Calendar Day Design Concept preparation
period. The Owner, Developer and Architectural Consultant shall meet to review and agree upon
the Design Concept within thirty (30) Calendar Days from the Developer's delivery of the
Design Concept to the Owner. At this time the Owner, Developer and Architectural Consultant
shall discuss any concerns related to project scope, schedule and budget prior to Community
Design Workshop Number 1. If Owner unreasonably disapproves the Design Concept and if the
Design Concept is consistent with the goals established in the Visioning Session, then the
Developer shall cause the Architectural Consultant to prepare a modification to the Design
Concept to meet Owner's objections and all costs associated with such modification shall be at
Owner's sole expense. This approval shall be completed by the City Manager and shall
constitute the Approved Preliminary Design.
19
Second Reading 4-22-09
3) Community Design Workshop Number 1
The intent of the Community Design Workshops (CDWs) is to provide the Architectural
Consultant the opportunity to present the Approved Preliminary Design to the community for the
purpose of achieving general consensus with the residents. A total of two CDWs shall be
conducted for this Project. The Owner shall organize and host the CDW Number 1 within thirty
(30) Calendar Days following the Approved Preliminary Design. The Architectural Consultant
shall prepare all meeting materials for the presentation at the workshops. The first CDW is
intended to provide community residents with a review of the proposed scope and budget for the
Project. The Architectural Consultant shall prepare large scale presentation graphics illustrating
existing conditions and the proposed improvements as documented in the Approved Preliminary
Design. The Developer shall also prepare a budget level of cost estimates for presentation at this
CDW. Applicable City staff shall also attend this CDW and shall assist the Architectural
Consultant and the Developer with responses to resident questions. The Architectural Consultant
shall document the proceedings of the CDW Number 1 and shall note reasonable design revision
requests from residents for review and possible incorporation into the Approved Preliminary
Design.
4) Post Community Desi~,n Workshop Number 1 Meeting
Within twenty-one (21) Calendar Days following the Community Design Workshop
Number 1 the Owner, Developer and Architectural Consultant shall meet to review the resident
comments and revision requests. An agreed upon list of revisions shall be developed by the
Owner, Developer and Architectural Consultant and shall be documented by the Architectural
Consultant. The Architectural Consultant shall revise the Approved Preliminary Design
consistent with the agreed upon list of revisions (the "Revised Preliminary Design") within thirty
(30) Calendar Days of the Post CDW Number 1 Meeting.
5) Communit~gn Workshop Number 2
The Owner shall organize and host the CDW Number 2 within thirty (30) Calendar Days
following the completion of the Revised Preliminary Design. The Owner, Developer and
Architectural Consultant shall prepare for and participate in a second CDW to present
community residents with the Revised Preliminary Design, the budget and a schedule for the
Project. The Architectural Consultant shall have met with the appropriate City representatives
and appropriate staff to ensure that the agreed upon comments and recommended revisions by
the residents at the CDW Number 1 had been addressed in the Revised Preliminary Design. The
Architectural Consultant shall prepare large scale presentation graphics illustrating the proposed
improvements as documented in the Revised Preliminary Design. The Developer shall also
prepare an updated budget level of cost estimates for presentation at this CDW. Applicable City
staff shall also attend this CDW and shall assist the Architectural Consultant and the Developer
20
Second Reading 4-22-09
with responses to resident questions. The Architectural Consultant and the Owner shall note that
the design presented during this CDW are considered "near final" and it is the Owner's intent to
consider only minor design revision requests from the residents for review and possible
incorporation into the design. The Architectural Consultant shall note reasonable design revision
requests from residents for review and incorporation into the Revised Preliminary Design.
6) Post Community Design Workshop Number 2 Meeting
Within twenty-one (21) Calendar Days following the Community Design Workshop
Number 2 the City Manager, Developer and Architectural Consultant shall meet to review the
resident comments and revision requests. An agreed upon list of revisions, if any, shall be
developed by the City Manager, Developer and Architectural Consultant and shall be
documented by the Architectural Consultant. The Architectural Consultant shall revise the
Revised Preliminary Design to be consistent with the revisions, if any, developed in the Post
CDW Number 2 Meeting (the "Final Preliminary Design") within thirty (30) Calendar Days of
the Post CDW Number 2 Meeting. This Final Preliminary Design shall be the basis for the
design to be presented to the City Commission.
7) Preparation of the Initial Basis of Design Report BODR)
Within forty-two (42) Calendar Days the Developer and Architectural Consultant shall
submit the Initial BODR to the Owner for review and approval. The Initial BODR shall include
at a minimum the following information - an executive summary describing the contents of the
Initial BODR, description of existing conditions of the site, a detailed presentation describing the
proposed design and all associated improvements, a project implementation plan describing the
construction plan, traffic control details and surrounding area impacts, a budget for the project,
an preliminary prof ect schedule and the anticipated permitting process prepared by the Developer
and/or the Architectural Consultant.
8) Owner Review of the Initial BODR
The Owner shall be responsible for distribution of all copies of the Initial BODR to all
appropriate City Departments for review. Written comments shall be solicited and distributed to
the Developer and Architectural Consultant by the Owner within thirty (30) Calendar Days
following Developer's submission of the Initial BODR to the Owner. It is anticipated that the
Owner, Developer and Architectural Consultant shall meet during the Owner's review period of
the Initial BODR for clarifications and discussions. All such meetings will be initiated by the
Owner to facilitate the Owner's review of the Initial BODR.
21
Second Reading 4-22-09
9) Preparation of the Final BODR
The Architectural Consultant shall prepare a Final BODR based upon the written
comments from the Owner's review of the Initial BODR. The Architectural Consultant shall be
prepared to submit the Final BODR to the Owner and the City Commission no later than thirty
(30) Calendar Days following the receipt of Owner's written comments of the Initial BODR. The
Owner, Developer and Architectural Consultant shall present the Final BODR to the City
Commission as soon as possible following completion of the Final BODR. If the City
Commission rejects the Final BODR or request modifications to the Final BODR the
Architectural Consultant shall make such modifications to the Final BODR and shall resubmit
the Project to the City Commission no later than thirty (30) Calendar Days following the original
City Commission meeting. If the City Commission requests modifications to the Final BODR
and if the Final BODR is consistent with the comments of the Owner and the agreed to
comments from the CDW's then in addition to the Owner's obligation to reimburse Developer
for all Park Project Design Costs as set forth in this First Addendum to Development Agreement,
subparagraph 10 (c), and notwithstanding the "cap" on the Park Project Design Costs of
$1,110,000 under the circumstances described therein, all costs associated with the revision,
redesign and resubmission of the Final BODR shall be borne solely by the Owner and the "cap"
of $1,110,000 shall not apply.
10) Preparation of the Contract Documents for the Protect
The Park Project design as approved by the City Commission shall be the "Park Project Concept
Plan" as described in Section 10 of this First Addendum to the Development Agreement. Upon
final approval of the Final BODR by the City Commission the Developer and Architectural
Consultant shall proceed immediately with the Design Review Board approval process and
preparation of the construction documents as described in Section 10 of the First Addendum to
the Development Agreement.
F:\cmgr\$ALL\HEMSTREET~NWS\NWS (Second Addendum to Dev Agreement (2nd Reading 4-22-09 Agenda)).doc
22
Fw: Electronic Copy of Form Approved Second Addendum
Attachment 2
Hemstreet, Tim
Page 1 of 5
From: billg [billg@gatorinvestments.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 11:59 AM
To: Weithorn, Deede; ed@edtobin.com; Bower, Matti H.; Libbin, Jerry; Gross, Saul; Wolfson,
Jonah; vdiaz@podhurst.com; Gonzalez, Jorge; Hemstreet, Tim
Cc: neisen.kasdin@akerman.com; howard.herring@nws.edu; Swanson, Anne; Torter, Benjamin;
billg; goldsmiw@bellsouth.net
Subject: FW: Recommendation -Proposed 2nd Addendum and Related Commission Approval
Request - $16,798,000 Final Garage Budget AND $13,372,000 Preliminary Park Budget AND
$6,400,000 Additional Improvements Budget -New World Symphony Projects -Miami Beach,
Fla
Attachments: NWS 3-18-09 Commission Memo.pdf
I have reviewed the attached as well as the prior draft of the 2Nnd Addendum together with plans, specifications,
prior agreements, accountings of past monies spent, contractor budgets, and unit prices I received on my own
initiative.
I recommend approval of the attached subject to the following changes (all of which should be approved by
both the City Manager and City Commission at every important financial step of the way):
1. $6,400,000 Infrastructure/Additional Improvements Budget
It appears from my review with Tim Hemstreet that approx. $3,200,000 of these monies have been
spent
I recommend getting NWS to assemble a) NTE Budget within 10 days for the A/E Fees to complete the
100% Civil Plans (I would target a $50,000 to $100,000 Total Fees amount "All IN" including
CD's/CA/CM/RPR b) award contract within 15 days to A/E Firm c) get A/E Consultant to assemble
quantities lists and budget within 30 days for City Manager's reasonable approval and d) get Hines to list
it's PM fees and estimated GC fees and e) finish a construction budget within 60 days for the City
Manager and City Commission to sign off on
- Failure to do the above will likely result in another "Garage" type scenario where either the taxpayer or
NWS or both can get hurt by Hines further delays and fee upon fee upon fee structure...and then be
forced to proceed with Hines at "top of the market" prices due to time constraints.....for example at the
Garage Project even though the $15,210,000 Original Budget for the Garage might have been
achievable had we ensured strict dates were observed (Hines was late) and cost ceilings established
(Hines was initially approx. $5 Million over budget) at every step of the way, we let this thing get away
from us and we may have paid a premium for the same ....it is very clear to me that Hines has NOTHING
TO LOSE and EVERYTHING TO GAIN by dragging their feet and running out the clocks while
simultaneously sending NWS "pie in the sky" numbers....) would NOT give them that opportunity again
here
- FP&L approx. $150,000 Vault Relocation costs (exclusive of Vault Room and exclusive of secondary
cabling to NWS Garage) should be in infrastructure budget
Park Fees and Park Budget
04/13/2009
Fw: Electronic Copy of Form Approved Second Addendum Page 2 of 5
- - Removal of the TOPA Zone 3.4 Improvements is OK as long as Zone 3.4 is 100% included and funded. by
the County in the Covention Center Project (see paragragh #2(a) and (d) of 2"d Addendum). This
intersectection at 17th and Washington is one of the most important intersections in the entire city and
deserves to have significant and beautiful improvements on both corners to serve as "Bookends" as you
head down what will one day be perceived as "Institutional Row".
NWS should immediately a)submit RFP to at least 100 likely Landscape/Park Engineering Design
candidates within 15 days b) agree that Hines will not get more than $25,000 TOTAL for submitting and
reviewing Landscaping Design RFP...this is critically important as NWS MUST immediately get control of
Hines to prevent another "Garage" type situation c) make all Landscape Engineering firms respond
within 30 to 60 days d) NWS should be prepared to select a candidate within 30 days of receiving all bid
proposals e) NWS should NOT obligate itself to either Hines or Facchina for any fees for the Park (if
CM/CA is needed NWS could easily hire Kimley Horn or the chosen Landscape Engineer or BOTH and
also avail itself of the services of Hazen Sawyer/CIP.....but all efforts should be made now to avoid
unnecessary duplicitous fees, especially from Hines) e) set a "Target Budget" of $6,000,000 to
$8,500,000 in the RFP (inclusive of the A/E fees which should not exceed $500,000 to $1 Million "All In"
with CD's/CA/CM/RPR...this is consistant with the $8.5 M Feb 11, 2009 FCWPC Recommendation set
forth in p.351 of the attached)
- Failure to follow each of the above steps will likely result in another "Garage" type scenario where
Hines can run out the clocks and put the taxpayer or NWS or both in check mate....now is the time to put
stringent time/budget controls on Hines BEFORE they can gain the upperhand again like they did at the
Garage (see bullet point #3 in paragragh #1 above)
3. Garage Final Budget
- I agree that approx. $1,588,000 of Park monies should be re-allocated to the Garage IN ADDITION to
another approx. $1 Million for the east side exterior features (see bullet point #5 of this paragragh #3
below)
- I am NOT happy as a taxpayer to see that we must spend approx. $1,588,000 over initially approved
budget and get a 3/'s finished exterior building, but I think that is what we have to do today and to NOT
proceed would be an even bigger mistake...
- I think the 2 elevators in the middle of the garage can be reduced to 1 without materially
compromising anything...this will lower costs for NWS by approx. $125,000....1 do not think that the
middle elevator is just there to service NWS but rather is something that would likely be a selection by
any architectural firm building a similar type building
- I am assuming staff re-allocated to the $6.4Million "Additional Improvements" budget the $150,000
FP&L costs as set forth in last bullet point of paragragh #1 above
- Another approx. $1 Million of monies from the Park Budget should be immediately re-allocated and the
Gehry skin and related LED lighting feature on the east side should be included at NTE $1M (including all
OH&P fees/GC fees/A&E fees and any other fees of any sort or kind). To me it seems ridiculous that we
would not complete a taxpayer owned building 100% on all 4 sides after the taxpayer is spending
possibly up to $51 Million of total project costs (would the NWS ever allow its main campus facility to be
done on 3 sides???). This is even more upsetting after having seen that the City is prepared to re-
allocate funds from the Park Budget but cannot re-allocate same now for something that immediately
needs same
- I would also get NWS to get Gehry to confirm we have the right to install the skin mesh and LED now or
later on the east side and that we have a license to use his plans as we see proper (I have not seen the
Gehry contract so I cannot comment on exactly what must be done....but I know the City of M.B. should
have control of its own destiny here)
04/13/2009
Fw: Electronic Copy of r'orrn Approved Second Acictencium rage ~ of o
4, Future 175 Parking Spaces by NWS
I would require NWS to identify by 12-31-09 where it intends to find these 175 parking spaces and put
target dates down now...) would not wait until Year #4 and then find out we have a problem....) would
also try to tie this into something so that the TOPA Jackie Gleason theatre has more available parking so
that in combination the City has better ability to utilize the TOPA facility for events and concerts that can
bring more revenue into the City
Parking is critically important and we cannot forget that just replacing the lost approx. 500 spaces is
NOT enough since we have introduced a new NWS facility that will require more parking than what we
previously had.....1 would not rely on Mr. Cejas on this matter
5. Timing Issues and NWS Benefits to the City
-NWS and the City should move asap
- Time is of the Essence here as the FP&L Vault must be completed by this year at the latest for the NWS
Main Campus Building to be energized
- Accordingly I would immediately authorize and proceed with the Garage A/E plans with a NTE
$100,000/month price for A/E fees and a NTE $500,000 of A/E fees in total ....and with the
understanding that the City owns all plans and design.....certainly NWS can sign a contract with
KV5/Facchina to proceed contingent on Municipal Approval
- This will ensure that the NWS is NOT delayed if any of the above is still not 100% resolved on March 18,
2009 City Commission....in all events we need to continue to forge forward so the $150 Million Main
Campus is not delayed with its Opening in tan 2011 since the introduction of the NWS is certainly a
great benefit for our Miami Beach Community
- In these harsh financial times when cutbacks even in the Big Five orchestras (NY, Boston, Philadelphia,
Cleveland, and Chicago) are occurring (see 3-12-09 NY Times article on page C1) we must do all we can
to try and preserve the arts and help our community grow culturally .....we need to be more than just
night clubs and hotels and restaurants and Lincoln Road....NWS is critically important in this respect
Thanks
William Goldsmith
From: Kasdin, Neisen [mailto:neisen.kasdin@akerman.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 12:22 PM
To: billg
Subject: FW: Electronic Copy of Form Approved Second Addendum
here is what is going to Commission
Neisen O. Kasdin
Shareholder
Akerman Sentertitt
One Southeast Third Avenue
25th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131-1714
www.akerman.com
neisen.kasdin@akerman.com
305-982-5629 tel.
305-374-5095 fax
04/13/2009
Fw: Electronic Copy of Form Approved Second Addendum
www.akerman.com i Bio i VCard
Page 4 of 5
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged and confidential information, and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this
communication in error and then delete it. Thank you.
CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To comply with U.S. Treasury Department and IRS regulations, we are required to advise you that, unless expressly stated otherwise, any
U.S. federal tax advice contained in this transmittal, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any person for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties
under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this e-mail or attachment.
From: David ]. Phillips [mailto:David.Phillips@nws.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:25 PM
To: Kasdin, Neisen
Subject: Fw: Electronic Copy of Form Approved Second Addendum
Just in. I haven't read it yet.
David J. Phillips
Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
New World Symphony, America's Orchestral Academy
541 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, FL 33139
[htip://www.nws.edu/map]
david.phillips@nws.edu
direct: 305-673-3330 x 223
mobile: 305-528-7845
fax:305-673-6749
www.nws.edu
The New World Symphony, America's only full-time orchestral academy, prepares gifted graduates of prestigious music
programs for successful careers in orchestras and ensembles. NWS has launched the careers of more than 630 young
musicians now making a difference in the profession worldwide.
Sent from my B1ackBeny Wireless Handheld
-----Original Message-----
From: De Pinedo, Naima <NaimadePinedo@miamibeachfl.gov>
To: Hemstreet, Tim <I'imHemstreet@miamibeachfl.gov>; pwelles@swmwas.com <pwelles@swmwas.com>; Howazd
Herring; David J. Phillips
CC: Aguila, Raul <RaulAguila@miamibeachfl.gov>; Bonde, Kent <KentBonde@miamibeachfl.gov>; Baker, Milton
<Milton Baker@hines.com>; Barry, Matthew <Matthew Barry@hines.com>; Lawrence, David
<David Lawrence@hines.com>
Sent: Fri Mar 13 17:23:37 2009
Subject: RE: Electronic Copy of Form Approved Second Addendum
04/13/2009
Fw: Electronic Copy of r'orm Approvea ~econa t~aaenaum
ragv~vi~
p «NWS 3-18-09 Commission Memo.pdf5> lease see the attached Commission Memo.-
From: Hemstreet, Tim
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:38 PM
To: Patricia G. Welles (pwelles@swmwas.com); New World Symphony Howard Herring; 'David J. Phillips'
Cc: Aguila, Raul; Bonde, Kent; 'Baker, Milton; Barry, Matthew; Lawrence, David; De Pinedo, Naima
Subject: Electronic Copy of Form Approved Second Addendum
To All: I am forwarding the attached electronic copy of the Second Addendum to the Development Agreement, which has
been Form Approved by the City Attorney. I will forward a copy of the City Manager's Memorandum that will accompany
the proposed Addendum when it is fmalized. Please let me know if there is any problems opening the attached. Tim
MIAMIBEACH
Tim Hemstreet, Assistant City Manager
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Tel: 305-673-7010 Fax: 305-673-7782/ www.miamibeachfl.gov <http://www.miamibeachfl.gov/>
We are committed to providing excellent public service and safety to all who live, work and play in our vibrant, tropical,
historic community.
04/13/2009
Attachment 3
STEARNS WEAVER MIL
WEISSLER AI,xAnEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
Miami ^ Ft. Lauderdale ^ Tampa
Eugene E. Stearns
Direct Line: (305} 789-3400
Fax: (305) 789-2669
Email: esteems@swmwas.com
April 9, 2009
Via Email and U.S. Mail
The Honorable Matti Herrera Bower
Mayor, City of Miami Beach
City Hall
1700 Convention Center Drive
Fourth Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Museum Tower, Suite 2200
150 West Flagler Street
Miami, Florida 33130
(305)789-3200
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Fourth Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Fourth Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Commissioner Victor Diaz
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Fourth Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Commissioner Deede Weithom
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Fourth Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Commissioner Saul Gross
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Fourth Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Fourth Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Re: The New World Symphony Campus Expansion Project
Dear Mayor Bower and Commissioners,
The New World Symphony asked us to review its written agreements with the
City of Miami Beach in the wake of the Gity Commission meeting of March 18, 2009, to
determine the relationship between those agreements and what some Commissioners
said about them. Having done so; we are puzzled at the number and magnitude of the
differences, and the vigor with which some Commissioners advance positions that are
simply and indisputably contrary to what was reduced to writing and relied upon.
April 9, 2009
The Honorable Matti Herrera Bower
Mayor, City of Miami Beach
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Saul Gross
Commissioner Victor Diaz
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Page 2
It is one thing to commit generously to worthwhile civic endeavors. 1t is another
to tarnish a gift before its commitment is fulfilled by requiring a beneficiary to enforce its
terms. That is where we fear this matter is headed.
Mutual Appreciation Led to the Binding Agreements
At the outset, NWS both recognizes and appreciates the critical role the City of
Miami Beach has played in its success. its support has been invaluable, and the quality
of the Miami Beach environment has been a magnet for the best and brightest of those
who have chosen a life of concert music.
It is equally important, however, to recognize the contribution NWS has made to
the City of Miami Beach over the years of its existence; a contribution that led to the
contractual undertakings upon. which NWS and its many donors have relied. You
should tae proud =and we know you are - of the success of NWS, and its place in your
great City. This unique cultural institution has brought honor and distinction to the City of
Miami Beach, placing the City at the highest level in the world of classical music.
The New World Symphony is America's Orchestral Academy. It is the premier
organization of its kind; an organization which provides top graduates of music
programs throughout the United States with the opportunity #o enhance their music
education with the finest professional training. Led by Michael Tilson Thomas, one of
the most critically-acclaimed and sought-after conductors in the world, NWS not only
provides an unparalleled educational environment for. aspiring young musicians, it
provides as well a regular program of superb concert performances for the people of
this community.
The competition to be selected to be part of NWS is fierce. Each year, NWS
receives over 1000 applications from all over the world for approximately 35 fellowships.
After an intensive three-year program of training -including performances that attract
thousands of people and prompt routine standing ovations -NWS fellows emerge
prepared to excel in the increasingly-competitive world of orchestral performance.
Ali told, more than 700 NWS alumni have taken their experiences in the City of
Miami Beach to professional orchestras and ensembles around the world.
April 9, 2009
The Honorable Matti Herrera Bower
Mayor, City of Miami.Beach
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Saul Gross
Commissioner Victor Diaz
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Page 3
The great cities of the world compete for the quality of their orchestras. No city
can compete with the City of Miami Beach for the quality of this orchestra because of its
unique organization.
NWS Commits to Make the City of Miami Beach its Permanent Home
As NWS grew in reputation and stature it outgrew its modest Miami Beach
facilities. A desire by the leaders of NWS to have quarters befitting its quality and a
desire on the part of the City of.Miami Beach to make its presence a permanent fixture
of the City led to a very public process through which NWS agreed to make Miami
Beach its permanent home in exchange for substantial City support, the terms of which
were carefully spelled out. Among other things, the agreements dedicate valuable City
land for a state of the art educational and concert hall facility, give to NWS the right to
construct its facilities on that property, commit to NWS $15 million of CRA funds,
obligate the City to construct a new parking garage and resolve a myriad of questions
including parking and concurrency requirements.
An Architectural Achievement Commensurate with the Quality of the
Symphony
Relying on the agreements reached with the City, NWS reached out to the
community to support design and construction of its new facilities. Response from the
community was overvvhelming. Private funding commitments met every expectation.
Unlike similar concert facilities around the world, the vast bulk of the funds that will be
used to construct this extraordinary facility are private.
Relying an the substantial funding that had been achieved, the world class
design team produced a design for the facility that will be an architectural masterpiece
for the City and a stunning home for NWS. As the shell of the structure nears
completion, it is apparent that the architecture will equal the quality of the building's
inhabitants and the performances that will be enjoyed by audiences for many years to
come.
The Existing Agreements Address and Resolve the issues
Having ironed out the development issues years ago, it is disappointing that
April 9, 2009
The Honorable Matti Herrera Bower
Mayor, City of Miami Beach
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Saul Gross
Commissioner Victor Diaz
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Page 4
some of the issues long ago resolved are now being raised again by new voices
speaking for the same City #hat entered into the binding agreements. Indeed, the
issues that arose at the recent Commission meeting are not new and are no longer
debatable. They were each previously addressed and previously resolved in the
binding agreements upon which NWS has relied.
• The Ciiy's Parking Garage
The Parking Garage is to be constructed on City land and will be owned ~by the
City. The City will receive all of the revenue from the Garage and the retail spaces.
NWS will not own the Garage, and will not enjoy any revenue it creates. Its role with
respect to the Garage is solely as the City's developer.
The process to develop the Garage is spelled out in the Development
Agreement. First, NWS was to present the City several garage designs compatible with
the adjacent Campus Expansion, with a minimum of 320 parking spaces. From the
alternatives presented, the City was to choose the design it preferred. After a
preliminary design was recommended, NWS was to solicits bids to determine the actual
cost to build the Garage design chosen. Finally, if the City did not like the construction
cost for the chosen design, the parties were to work together to arrive at another design
that the City would be willing to fund.
The proposed Second Addendum was simply a step in that established and
agreed-upon process.
NWS presented the City with Garage design choices which attempted to
maximize the number of spaces within the preliminarily approved budget. City boards
and staff chase the design that was preferred; a design that includes six parking levels
and no fewer than 520 parking spaces, ground-floor retail space, and a decorative
"scrim" wrapping. Construction costs were calculated based on the City's choices. The
design and budget was brought to the Commission to formalize approval and to
appropriate funds to build it (or exercise the alternative described above).
Had the City made those critical decisions contained in the proposed Second
Addendum, NWS would have the direction it needs from the Commission to sign a
April 9, 2009
The Honorable Matti Herrera Bower
Mayor, City of Miami Beach
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Sau[ Gross
Commissioner Victor Diaz
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Page 5
maximum guaranteed price contract for the Garage's construction, and construction
could proceed.
• Parking Concurrency
The binding agreements also address and resolve parking concurrency issues
pertaining to the NWS facilities. NWS resolved its concurrency parking obligation for an
additional 175 off-site parking spaces by entering into two contracts with the Cit~i, which
the City agreed would satisfy NWS`s concurrency obligations now and in the future:
1. The October 2006 Declaration of Restrictive Covenants in Lieu of Unity of
Title (Parking Covenant) provides the long-term solution for meeting
parking concurrency requirements by locking up sufficient parking
beginning some five (5) years after the Campus Expansion is completed.
The Parking Covenant obliges an adjacent property owner, 420 Lincoln
Road Associates, Inc. ("420 Associates"), a company controlled by Paul
Cejas, to provide 175 parking spaces to NWS, and obliges NWS to pay for
their use. 420 Associates' obligation Hans with title to its land.
2. The November 2007 License Agreement for Non-Exclusive Use of Parking
Spaces (Parking License Agreement} provides the short-term, or.interim,
parking solution for the period between project completion and the date
NWS can begin exercising its rights under the Parking Covenant. In this
contract the City agrees for a period of five years after the project's TCO is
issued to grant NWS the use of 175 parking spaces within the City's
garage in exchange for payment of market rate rent for those spaces.
• The CRA Grant of $15 million
The Grant Agreement binds the City to contribute $15 million to NWS in
connection with construction of the facility. There is no dispute that the $15 million grant
is critical to the success of the Campus Expansion as the City expressly acknowledged
that fact in the Grant Agreement. Indeed, since then, the financial obligations incurred
in connection with the project have made the $15 million grant even more essential to
successful completion of the project.
April 9, 2009
The Honorable Matti Herrera Bower
Mayor, City of Miami Beach
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Sau! Gross
Commissioner Victor Diaz
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Page 6
The City agreed that its obligation to disburse the grant monies is entirely
separate from and in addition to its other financial obligations under the Development
Agreement.
The $15 million is to be funded from CRA funds, and is included in the. City's
2010 budget.
NWS will require the full $15 million early in 2010 in order to complete the
project.
• The Park
The agreements provide that NWS will assist the City in the design and
construction of a public park contemplated by the City across the street from the NWS
Campus Expansion but only if the City approves a design and funds its development.
The park, if it is developed, anticipates joint programming related to projection. on the
east facade of the New World facility. However, the park would not be owned by
NWS - it would be, if developed, the City's park to be built on the City's land arid to be
operated by the City for the use of its residents and visitors.
if the Commission approves a design and funds its development, NWS as the
City's developer would be required to cause that park to be built in accordance with the
parties' contract. Again, those decisions are entirely in the City's hands.
The Desire of Some Commissioners to Ignore Existing Agreements
Notwithstanding. the #oregoing, the belief was expressed at the March meeting
that the City can ignore its agreements and unilaterally structure new arrangements,
long after the existing ones formed the basis for a host of commitments by NWS and a
host of third parties who relied on the City's performance of its contractual obligations.
For example, it was suggested that the City can ignore the Parking Covenant because,
it was prophesied that 420 Associates will not honor its obligations under the Parking
Covenant six .years from now. That expectation is not only absurd on its face (no
representative of 420 Associates; of course, was in front of the Commission on March
18); it would not, in any event, excuse the City's breach of its obligations long before
April 9, 2009
The Honorable Matti Herrera Bower
Mayor, City of Miami Beach
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Saul Gross
Commissioner Victor Diaz
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Page 7
420 Associates' obligation matures. The City is bound to its agreement to accept the
Parking Covenant as meeting NWS' future parking obligations.
The proposed new conditions, which affront the written agreements are also
impossible to meet. At #his late stage, after cons#ruction of the facility is long in process,
it would be impossible for NWS to obtain additional off-site parking by the time the TCO
is ready to be issued. What Miami Beach businessperson would be willing to agree to
bind his or her property to a parking covenant with the City when the City clearly is
willing to violate the existing Parking Covenant by assuming that the other parties wi11
default six years hence?
The City's attempt to bundle its false prophecy with regard to 420 Associates'
obligations in six years to 'rts obligation to fund $15 million in CRA funds will hopefiully be
abandoned upon reflection. An attempt to take millions from these grant monies in
anticipation of a breach long in the future would be, to say the least, a breach of
contract.
The design-build process for the parking garage does not permit new city officials
to unilaterally renegotiate fundamental terms of the prior written agreements relied upon
by NWS and its many donors in years past. The Second Addendum as it is proposed to
be amended by the Commission would, in effect, eviscerate NWS' existing contractual
entitlements under the 2007 Grant-in-Aid Agreement, the 2006 Parking Covenant
among the City, NWS and 420 Associates, and the 2008 Parking License Agreement
between the City and NWS.
The Commission debate did not focus on the City's obligations but instead
focused on what current Commissioners might have liked those obligations to be. It
does not work that way. Had the current Commissioners been in office when the
contracts were made and if their views in 2003, 2004 and on through the present were
the views expressed on March 18, there would have been no agreements with NWS,
NWS would not have solicited donors to build what is now being built, and perhaps
some other city would enjoy the benefits and share the burden of this wonderful
institution. NWS chose to stay in Miami Beach, however, and it committed itself to
complete its enormous undertaking on the basis of the City's written promises. At this
late stage of the process, it is not possible, and it is not right, to undo what has already
April 9, 2009
The Honorable Matti Herrera Bower
Mayor, City of Miami Beach
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Sau! Gross
Commissioner Victor Diaz
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Page 8
been done. NWS is entitled to rely upon the agreements that exist and, on behalf of
itself and on behalf of the many residents of Miami Beach and the surrounding area who
contributed to this undertaking, NWS must insist that the City fully perform its
obligations.
We approach this matter with the resolve to enforce the binding contractual
obligations undertaken by the City but with the hope that the Commission will reflect on
these matters and do nothing to darken the joy that should come to the City from the
fulfillment of its contractual undertakings.
Respectfully yours,
Eugene E. Steams
cc: New World Symphony Board of Trustees
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
Jose Smith, Esquire, City Attorney
(i:~w•PLiw~3I605-NwswBSUnasWwS La~~oMeyor & Commissioners W.09.o9.aoc
Attachment 4
CITY OF MIANII BEACH
LINCOLN PARK
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
FoR
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT -ARCHITECT OF RECORD
PREPARED BY HnvES
Apri13, 2009
Landscape Architect -Architect of Record Request. for Qualifications
PROPRIETARY
This RFQ is proprietary to the Developer and the Developer reserves the right to recall the RFQ
in its entirety or in part.
Recipients shall not include or reference this RFQ in any publication, or other public manner,
without prior written consent from the Developer.
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 1 Apri13, 2009
Reguest.for Qualifications
I. INTRODUCTION PAGE 3
II. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESPONSIBILITIES PAGE 3
III. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS PAGE 4
IV. SUBNIISSION REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT CONTACT PAGE 9
V. PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE PAGE 10
VI. OTHER PAGE 10
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT A: EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCESS PAGE 11
ATTACHMENT B: SITE PLAN PAGE 12
ATTACHMENT C: SITE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS PAGE 14
ATTACHMENT D: MODEL PICTURES PAGE 17
ATTACHMENT E: REGULATORY PROCESS PAGE 20
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 2 Apri13, 2009
Request. for Qualifications
I. INTRODUCTION
New World Symphony has entered into an agreement with City of Miami Beach (the "City") to
construct the New World Symphony Campus Expansion Project (the "Campus Expansion") in
the City of Miami Beach, Florida consisting of an educational, rehearsal and performance facility
including administrative offices and music practice rooms designed by Frank O. Gehry and Gehry
Partners, LLP. New World Symphony through its affiliate New Campus II, LLC ("New
Campus") has agreed with the City to manage the design and construction of a public park
including a sound system building to house projection equipment, two projectors that will project
images on the wall of the Campus Expansion building, seating areas for people to view
projection, shade structures, walkways, landscaped areas, hardscaped areas, public restrooms and
other amenities as defined during the design process (the "Park") on City land (the "Land")
adjacent to the Campus Expansion to be owned and operated by the City (collectively, the
"Project). The City is the owner of the Land and Park, New Campus will be hereafter referred to
as "Developer" with respect to the work.
Developer and the City have agreed that it is important for the Park to become an integrated part
of the New World Symphony Campus and create a high end urban park for the City of Miami
Beach. Landscape Architect (as defined below) will review the Campus Expansion design and
collaborate with Developer's Architect for Campus Expansion on the design and concepts for the
Park. The Park is approximately 2.5 acres bounded by Washington Avenue on the east, Drexel
Avenue on the west, Lincoln Lane on the south and 17~' Street on the north and located adjacent
to the Lincoln Road Mall and the Fillmore Miami Beach at the Jackie Gleason Theater and in
close proximity to City Hall and the Miami Beach Convention Center. The close proximity of
such diverse and important social, cultural and business activities makes the Park an important
venue for the City as a gathering place for residents and visitors alike.
The Developer has retained Hines to act as the development manager ("Development Manager")
on the entire New World Symphony Campus Expansion project. The Development Manager on
behalf of the Developer is responsible for coordinating all aspects of the Project including design
and oversight of construction administration. Major decisions regarding the scope of the Project,
and critical Project team members, are vested mutually with the Developer and City and
communicated through the Developer.
This Request for Qualifications (the "RFQ") is being issued for the express purpose of identifying
Landscape Architects to include on a short list to receive a Request for Proposal (the "RFP") to
provide Landscape Design and Architect of Record services for the Project.
Your response should be based on the requirements described herein and the Evaluation and
Selection Process in Attachment A.
II. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESPONSIBILITIES
The Landscape Architect will be the prime consultant on the Project and act as Architect of
Record (the "Landscape Architect"). The Landscape Architect will subcontract with all design
consultants including as required, but not limited to, architectural, structural, civil, mechanical,
electrical, plumbing, fire protection, signage, graphics and wayfinding, lighting, security,
telecommunications, audio-visual, acoustics, code consultant, geotechnical, etc. ("Consultants").
The Developer will contract for materials testing directly.
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 3 April 3, 2009
Request. for Qualifications
The Landscape Architect under the direction of the Developer, Development Manager, and the
City and in close coordination with the other design consultants will be responsible for
developing a design, coordinating all aspects of design and providing complete contract
documents for the Project suitable for permitting, regulatory approval and competitive bidding.
The Landscape Architect and consultants will be required to perform bid and award and
construction administrative services for the Project. Landscape Architect will coordinate the
design and installation of projection equipment and sound system with the Developer's audio-
visual consultant Acoustic Dimensions. Contact at Acoustic Dimensions is Brian Elwell.
III. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
Your Firm will be evaluated on the basis of how well your Firm, your key subconsultants, and
your team's collective individual professionals meet the criteria outlined below including general
and specific selection criteria. Please submit your proposal in a concise written tabulated format
indexed and organized in order by the following sections:
A. Summary of Minimum Qualifications
ALL FIRMS THAT SUBMIT A PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION MUST MEET THE
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS AS PROVIDED BELOW. IF THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
ARE NOT MET, THE CONSULTANT'S SUBMITTAL WILL BE REJECTED. PROPOSALS
WILL BE CONSIDERED ONLY FROM CONSULTANTS THAT ARE REGULARLY ENGAGED
IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING THE SERVICES AS DESCRIBED IN THIS RFQ.
Firm's Experience: Indicate the Firm's years of experience in providing the
requested professional services. Firm must have five (5) years of continuous
operation under same name with professional licenses and insurance, qualifier for
company name and type of licenses, DBPR Official Complaint History along
with any disciplinary administrative action taken within the last five years to
provide Landscape Architect services. Professional licenses and insurance in the
State of Florida is preferred. If the Firm is not presently licensed as a Landscape
Architect in Florida, the Firm shall state in its Proposal whether it will seek
licensure in Florida for the Project, or if asub-consultant Landscape Architecture
Firm will be utilized for this purpose.
2. Oualifications of Project Team: Indicate the Team's years of experience,
including all Key Subconsultants, in providing the requested professional
services. Project Team must have prior experience within the past ten years with
at least three (3) urban park projects including both buildings and site
improvements valued at a minimum construction cost of $2,000,000. Provide
resumes for key Team members, including Key subconsultants, aswell as a
Project Team organizational chart. It is preferred, but not necessary, for the
Prime Consultant and its Key Subconsultants to have completed similar projects.
Principal in Charge's Experience: Provide a comprehensive summary of the
experience and qualifications of the individual who will be selected to serve as
the Principal in Charge. This individual must have a minimum of five (5) years'
experience in the planning, design, and construction administration of municipal
projects, and should have served as Principal in Charge on a minimum of three
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 4 April 3, 2009
Request. for Qualif cations
(3) previous urban park projects including both buildings and site improvements
projects valued at a minimum construction cost of $2,000,000.
4. Project Manager's Experience: Provide a comprehensive summary of the
experience and qualifications of the individual who will be selected to serve as
the Project Manager. This individual must have a minimum of five (5) years'
experience in the planning, design, and construction administration of
environmental services for municipal projects, and should have served as Project
Manager on a minimum of three (3) previous urban park projects including both
buildings and site improvements projects valued at a minimum construction cost
of $2,000,000. This individual must be capable of speaking and making
decisions on behalf of the Firm.
5. Similar Projects:
a. Provide a list of seven (7) similar projects on which your Firm and Key
Subconsultants have been directly involved and responsible. In
particular, the Developer and Development Manager would like to
review similar project experience and whether on those projects the
schedule and budget requirements were achieved. It is preferred, but not
necessary, for the Prime Consultant and its Key Subconsultants to have
completed similar projects.
Provide a schedule of current and past projects of similar scope and
magnitude for which your Firm has provided services and describe those
services. For each project provide anticipated or proposed schedule and
budget and actual schedule and budget.
c. List all projects done directly or indirectly by your Firm and those
personnel proposed for the Project with the City in the last five (5) years.
d. Provide a summary of experience by your Firm and those personnel
proposed for the Project with LEED and sustainable building design.
6. Risk Assessment Plan:
All Consultants must submit aRisk-Assessment Plan (RAP). The RAP must not
be longer than two ua~es front side of page only. The RAP must be based on: a
clear understanding of project objectives; familiarity with the project site; a
thorough understanding of all permitting and regulatory requirements and
impacts; and other considerations that may impact the design and construction of
the proposed improvements. The RAP should be submitted in a sealed
unmarked enveloue and included within the RFQ response. The Risk-
Assessment Plan should address the specific items in a clear language, such as:
(1) What risks the project has. (Areas that may cause the Consultant not to finish
on time, not fmish within budget, cause any change orders, or be a source of
dissatisfaction with the Developer).
(2) Explanation of consultant's plan to avoid/minimize each risk.
(3) Propose any value-added options that could improve this project.
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 5 Apri13, 2009
Request for Qualifications
(4) Explain the benefits of the Risk Assessment Plan. Address the quality and
performance differences in terms of risk minimization that the City can
understand and what benefits the option will provide to the user. Do not
provide brochures or marketing pieces.
Insurance:
Please indicate the amount of professional liability coverage, employer's liability
insurance, commercial general liability insurance, and commercial automobile
liability insurance and other insurance requirements that you are proposing to
carry for this Project.
During the entire term that this Agreement shall remain in effect, the Landscape
Architect and its Consultants, at each's sole cost and expense, shall obtain and
maintain the following insurances:
1) Workers Compensation insurance in amounts as required by statute.
2) Employers Liability insurance in an amount not less than $1,000,000
each accident.
3) Commercial General Liability insurance on an occurrence basis in an
amount of not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence combined single limit for
bodily injury (including death) and property damage. Such Commercial General
Liability insurance shall include, but not be limited to, the following coverages:
• Blanket contractual coverage;
• Personal and advertising injury;
• Independent contractors;
• Explosion, collapse and underground hazards (x, c, u) included.
4) Commercial Automobile liability insurance on an occurrence basis
covering all hired, owned and non-owned vehicles in an amount not less than
$1,000,000 each occurrence combined single limit for bodily injury (including
death) and property damage.
5) Valuable Papers insurance to protect against destruction of valuable
papers and records on an all-risk basis for the full replacement cost thereof.
The insurance policies required in the above sub-paragraphs 3) and 4) of this
Section shall name the Developer, City of Miami Beach and the Development
Manager as additional insured and shall be endorsed to be primary and non-
contributory with any insurance otherwise carried by Developer or Development
Manager. All insurance required hereunder a) shall be written with insurers
authorized to do business in the state of Florida and rated A- IX by AM Best &
Co.; b) shall provide to Developer and Development Manager 30 days advance
written notice of reduction, cancellation or non-renewal and; c) shall waive all
rights of subrogation against Developer and Development Manager.
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 6 April 3, 2009
Request for Qualifications
B. Other Proposal Requirements
1. Project Implementation Strateay: Please describe the Project Team's strategy for
implementing the project, including the following information:
Organizational structure of Project Team.
Approach to the Project.
Narrative description of how Project Team's experience, including the direct
experience of Key subconsultants, specifically relates to this Project.
2. Personnel: Provide a schedule of your personnel, as well as the main personnel
of Key subconsultants, who will be assigned and directly involved and
responsible throughout the duration of the Project. Information shall include the
names, title and resumes of all assigned Project personnel, including but not
limited to:
a. Name, Title and Resume
b. Experience with similar projects (include the specific role of the
individual employee on the project);
c. Organizational chart of proposed Project Team, including Key
subconsultants, and relationship to upper management/principals;
d. Description of tasks key personnel, including Key subconsultants, will
perform;
e. References for each key team member, including that of Key
subconsultants, proposed;
£ Indicate relative involvement (based on number of hours per week) of
each Project Team member;
g. Indicate relative involvement of the Prime and of each Key
subconsultant.
3. Personnel Commitments: Provide a summary of the time (based on number of
hours per week) requirements for each of your personnel assigned to the Project
and a description of the nature and extent of their commitments to other projects
that may impact this Project;
4. Firm Size: Provide a schedule by job description of the number of people in your
Firm and indicate the total number of licensed Architects and Engineers;
5. Contact References: Provide no less than three (3) contact references for each of
your Firm's personnel assigned to the Project;
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 7 Apri13, 2009
Request. for Qualif cations
6. Computer Aided Design (CAD): Provide acknowledgement that your Firm will
produce all work product using the latest version of AutoCAD; prior to and
during construction CAD files shall be made available to the Contractor(s) at no
cost for the Contractor's coordination drawings, and will be provided to the
Developer and to City at no cost at the completion of construction. It must also
be acknowledged that submitted work product as well as final permitted
construction documents are and will be the property of the City of Miami Beach
upon submittal to Developer;
7. Special Considerations: Describe any special resources which your Firm or your
personnel assigned to the Project may bring to the Project or in-house expertise
in technical areas which will specifically benefit the Developer;
8. Quality Assurance/Quality Control: Provide a detailed description of your
Firm's quality assurance/quality control review and checking procedures
including describing how coordination, checking and quality assurance/quality
control will be accomplished to achieve a one hundred percent correct, complete,
coordinated, and cost effective set of construction documents for this specific
Project in compliance with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, rules and
regulations;
9. Regul~rv Process and Permitting: Describe your Firm's experience with
the applicable jurisdictional agencies regulatory process and permitting in the
City of Miami Beach, and other pertinent Miami-Dade County jurisdictional
agencies as described in Attachment E, Regulatory Process and the role your
Firm will provide in obtaining permit and approvals from regulatory agencies.
10. Bid and Award Services: Describe your Firm's experience with providing bid
and award services, including attending pre-bid conferences, assisting with the
preparation of necessary addenda, attending the bid opening, assisting with the
bid evaluation and recommendation of award by the Developer and City, and
providing "As-Bid" documents for use during construction.
11. Construction Administration: Describe your Firm's construction administration
processes and procedures. Include qualifications of personnel, field review
format, contractor interface, etc. You should anticipate that your lead personnel
assigned to this Project will be at the Project site as required during the entire
construction period. You will be expected to provide qualified representatives at
the Project construction meetings as required during the entire construction
period.
12. Detailed Exceptions: Provide in writing any exceptions you may take to the
requirements of this RFQ, the reasons for such exceptions and any proposed
alternatives.
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 8 April 3, 2009
Request.ror Qualifications
C. Proposed Fee Structure -None required at this time
D. Schedule of Billable Rates -Please include a detailed schedule of fully burdened billing
rates for all personnel classes that you propose to use on the Project in an Excel format
per specific Tasks of scope of work.
E. Special Services
Provide a detailed description of all services which you would plan to provide that are not
described above, and any fees required for special design work not included in basic
services but which you believe would be in the Developer's interests for you to provide.
F. Financial Information
Provide information regarding your Firm's financial condition, type of ownership.
G. Additional Information
Please provide any other additional information that you believe would be helpful to
Developer and Evaluation Committee in their decision.
H. RFQ Schedule
The anticipated schedule for this RFQ is as follows:
1ZFQ to be issued
Deadline for receipt of responses
Evaluation committee meeting(s)
Evaluation Committee recommend short list for 1tFP
City Commission Meeting approval of short list for RFP
Issue RFP to short list Landscape Architects
IV. SUBNIISSION REQUIREMENTS AND PROJECT CONTACT
Apri13, 2009
May 4, 2009
May 4-8, 2009
May 9, 2009
May 13, 2009
May 20, 2009
Please submit fifteen (15) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy in pdf format on compact disc
of your Proposal to the Developer's designated 1tFQ representatives listed below no later than
3:00 pm Eastern Time on Monday, May 4, 2009:
Mr. Matthew Barry Thirteen (13) Copies and One (1) CD
Hines
1672 Drexel Avenue
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
(305)535-6284
matthew.barry@hines.com
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 9 April 3, 2009
Request_for Qualifications
Mr. Jerry Lea Two (2) Copies
Hines
2800 Post Oak Boulevard, 48~' Floor
Houston, Texas 77056
Should you have any questions concerning the Project or this submission, please call Mr.
Matthew Barry at (305) 535-6284.
V. PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE
The Developer reserves the right to reject any or all proposals received under this Request for
Qualifications, and is under no obligation to any of the prospective Landscape Architect or their
Consultants as a result of this Request for Qualifications process. Upon review of the proposals,
the Developer may elect to enter into negotiations with one or more respondents for one or more
components of the various services described herein.
VI. OTHER
You will receive no reimbursement for your expenses in preparing this qualifications information, or
travel expenses if you choose to visit the site or if Developer requests you to provide additional
written or oral presentation. The Developer is under no obligation to accept your proposal and
specifically reserves the right to reject it for any reason.
All materials and documents submitted hereunder shall become the sole property of the
Developer and the Developer may use and disclose as the Developer may deem necessary or
reasonable.
A response to this RFQ shall not be construed as a contract nor indicate a commitment of any
kind on the part of the Developer. The Developer reserves the right to reject any or all responses
to this RFQ, or to accept any response deemed to be in the Developer's best interest.
You should be aware that this Project is being developed in conjunction with the City of Miami
Beach, Florida. The City of Miami Beach is a municipal corporation of the State of Florida and is
subject to the Public Records laws of the State. Any documents provided by Developer to the
City of Miami Beach, which may include any and/or all documents that you provide, are subject
to Florida's broad public records laws and must be provided to any person upon request.
End of Request for Qualifications
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 10 Apri13, 2009
Request_for Qualifications
Attachment A
EVALUATION and SELECTION PROCESS
The procedure for RFQ response evaluation and selection is as follows:
1. Request for Qualifications issued.
2. Receipt of responses.
3. Opening of responses and determination if they meet the minimum standards of
responsiveness.
4. An Evaluation Committee, consisting of three (3) members appointed by
Developer and three (3) members appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to
evaluate each response in accordance with the requirements of this RFQ. If
further information is desired, Landscape Architect may be requested to make
additional written submissions or oral presentations to the Evaluation Committee.
5. The Evaluation Committee will recommend the short list of Landscape Architects
to receive RFP that Evaluation Committee deems to be in the best interest of the
City and Developer.
THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE SHALL BASE ITS RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE
FOLLOWING FACTORS:
A. The experience, qualifications and similar projects of the Principal in Charge (15
points).
B. The experience, qualifications and similar projects of the Firm (10 points).
C. The experience, qualifications and portfolio of similar projects of the Project
Manager, as well as his/her familiarity with this project and a thorough
understanding of the methodology and design approach to be used in this
assignment (20 points).The experience and qualifications of the professional
personnel assigned to the Project Team, as well as their familiarity with this project
and a thorough understanding of the methodology and design approach to be used
in this assignment (10 points).
D. Risk Assessment Plan that reflects a clear understanding of project objectives;
familiarity with the project site; a thorough understanding of all permitting and
regulatory requirements and impacts; and other considerations that may impact the
design and construction of the proposed improvements and client expectations (20
points).
E. Ability to meet schedule and budget requirements as demonstrated by past
performance on similar projects (5 points).
F. Location of Headquarters of Applicant (5 points).
G. Recent, current, and projected workloads of the Firms (5 points).
H. The volume of work previously awarded to each Firm by the City (5 points).
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 11 April 3, 2009
Request.for Qualifications
Attachment B
Site Plan
Sheet Al-1.2 Proposed Future Vicinity Plan dated June 20, 2007
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 12 April 3, 2009
N
1
Q
-_ L
I
~_
a
'V
~~~ ~
1
r
1~i¢! 3 ~
~~ ~
a~
OV
:~s~
e
c
n=iwioiiiiiii
B
} ~~
~ fig! ,
n=. o 9~
~~ _~ 3
~a 1~ k
~ W E
0~ t
~a d~~ a~
Z U E~9 !!
i !
0 A
~ I
~~ X11
~r
i y ~re
,!r ~~~ ~
a i r
t ~ r! i
~r 1' ~r +,i (~I~
~s ~i~ ~~~
3 i 2 R r
Y
i #~br ~~lp j~~
a
J
J
W
H ~
Q ! r
}
W
~~i~
Landscape Architect-Architect ofRecord Request for Qualifications
Attachment C
Site Aerial Photograahs
Two (2) pages Smith Aerial Photos dated November 3, 2008
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 14 Apri13, 2009
n
O
z~
N
C
n
-i
O
Z
r
O
~~
r
Q
~~~, i
~'' '-"
~ ~L~a
:ycm. ;, g
41
~ij
- `t ~'
_._ ~~
~,~ y ~
'.
i ~'1 r
1~
`n
z
0
/~
V ~
h~_
1~+
O
W
i
d
-,. ~ v.
:.
i7
. J ~~.'..
r
., ~ ,~,,
r
~~
~~ ~~
~~Rna
~,.ii ~'~~(~~
,,q
~.
-~. ~
~
;9~~e ~~U
G~f
- f
, , ~.
L~~ I.
I ~~ _ _ _
°,Q.~ _
+
~ry ~r .
~ _
l
- ~C`i IE
i
. ~\
-rte y/
- - ~
(~,t
~,, ,-
1-
` l
q
' ,~~ ~~ . ~
,
y ~ ~'~
, ,~
~~
r ~-
~~ ~~
~
.~
~ , ,s. ,,~ ~, ~
.gyp
a mil/ -
,
Sr S' .
I
~ S t
J
~~ `~
~
,, .
.
s
^ ~ u
~
~
~:. 1 wL :fi~n1~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~
~ ~
~. ~. 11 ~ftl
((.r-
{
j ~ ~ ~ ~ u '~~~'.~../
~ ` f J; ~ l~
,al
~~-
~ ~ ' ~ - ~ -
-
A~
~'~~
~"
~ d' - ~ ~ y.
~,~
~ ,
~ ti ~
:~/'~ ~ a
~.
o
,- to
i
r ~ Sir= ~~; .., t ~ ~ - ~_
6r~ y y V~ ;~ 'r~,
r a~ 'y~ ~'~ ~~
} ~.~ ,J V W
Q.
'~ r` )4-'S , ¢
~~-k~` ~
`^K.
L `~
.:..
_ ~,
~:.
~~
0
z
s
~A
oA
z
_~
r
O
G
D
r,
a
0
0
w
O
Landscape Architect -Concept Landscape Desi~rz Request.for Proposal
Attachment D
Model Pictures
Two (2) pages
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 17 March 23, 2009
w-'-'••---"'-'..
-Landscape Architect -Concept Landscape Design Request: for Proposal
Attachment E
Regulatory Process
The following reviews and approvals may be required as a part of the approval process
for the Lincoln Park design:
1. Project Kick-Off Meeting with the Developer and the City of Miami Beach ("City").
2. Project Reconnaissance Visit(s) with the Developer and the City.
3. Visioning Session(s) with the Developer and the City to Review Park Concepts.
4. Development of Design Concept Alternatives with an estimate of probable costs for each
Design Concept.
5. Review Meeting Prior to Community Design Workshops.
6. One (1) or Two (2) Community Design Workshops with public notice and public
participation.
7. After Each Community Design Workshop, Meetings with the City to review public
comments.
8. Submission of a draft Basis of Design Report (BODR) to the Developer and the City.
9. Review of BODR with City Departments and Divisions.
10. Submission of and Presentation of the BODR to the City Commission and City Approval.
11. City Design Review Board (DRB) Submission, Presentation and Approval.
12. After DRB Approval, Submission of 50% (preliminary) Plans and Specifications to the
Developer and the City for Review and Approval.
13. Submission of 50% (Contract Documents), Plans and Specifications, to Utility
Companies and obtain Approval from Utility Companies.
14. Submission of 75% Contract Documents (Plans and Specifications and other Bid
Documents) to the Developer and the City for Review and Approval.
15. Submission of Final Contract Documents to the City Commission and or appropriate
Committee for Approval.
16. Submission of Final Contract Documents to the City for the necessary Building
Permit(s).
A City Building Permit Will Require Approval From but not limited to, the following
Jurisdictional Regulatory Agencies:
a. City Building Section
b. City Electrical Section
c. City Plumbing Section
d. City Mechanical Section
e. City Fire Section
f. City Fire Marshal
g. City Engineering Section
h. City Accessibility Section
i. City Structural Section
j. City Zoning (and Planning Department)
k. City Public Works Department/Miami-Dade County Public Works Department-Traffic
Engineering Division (off-site impacts & pavement markings and signage only)
1. City Concurrency Approval
m. Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department (M-DWASD)
n. Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources (DERM) Paving &
Drainage
o. Miami-Dade County DERM Pollution
p. Miami-Dade County DERM Asbestos (Does the City have a report that asbestos exist
on this site?)
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 20 March 23, 2009
Landscape Architect -Concept Landscape Design Request for Proposal
q. Miami-Dade County DERM Tree Section including Tree Relocation Plan
r. Miami-Dade County DERM Sewer (Sewer Estoppel Notice)
s. State of Florida/Miami-Dade County Health Department
17. Assistance to the City in bidding and award services The selected Firm shall assist City
in bidding and award of the contract. Such assistance shall include facilitating reviews of
its contract documents with applicable Procurement, Risk Management, and Legal
Department representatives. In addition, the selected Firm shall furnish camera ready
contract documents for reproduction and distribution by the City, attend pre-bid
conferences, assist with the preparation of necessary addenda, attend the bid opening, and
assist with the bid evaluation and recommendation of award by the City. T'he selected
Firm shall provide "As-Bid" documents for use during construction.
18. Certificate of Occupancy
Lincoln Park, Miami Beach Page 21 March 23, 2009
Attachment 5
NEW WORLCt SYMPHONY
Project Budget -GARAGE
January 19, 2007
Proposed
Budget
11118120D6 Coate
Spent Through
°A
S nt Balaoae to
Compleb on
Pro owed Bud et
$B00 000 $800 000
100 000 $100 000
$0
$100 ODO $100 000
$16,000 $15,000
so
Sao 000 $ao 000
$o
$15 000 $15 000
$75 000 $75,000
$0
$fi 000 $5,000
15 000 $16 000
Sz o00 52 000
515 00 515 000
52 000 2 000
$0
$50 000 $5D,000
$5,OOD $5 000
$20 000 520 000
535 000 $35 000
57 000 $7 000
SD
575 000 $75 000
$o
$15.000 $15 000
530 000 530,000
$10 000 S1D 000
$100,000 $100 000
$10 000 510 000
$30 000 530 000
$40 000 54D 000
$0
$ioo,ooo $100 000
1311000 1 S11 000
32-100 Construction Costs for Gera a $60.00 r $11 856 000 $11,856 000
Construction Costs for Retail $250 000 $250 000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $12106 000 S1 106 000
32-600-1 Conetruction Contin enc 3°/° $363180 $363180
32-600-1 Utillt Relocation - FPBL Vaults $287 600 $287 500
TOTAL SITE COST 6S0 680 650 680
34-200-1 Builder's Risk Insurance ncludad in construction costs $0
34-300-1 Ci of Miami Beach Buildin Permits .863% $104 475 $104 475
34305-1 Lltill T Feeel3ervice Char es .27% $32,686 $32 688
34-320-1 Im act Fees Concurcenc Feas .324% $39,223 S39
34-325-1 Road Im act Fees ,324% $3g ~3 ~9 ~
34-330-1 Public S ace Art Fee
TOTAL 7AX 8 INSURANCE COST 5215606 5215 606
~,W WORLD SYMPHONY
Projsot Budget • GARAGE
January 18, 2007
36-260-1 Audit Costs assume no cost to rc act
36.320.1 Ls sl Faes assume no cost to ra act
36-330-1 Owner's Liai~li Insurance assumed no wet to act
36.380-i CI Travel 8 Meetin 6t ensee
TOTAL OWNLR EXPENSES
Proposed
Budget
11I18M008 Costs
Spent Through
%
S nt 13alancs to
Complete on
Proposed Budget
$0
$0
$0
$10 000 10 000
10 000 0 000
38.230.1 Pro ecl Develo ment Fee 5149 66D 5149 560
38.320-Z Pro sot Travel and Reimbursable 539 749 539 749
38.230.2 InwnlNe Roes 26 000 25 000
38.240.1 Direct Pa roll Ex enses f7PE 332 356 332 366
38.24D-2 Su lies 56 242 $6 242
38.240.3 Tale hone/posts elDelNerles $7 8D8 7 808
38.240.4 Re oducUons 53 000 S3 000
38.240-6 IT 8srvloea $6042 $5 042
3&240.6 Office Fumituro and ui ment SO
38-240-7 Office Rent $0
3&240-8 Office BuUdout $0
TOTAL GENERAL & ADMIN COST 588 755 SS88 7SS
TOTAL CONTINGENCY COST
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ;15,094 498
City Proposed Total Garage Budget 513.210.133
Assume 4,000 sf of recall opace @
- Gurlainwell 186' x 12' x $65.00 $ 128,700
-Separation Black W all 226' x 12' x 518.00 $ 48,600
-Plumbing and Electricd S 40,000
-Fire Sprinklers 4,D00 x;3.50 $ 14,000
Total upgrade for retail S 231,300
Assume 326 sf per parking apace with 608 spaces 197,600 s.f.
Construction costs run $6fi.00 - $65.00 per of
Attachment b
Memo to: Mayor and City Commissioners
From: Howard Herring
Re: Frank Gehry and Park Design
Date: April 17, 2009
CC: Jorge Gonzalez and Tim Hemstreet
Over the past 48 hours, I have had a series of conversations with Frank Gehry and Craig Webb. They have
considered the possibility of creating a schematic design for the park then turning the work over to an
executive architect to finish the design process. They have chosen not to participate in the design work.
They understand that the City is sensitive to the ratio of design fee to total park budget, especially in the
current economic climate. Beyond the design fee issue, they are concerned that the park budget may be
too small in relation to the vision for the park. They suggest a very simple park design be created at
minimal expense. They would be willing to volunteer their time to review such a plan and suggest ways for
that plan to be enhanced so that the park can come as close as possible to the original vision within the
limitations of the budget. Their commitment to the total project is solid.
I am disappointed that Gehry Partners will not be designing the park. However, I believe we should
continue the search for an alternate designer. The New World Symphony New Campus is on time and on
budget. We have an articulated second addendum to the development agreement for Commission
consideration next week. This second addendum allows us to proceed with the garage in a timely manner.
By moving quickly and efficiently through the park designer selection process, and by achieving the park
timeline milestones, we can take full advantage of the opening of our New Campus in January 2011.
You should be aware that Andres Viglucci of the Miami Herald is now covering the developments in this
story. You may receive a call from him today.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have regarding this email and the status of the project.
/mil
Howard Herring
President and CEO
New World Symphony, America's Orchestral Academy
541 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, FL 33139 fhttp://www.nws.edu/map] howard.herring@nws.edu
direct: 305-673-3330 x 227
fax: 305-673-6749
www.nws.edu
The New World Symphony, America's only full-time orchestral academy, prepares gifted graduates of prestigious
music programs for successful careers in orchestras and ensembles. NWS has launched the careers of more than 630
young musicians now making a difference in the profession worldwide.
04/17/2009
m MIAMIBEACH
CITY o~ nn~~ ~~-~M-
1~OTICE OF ;PUBLIC HEARING
x
4
~,
6~+
o:
0
N
_M
J
a
Q
a:
O'
Z
Q
NOTICE IS HEREBY given-that a second reading and public hearing will be held by the City Commission
of the City of Miami Beach, in the Commission G~iambers, 3rd floor, City JiaA,1700 Convendion Center
Drive, Miami Beacti, Florida, on Wednesday, J#pril 22, 2009 at 2:~, P.M, to consider A Resolution
Approving, In Accordance With The Requirements Of Sections 163.3220 - 163.3243, Florida
Statutes, Also Referred To As The "Florida Local Government Development Act," A Second Addendum
', ("Second Addendum") To The Development Agreement Between The City Of Miami Beach ("City")
And The New World Symphony ("NWS"), Dated January 5, 2004 (fhe Development Agreement),
As Amended By That Certain First Addendum To Development Agreement, .Dated February 20, 2007
(The FirstAddendum) (Collectively, The January 5, 2004 DevelopmentAgreementAnd The FrstAddendum
May Also Collectively Be Referred To As The "NWS Development Agreement"); Said Second Addendum
~ Providing For The Following: 1) Approval Of The Final Garage Budget, In The Amount Of $16,798,000;
2) Amending The Preliminary Park Project Budget From $14,960,000, To $13,372,000; 3) Deleting The
Reference In The First Addendum Specifying Gehry Partners, LLC, As The Architectural Consultant For The
Park Project, And Also Waiving The Requirement Under Section 26.20 Of The Development Agreement
("Key Man" Clause) And'Section 9'Of The Frst Addendum But Only As tt Pertains To Gehry Partners,
LLC's Participation As The Architectural Consultant For The Park Project; 4) Authorizing NWS To Proceed
With The Selection Of A New Architectural Consultant And/Or Architectural Engineering (A/E) Firm For The
Design Of The Park Project, With NWS's Selection Process Therefore Subject To The Prior Written Approval
Of The City_ Manager (Prior To Implemehtation By NWS); 5) In Conjunction With The City :Commission's
Future Consideration And Review Of The Park Project Concept Plan, Directing NWS To Also, At That Time,
'Bring To The City Commission, For Review And Consideration, The Pending Issue Of Whether To Add
Certain Architectural Treatments (As Discussed At The City's Finance Committee Meeting On March 10,
2009. And Including, Without Limitation, The Stainless Steel Mesh And Led Lighting) For The East Fagade
Elevation Of The NWS Garage, With The Final Decision On Whether To Add Such Treatments To Be Subject
To The Approval Of The City Commission At That Time; 6) Amending Section, 23.2.1 Of The Development
Agreement,("Garage") Deleting The Reference That The NWS Garage Accommodate Approximately 320
Cars And, Further, Amending The Definition Of "G~rage" In Section 2(J) Of The First Addendum To Include
That The Garage, As Contemplated By The Parties, Shall Contain Approximately 535 Spaces (But No Less
Than 520 Spaces) And Shall Be Designed, Developed, And Constructed By Developer to=Accordance-And ,
Consistent With That Certain Order Of The City's Design Review Board (File No. X2010), =Approved On
March 3, 2009; And 7) That The Final Garage Budget Wall Not Include Funding For The Two (2) Elevators
In The Middle Of The Garage (On The East Side), And Having A Construction Value Of $275,000, Which
Have Been Designed To Primarily Access NWS' Building, However, Said Elevators Will Be Included In The
Garage And Funded At The Sole Cost And Expense Of NWS; And Further Authorizing NWS To Proceed With
Design And Engineering Of The Garage Upon Approval Of First Reading Of The Second Amendment Of The
Development Agreement.
Inquiries may be directed to the City Manager's Office at (305) 673-7010.
INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to appear at this meeting, or be represented by an agent, or to express
their views in writing addressed to the City Commission,,c/o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center
Drive l st Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. Copesef these ordinances are available for public
inspection during normal business hours in the City Clerk's Office,1700 Convention Center Drive 1st Floor,
City Hall,and Miantt Beach, Florida 33139:This meeting may be~continued and,under such circumstances
additional legal notice would not be provided.
Robert E. Parcher, City Clerk
City of Miami Beach
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Fla. Slat., the City hereby advises the public that: 'rf a person decides to appeal
any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting. or its hearing,
such person must ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony
and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the
irrtroduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals
not otherwise allowed by law.
To request this material in accessible format, sign language interpreters, information on access for persons with
disabilities, and/or any accommodation.to review any document or participate in any city-sponsored proceeding,
please corrtact (305) 604-2489 (voice), (305) 673-7218 (TTY) five days in advance to initiate your request. TTY users
may also call 711 (Florida Relay Service).
Ad #531