01.20.17 FCWP Supplemental ItemsMIAMIBEAC
FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE
SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS
Commission Chambers, 3RD Floor, 1700 Convention Center Drive
January 20, 2017 AT 2:30PM
Committee Members
Commissioner Ricky Arriola, Chair
Commissioner Joy Malakoff, Vice Chair
Commissioner John Aleman, Member
Commissioner Micky Steinberg, Alternate
Allison R. Williams, Committee Liaison
SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS
OLD BUSINESS
3~ Discussion Regarding Bus Survey Results To Identify Transportation Needs Of
Public School Children Within Two-Mile Limit Of Home School. (October 19, 2016
Commission Item C4B)
Jose Gonzalez-Transportation Director
Dr. Leslie Rosenfeld -Chief Learning Development Officer
Referred by Commissioner: John Elizabeth Aleman
Status: Item enclosed.
NEW BUSINESS
5. Discussion And Potential Funding Options For A Public Baywalk Guardrail
Located At 900 West Avenue Southgate Towers (December 14, 2016 Commission
Item C4D)
Thomas Mooney-Planning Director
Referred by : Planning and Office of the City Manager
Status: Item enclosed.
1
Page 2 of 3
6. Discussion Regarding Implementing The Safer Compass Program In The City Of
Miami Beach To Review The Analysis (November 9, 2016 Commission Item R9K)
Commission Discussion and Referral:
Commissioner Aleman stated she would like to have an analysis of City facilities and
parks to determine with Safer Compass, Inc., which sites are best suited for the Z.E.R.O.
program.
Daniel Oates -Police Chief
Virgilio Fernandez -Fire Chief
Charles Tear-Emergency Management Director
John Rebar-Parks and Recreation Director
Adrian Morales-Interim Property Management Director
Referred by Commissioner: John Elizabeth Aleman
Status: Item enclosed.
10. Discuss The Creation Of A Public Alleyway Fund (November 9, 2016 Commission
Item R9Q)
Commission Discussion and Referral:
Commissioner Arriola moved to refer to the Finance & Citywide Projects Committee to
develop a policy regarding the use of funds derived from the vacation of alleyways
and/or the partial vacation of streets .
Eric Carpenter-Assistant City Manager/ Public Works Director
Cintya Ramos -Budget and Performance Improvement Director
Referred by Commissioner: Kristen Rosen Gonzalez
Status: Item enclosed.
11. Discussion To Review City Construction Contracts To Hold Contractors More
Accountable (November 9, 2016 Commission Item C4K)
Alex Denis -Procurement Director
David Martinez -Capital Improvement Projects Director
Referred by Commissioner: Ricky Arriola
Status: Item enclosed.
12. Discussion Regarding Participation In The Miami-Dade County Transit Corporate
Discount Program (December 14, 2016 Commission Item C4A)
Jose Gonzalez -Transportation Director
Referred by: Transportation
Status: Item enclosed.
2
Page 3 of 3
13. Discussion On Creation Of Economic Development Goals And Objectives And A
Citywide Economic Development Strategy Plan (December 14, 2016 Commission
Item C4B)
Jeff Oris -Economic Development Division Director
Referred by: Tourism, Culture and Economic Development
Status: Item enclosed.
3
FCWPC Memorandum
Survey to Assess Interest in School Bus Service and Pilot Program Cost Estimate
January 20, 2017 Page 2 of 5
Biscayne Elementary, Nautilus Middle School, and Miami Beach Senior High School.
With the assistance of the Miami-Dade County Public School (M-DCPS) system, emails were sent
and letters distributed to all families in Miami Beach with children in public school. A follow-up email
was sent the week of September 26, 2016. The survey also was distributed citywide via the City's
social media platforms.
M-DCPS has provided the below information regarding the number of children attending each
Miami Beach public school sorted by miles from the home school for those students enrolled in the
Total Students Within 1 -2 Within% -1 Within% School Name students in within 2
attendance miles miles mile mile
South Pointe 572 538 8 88 442 Elem
Fienberg/Fisher 875 626 23 324 279 K-8 Center
Nautilus Middle 1,052 192 100 47 45
North Beach 1,078 707 384 206 117 Elem
Biscayne Elem 750 672 34 321 317
Miami Beach 2,406 627 458 145 24 Senior High
Total 6,733 3,362 1,007 1,131 1,224
2016/2017 school year:
The online bus survey was closed by administration on October 18, 2016 . Of the 702 responses
received, 278 respondents met the screening criteria (enrolled children in public school, not
receiving public school bus transportation). Of these, 76 (27%) were not interested and 202 (73%)
were interested in City provided school transportation.
The 202 interested respondents surveyed represented 315 students (9% of the target population of
3,362), with grade levels as follows:
• Elementary/K-8 (54%): South Pointe 46, North Beach 84 , Biscayne 27, Fienberg
Fisher K-8 Center 13 students.
• Middle (21%): Nautilus 66 students
• High School (25%): Miami Beach Senior High 79 students
Of the interested respondents, 77% drop-off and 63% pick-up their children from school each day.
Approximately 17% walk their children to and 25% from school. Other modes of transportation
include carpool (3%), private bus (5%, 10%), public bus (9%, 14%), and Uber (6%, 7%).
On October 28, 2016 , FCPWC discussed survey results and directed staff to provide the cost and
recommendation of a possible pilot-program.
On November 7, 2016, the Transportation, Parking and Bicycle-Pedestrian Facilities Committee
(TPBPFC) discussed this item and passed the following motion:
"The TPBPFC cannot support this effort until cost is provided and requests that no action is
taken at the FCPWC meeting."
6
FCWPC Memorandum
Survey to Assess Interest in School Bus Service and Pilot Program Cost Estimate
January 20, 2017 Page 3 of 5
On January 9, 2017, the TPBPFC discussed this item and unanimously passed the following
motion :
''The TPBPFC suggests, based on interest from survey respondents, a pilot program at
North Beach Elementary to start as soon as possible and allow for a full semester trial. "
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to FCPWC direction, staff followed up with respondents who initially showed interest in
utilizing school bus transportation service. Based on staff's follow-up, 162 out of initial 202
respondents re-confirmed their interest in utilizing this service. Addresses of 162 respondents were
mapped using GIS tools and addresses outside of two miles from the home school were eliminated
as not eligible. The final number of eligible students for school bus transportation is 224 as
compared to initial 315 children, as follows:
• Elementary/K-8: South Pointe 34 (originally 46), North Beach 70 (originally 84),
Biscayne 22 (originally 27), Fienberg Fisher K-8 Center 12 (originally 13 students).
• Middle: Nautilus 38 (originally 66 students)
• High School: Miami Beach Senior High 48 (originally 79 students)
Based on current demand, school locations, and school times, it was estimated that three (3)
buses would be sufficient to handle current demand if school transportation was provided to all
schools and one (1) bus if school transportation was provided to North Beach Elementary only.
The cost of potential pilot program was developed based on two (2) possible options, as follows:
Option 1: Providing school transportation service using the existing buses from Parks and
Recreation Department.
City's Parks and Recreation Department is currently providing transportation for public school
students for afterschool activities from school to recreational facilities (approximately 700). Number
of buses in fleet is nine (9) and bus capacity is between 29 and 72 (one bus 29, four buses 46-48
passengers, and four buses 64-72 passengers). Buses are driven by Municipal Service Workers
and current hours of service are typically 2pm-6pm for this service. Per City's Fleet Management
Division, all buses meet criteria for transporting youth; all buses are equipped with seatbelts. To
use existing buses for purposes of providing school transportation, the City would need to secure
part-time drivers. The City could solicit pricing for providing such service including appropriate
insurance coverage for bus operators. While the City hasn't solicited pricing for providing school
bus drivers only, based on conversation with our trolley vendor, it is estimated that the cost of
providing school drivers only would be a minimum of $30 per hour. In addition to cost of the
drivers, the City would have to cover the cost of vehicle maintenance, fuel, operations, licenses,
insurance as well as any other incidental items or fees required for fully functional service school
transportation service.
Pros:
• Using existing equipment
7
FCWPC Memorandum
Survey to Assess Interest in School Bus Service and Pilot Program Cost Estimate
January 20, 2017 Page 4 of 5
Cons:
• Based on conversations with multiple transportation service providers and trolley vendor,
securing part-time drivers may be challenging and companies that provide only drivers may
be hard to find
• Requires additional staff resources for:
o Route planning, development and modification would have to be done internally by
the Transportation Department staff
o Service operation would need to be overseen in high detail on a regular basis by the
Transportation Department staff
o While the existing customer service staff would be able to receive service related
inquiries, processing of those inquires would need to be performed by the
Transportation Department staff
• Based on input from Fleet Management, increased use of buses for school transportation
purposes would result in higher preventive maintenance/repair frequency and cost,
increased downtime and reduced availability of buses for current service performed by
Parks and Recreation Department
• City buses are currently only available in the morning. If the program was to be expanded to
provide similar service in the afternoon at school dismissal, this service option would not be
feasible
Option 2: Utilize the existing contract for Bus Transportation Services to provide a full-
turnkey school transportation service.
The City may use the existing contract for Bus Transportation Services to provide school
transportation service . The existing contract would enable for a full turn-key school transportation
service to include vehicles, maintenance, fuel, operations, licenses, insurance as well as any other
incidental items or fees required for a fully functional service school transportation service.
Pros:
• Liability of school transportation to be transferred to vendor
• Utilizing company that has tools, resources , and experience in providing school
transportation service
• Dispatch service overseeing operation of the service and ensuring abidance to pick-up and
drop-off times
• Customer service for questions/concerns from customers
• Higher service reliability. If this option used, any broken down vehicle would be replaced so
that number of vehicles in service is not affected
• Route planning, implementation and route modifications as needed by the contractor
Cons:
• N/A
Table below shows pilot-program cost estimates depending on selected options (using C ity buses
or contracting this service), length of the service (annual or semester) and demand (all 6 schools or
North Beach Elementary only). The cost for Option 1 was calculated assuming there is a company
that could provide school bus drivers to operate city buses at the cost of $30/hour and assuming
8
FCWPC Memorandum
Survey to Assess Interest in School Bus Service and Pilot Program Cost Estimate
January 20, 2017 Page 5 of 5
part-time seasonal employee is hired for route planning, development, implementation,
modification, monitoring of service operation, responding to parental questions/concerns,
investigating complaints as well as any other school transportation service related duties.
The cost of Option 2 was calculated based on rates from the Bus Transportation service Contract
for a full turn-key school transportation service.
Option 1-Option 2-
School Transportation Within Two Miles Pilot-Program Cost Estimate Using City Using
Buses Contractor
All Schools Morning Service Only $109,074 $125,280
Annual Cost All Schools Morning and Afternoon Service $196,687 $219,240
{180 Days) North Beach Elementary Morning Service Only $49,198 $41,760
North Beach Elementary Morning and Afternoon Service $87,835 $73,080
All Schools Morning Service Only $55,398 $62,640
Semester Cost All Schools Morning and Afternoon Service $99,794 $109,620
{90 Days) North Beach Elementary Morning Service Only $25,410 $20,880
North Beach Elementary Morning and Afternoon Service $45,318 $36,540
From the cost perspective, based on estimates above, the cost of providing school transportation
service is lower for Option 1 than Option 2 if providing service to all schools and higher for Option 1
than Option 2 if providing service to one school only as additional staff resources would need to be
acquired under Option 1 regardless of number of schools served. However, as highlighted
previously, there are other elements to be considered when providing service other than cost, such
us route planning, service operation and oversight, customer service, service flexibility and
reliability.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the contract for Bus Transportation Services be utilized if
there is a desire to provide school transportation service for youth who live less than 2 miles from
their home public school as securing drivers may be challenging and using the existing contract for
bus transportation services would provide more service flexibility and reliability and would be less
expensive particularly if service is provided to one school only. The Committee should determine
minimum distance from the school to be eligible for school transportation (1/4 mile or 1/2 mile) and
if school transportation would be available only to survey respondents during the pilot program or
additional sign-ups would be allowed until capacity of the buses in service is reached with a wait
list for additional interest.
CONCLUSION
This information is provided for your discussion and direction.
KGB/JR/MM
F:\TRAN\$ALL\Transit\School Transportation\Finance Discussion Bus Survey Results and Pilot Program Cost Estimate 1-12-17.docx
9
Finance and City Wide Projects Committee
Southgate Baywalk Fence-Potential Funding Options
January 20, 2017
ANALYSIS
Page 2
Normally a Land Use Board, even under the guidance of City Staff, would not commit
the City to a monetary obligation unless such obligation was approved by the City
Commission and a budget line item established. Also, a signed agreement is typically
drafted and executed, prior to such a condition even being contemplated by a Land Use
Board. When City Officials agree to fund an improvement on private property, the money
is typically identified and set aside in an account, pursuant to an executed agreement
that is signed either by the City Manager, or expressly authorized by the Mayor and
Commission.
The project applicant in this particular instance, Gumenick Properties, contends that the
City agreed to this as a condition of approval, based upon representations made at the
ORB meeting, and the explicit language in the ORB Order. The applicant has further
contended that they would not have agreed to otherwise allow a publicly accessible
baywalk on their private property and has intimated that a failure to provide the funds
could jeopardize the remainder of the conditions in the ORB order, including public
accessibility to the baywalk. Attached is correspondence from the applicant, along with
the ORB Final Order.
The City, through the Baywalk Master Plan, has placed a high priority on facilitating
public access to a continuous baywalk along West Avenue. Given the previous success
in working with upland property owners, such as Southgate Towers, the Administration
recommended that the City Commission refer this matter to the Finance and City Wide
Projects Committee for further discussion and policy direction.
Should the Finance Committee recommend that all or part of the $195,000 being
requested by the property owner be considered for funding, the Administration can come
back to the Committee with potential options for the source of such funds.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Finance and City Wide Projects Committee
discuss the matter further and provide appropriate policy direction.
JLM/ARW/TRM
M:\$CMB\CCUPDATES\Finance and Citywide Projects\Southgate Baywal Fence-MEM JAN 2017 FCWPC.docx
12
Mid Beach
• Scott Rakow Youth Center
1. Gymnasium
2. Ice Skating Rink
3. Fitness Room
4. Gymnastics Area
5. Pool
• Muss Park
1. Pavilion
• Nautilus Middle School (Teen Club Area if the school allows it)
1. Programming Room
North Beach
• North Shore Park Youth Center
1. Auditorium
2. Gymnasium
3. Tennis Center
4. Baseball Fields
• Fairway Park
1. Pavilion
• Normandy Isle Park
1. Activity Building
2. Basketball Courts
3. Pool
• North Shore Open Space Park
1. Pavilion/Restrooms on 83rd Street
2. Maintenance Offices
ACTION REQUIRED
Committee feedback is requested on the park facilities provided for Safer Compass, Inc.'s Zone
Emergency Response Operation (Z.E.R.O.) program.
JLM/~~
2
15
From: Mark Wohl <mwohl@the·beach.net>
Date~ October 30, 2016 at 11:38:02 PM EDT
To: <krlsten@mlamlbeachfl.gov>
cc: <val sobe@yahoo.com>
Subject: Alton Alley Development Sale
Commissioner Kristen Rosen Gonzalez,
1 was the commercial ~roker who sold the lot at theSE corner of 1ih & West Avenue not once but twice
Including the sale to the current owner/developer. When the appraiser contacted me for my
professional Input to help oetermlne current and future development values, I was not opposed to the
potential connectivity of the two properties nor am I now. However, I am concerned that the City is
selling the value on the short end ($665K ?)when the value should be closer to double that. Based on
what focal residential camps are paying In propertytax assessments (my building for example), the
price should be In the $300 PSF range . ($1.2M for 4K S~} or higher considering that the new development
Is mixed-use not pure residential. Forgetting the fact that City Is setting a precedent for future
development over public right-of-ways In our neighborhood, the 11General Fund" that contln .ues to grow
from these air rlghts sales needs to have a specific benefit for the Immediate community. My past
Involvement on different committees and boards In and around the City has opened my eyes to the
needs and a budget shortfall Is not an excuse these days~ •.
For example, just like Commissioner Grieco has pointed out In previous Commission Meetings that any
developer payment regarding impact fees for on/<>ff-street parking {I.e. Shore Club) that need to be
directed to the Parking Department, so should the proceeds of our publlc alleyways . Not sure If such a
specific fund exists, but given the rising number of homeless people (that typically occupy the alleys) In
and around our neighborhood and these local development sites, we should consider the appropriation
of a minimum SO% of the proceeds to the CMB Homeless Services under the Housing Authorlty.Thls
growing Issue Isn't going away and the lack of resources to Improve the safety and security of the Alton
Road to Bay Road area requires added attention that these funds can support. From added staff under
the Housing Authority to specific services that should be added/expanded (especially entering Into the
winter season), funding Is required.
Attached Is a pe·rfect example of a homeless person who Just finished urinating_ ln public In front of me&.
my wife as we. waited for our take-out order today at Spring Chicken at 1427-35 Alton Road. On any
given day or night In the same 10. block ·stretch, at least a -dozen or more homeless people are in need of
public assistance and should not be permitted to loiter. All this to say, that our Lincoln Rd-West Ave
neighborhood Is littered with future developments coupled with numerous homelessness • not the
environment I want for myself or my children. We are a caring city that Is resourceful when needed and
now Is the time we need to appropriate the developer Impact fees collected from the alleyway sale to
Improve the quality of life In our Immediate area as we would naturally expect from the City we love ...
Please feel free to share these comments with the appropriate department heads and/or you fellow
Commissioners, City Manager, City Attorney and Mayor ..
I will make every effort to attend the upcoming meeting regarding this issue If I'm in town (travelling
way too much for work these days) ... Piease help us Ill
Respectfully,
Mark Wohl & Family
1688 West Avenue
18
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee Memorandum-Contractor's Accountability
January 20, 2017
Page 2of2
5. Management of Claims and Change Orders. The City's contracts aim to equitably
address unforeseen circumstances and other changes that often anse during the course
of a Project that may give rise to valid Change Orders, while at the same time requiring
the Contractor to take steps to mitigate damages and bring issues to the City's attention
as quickly as possible in an effort to minimize or avoid claims. In addition, as an
additional protection for the benefit of the City, any claims must be certified in
accordance with the City's False Claims Ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is to
deter persons from knowingly causing or assisting in causing the city to pay claims that
are false, fraudulent, or inflated, and to provide remedies for obtaining treble damages
and civil penalties for the city when money is sought or obtained from the city by reason
of a false claim. Failure to comply with this ordinance may include among other things,
responsibility to pay the City for up to three times the amount of the fraudulent claim,
payment of additional costs and fees incurred by the city to review and defend the claim
and potential debarment from City contracting in accordance with Section 2-406.
6. Termination for Cause. The City's contracts provide the City with broad rights to
completely or partially terminate a contract because of the contractor's actual or
anticipated failure to perform its contractual obligations. Typically, any termination for
cause would be accompanied by demands on the surety to step in and complete the
work.
Additionally, prior to presenting a recommendation to the City Commission, the City Manager,
pursuant to Section 2-369 of the City Code, considers the following factors to ensure that
contracts are only awarded to vetted and reputable contractors: the ability, capacity and skill of
the proposer to perform the Contract; the capability to perform the contract within the time
specified, without delay or interference; the character, integrity, reputation, judgment,
experience and efficiency of the proposer; the quality of performance of previous contracts; and,
the previous and existing compliance by the proposer with laws and ordinances relating to the
Contract.
The above information is presented to assist the FCWPC in its discussion on holding
contractors more accountable.
JLM/~MT/~
21
FCWPC Memorandum
Discussion Regarding Participation In The Miami-Dade County Transit Corporate Discount Program
January 20, 2017 Page 2 of 3
non-vehicular transportation alternatives as part of developer requirements is pending
consideration by the Land Use and Development Committee.
Currently, City employees who use or are interested in using public transit to commute to
work receive no subsidy to offset their commuting costs. Employees who drive their
personal vehicle to work are provided a 1 00% subsidy for parking at City-operated garages
and lots adjacent to their worksite . This provides an economic incentive for employees to
use their personal vehicles inconsistent with the City's Transportation Plan.
Based on the 2013 City of Miami Beach employees' survey conducted by the South
Florida Commuter Services (SFCS), 346 surveyed employees would consider alternative
modes of transportation and 80 employees in particular would consider transit services
provided by Miami-Dade County. The County provides transit passes at a reduced price
for participants of the corporate program.
The cost of a regular monthly transit pass is $112.50. In order to support the goals of the
City's Transportation Master Plan and encourage employees to commute to work using
transit services instead of their individual vehicles, the following options may be
considered.
Option 1: Participate in Miami-Dade County's Transit Corporate Discount Program allowing
employees to have access to discounted rates for monthly transit passes (requires no City
subsidy):
• Discount rate for monthly transit pass with between 4 and 99 employees
participating: $101 .25
• Discount rate for monthly transit pass with 1 00 or more employees participating:
$95.65
Option 2: Participate in Miami-Dade County's Transit Corporate Discount Program and
provide a monthly subsidy of $90 to those employees who purchase a monthly transit pass
at the discounted rates provided by the County's Transit Corporate Discount Program .
Option 3: In conjunction with Option 2 above, implement a nominal monthly employee
parking fee in the form of a deduction for those employees who drive their personal vehicle
to work in order to provide some incentive for employees to switch to transit. Parking at
City garages is provided by the City at a cost of $100 per employee per month . However,
this may require bargaining for employees who are members of bargaining units in the
City.
Assuming all 80 City employees who responded favorably in the 2013 SFCS survey would
participate in the County's Corporate Discount Program and use Miami-Dade Transit
services , this program would cost approximately $98 ,000 annually, but would be at least
partially offset by revenues from available parking spaces, particularly during peak periods
at the Convention Center. The Parking Department estimates that there are approximately
100 days per year when the City Hall garage reaches capacity due to events at the
Convention Center. Assuming an average daily parking rate of $10 , this could result in up
24
FCWPC Memorandum
Discussion Regarding Participation In The Miami-Dade County Transit Corporate Discount Program
January 20, 2017 Page 3of 3
to approximately $80,000 per year in additional parking revenues.-More importantly, the
program would provide greater parking availability in the City Center area and would
potentially result fewer vehicles traveling on our already congested streets.
RECOMMENDATION
This item is being presented to the Commission for discussion and further direction.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOMES SUPPORTED
Ensure Comprehensive Mobility Addressing All Modes throughout the City
KGB/JRG/MM
F:\TRAN\$ALL\Committee Memos\FCWC\January 2017\Finance Discussion Transit Corporate Program.docx
25
ANALYSIS
While not entirely based on tourism, greater diversification of the local economy and
tools to attract and retain business and development types would help to buffer the City
against the aforementioned conditions. Diversification of the business base would make
the local economy less vulnerable to downtowns or economic shock to any one segment
and would assist in maintaining ongoing business activity, employment opportunities for
residents, and revenues to the City. The City's economic development efforts in recent
years have focused more on revitalization or enhancement of areas such as Alton Road,
North Beach, and Ocean Drive. These efforts should be expanded to a greater effort to
more traditional economic development activities such as business attraction and
retention geared toward desired and most advantageous business and development
types.
The City has only really had two major economic development assistance programs in
the past decade, a small Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fa<;ade
assistance program and two county-operated, state-approved, Enterprise Zones.
Unfortunately, income levels in the City have made it almost impossible for the City to
utilize CDBG funds for commercial activities such as fa<;ade improvements any longer.
Additionally, the Florida Legislature allowed the State's Enterprise Zone program sunset
in 2015 and thus incentives available to business through the program are no longer
available.
As previously mentioned, there is no comprehensive strategy for economic resilience
and sustainability should a disruptive short term event occur or in the face of long term
events such as sea level rise. Discussions have begun to occur between the City's
sustainability, economic development and emergency management staffs to begin to
understand these economic resiliency needs.
The most efficient and direct way to remedy the lack_ of economic strategy and planning
would be through the creation of a city-wide economic development strategy plan. Such
an effort would utilize a review of: existing businesses, existing commercial space in the
City, and marketplace data, resiliency and sustainability threats, available resources and
other information along with input from the residents, business owners, and property
owners. The effort would be employed to explore what might be the best and most
suitable industries for the City to target to diversify our economic base as well as to
determine methods and programs to insure long term sustainability for all businesses in
the City and provide a roadmap for resiliency in the face of economic disruption.
Additional activities under this effort could include a strategy of potential methods to
attract and retain these desired businesses and assist businesses in hardening/disaster
preparedness . These methods could include incentives, zoning modifications, and the
identification or attraction or resiliency projects that might be eligible for grant funding
from agencies such as the U.S. Economic Development Administration.
The creation of such a strategy plan would be best implemented through the use of an
outside consulting firm that could easily provide market and industry data and assist in
connecting the City to established industry leaders to assist in determining the most
advantageous business types to attract given the City's economy, workforce,
commercial and office property inventory, and the regulatory environment in the City,
County and State.
CURRENT STAFF REVIEW
28
The original intent of this item was to obtain direction on the potential of an economic
development strategy focusing on diversification of the City's economic base and to seek
potential strategies for a traditional economic development program. Additionally, the
Committee 's direction on potentially hiring an outside consultant to assist in this effort
was to be the focus of the discussion. Since the time of the referral however, the City's
Chief Resiliency Officer (CRO) introduced the suggestion to seek inclusion of a wider
scope of economic sustainability and resiliency into this effort. Inclusion of such would
greatly expand the scope of the undertaking however, it would provide for a more
comprehensive approach to economic development and provide a greater level of
support for the business and commercial property community.
To facilitate the more comprehensive discussion and to obtain assistance in gathering
more information on an approach to such a strategy, the CRO and staff have secured
several hours of free consultation on this matter from the 100 Resilient Cities program.
After an initial discussion with a subject matter expert, it is staff's intent to explore a more
comprehensive scope of the effort to be undertaken and to explore what expertise might
be available from 100 Resilient Cities (at no cost to the City) before initiating a
discussion on utilizing another outside consultant.
Staff, if desired by the Committee, will continue to explore a scope of work, the potential
to utilize 100 Resilient Cities to assist in the effort, and what portions of any strategy may
require other outside expertise, input or assistance .
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Committee members initiate a discussion on economic
development and sustainability goals and direction on the creation of a comprehensive
economic development strategy. The Administration does recommend however, that
staff continue to explore a more comprehensive strategy potential with 100 Resilient
Cities and report back to the Committee on potential scope of work, timeline and
anticipated costs as this information is more clearly derived from discussions with the
organization and its subject matter experts .
Should you have any questions regarding this item, please contact Jeff Oris at (305)
673-7577 x6186.
C: Kathie Brooks, Assistant City Manager
Susanne Torriente, Assistant City Manager/Chief Resiliency Officer
Eva Silverstein, Director of Tourism, Culture and Economic Development
Charles Tear, Director of Emergency Management
Jeffrey Oris, Economic Development Division Director
29