Bookmarked Agenda June 1, 2011 OCR OptimizedMIAMIBEACH
City Commission Meeting
City Hall, Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, 1700 Convention Center Drive
June 1,2011
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower
Vice-Mayor Jonah Wolfson
Commissioner Jorge Exposito
Commissioner Michael G6ngora
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
City Manager Jorge M. Gonzalez
City Attorney Jose Smith
City Clerk Robert E. Parcher
Visit us at www.miamibeachfl.gov for agendas and video "streaming" of City Commission Meetings.
ATTENTION ALL LOBBYISTS
Chapter 2, Article VII, Division 3 of the City Code of Miami Beach entitled "Lobbyists" requires
the registration of all lobbyists with the City Clerk prior to engaging in any lobbying activity with
the City Commission, any City Board or Committee, or any personnel as defined in the subject
Code sections. Copies of the City Code sections on lobbyists laws are available in the City
Clerk's office. Questions regarding the provisions of the Ordinance should be directed to the
Office of the City Attorney.
Special note: In order to ensure adequate public consideration, if necessary, the Mayor and City Commission
may move any agenda item to the alternate meeting date which will only be held if needed. In addition, the
Mayor and City Commission may, at their discretion, adjourn the Commission Meeting without reaching all
agenda items.
Call to Order - 9:00 a.m.
Inspirational Message, Pledge of Allegiance
Requests for Additions, Withdrawals, and Deferrals
The City Commission will recess for lunch at approximately 1 :00 p.m.
Presentations and Awards Regular Agenda
PA Presentations and Awards R2 Competitive Bid Reports
R5 Ordinances
Consent Agenda R7 Resolutions
C2 Competitive Bid Reports R9 New Business and Commission
C4 Commission Committee Assignments R10 City Attorney Reports
C6 Commission Committee Reports
C7 Resolutions Reports and Informational Items
We are committed to providing excellent public sewice and safety to all who live, work, and play in our vibrant, tropical, historic community.
Consent Agenda, June 1,201 1
Presentations and Awards
Proclamation To Be Presented To The Miami Beach Police Department's Civilian And Officer Of
The Month For April 201 1. (Page 3)
(Requested by Commissioner Jorge R. Exposito)
Certificates Of Appreciation To Be Presented To North Beach Elementary Awardees Of The Annual
Jennifer Beth Turken Heart Program.
(Requested by Commissioner Jorge Exposito)
Proclamation To Be Presented To The Goodwill Ambassadors Program.
(Requested by Commissioner Jorge R. Exposito)
Certificates Of Completion To Be Presented To Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
Graduates.
(City Manager's Office)
Certificates Of Recognition To Be Presented To Miami Beach High School Students Who Participated
In The Romance In A Can Film Festival.
(Requested by Commissioner Deede Weithorn)
Certificates Of Recognition To Be Presented To The Students That Participated In The 1'' Annual
Biscayne Elementary Design Fair.
(Requested by Commissioner Michael Gongora)
Certificate Of Appreciation To Be Presented To George Rodez For His Dedication In Organizing
The 1 Annual Miami Beach Sister Cities International Artist Showcase.
(Requested by Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Commissioner Michael Gongora)
Certificates Of Appreciations To Be Submitted To Participants In The Third Annual Miami Beach
Women's Conference.
(Requested by Mayor Matti Herrera Bower)
CONSENT AGENDA
Action:
Moved:
Seconded:
Vote:
Consent Agenda, June 1,201 1
C2 - Competitive Bid Reports
C2A Request For Approval To lssue A Request For Qualifications (RFQ) For A Design Criteria
Professional To Prepare A Design Criteria Package For The Palm And Hibiscus Neighborhood Right-
Of-Way lmprovement Project, Which Is Intended To Be A Design-Build Contract; And To Serve As
The City's Representative During The Selection Of The Design-Build Firm For The Project,
Concerning The Evaluation Of The Responses Submitted By The Design-Build Firms; Review And
Approve For Compliance Of The Detailed Working Drawings For The Project; And For Evaluation Of
The Compliance Of The Project Construction With The Design Criteria Package. (Page 7)
(Capital lmprovement Projects/Procurement)
C2B Request For Approval To lssue A Request For Qualifications (RFQ) For Resident Project
Representative Services For Right-of-way Improvements To Neighborhood No. 8, Bayshore
(Package E), Sunset Islands 1 & 2. (Page 23)
(Capital lmprovement Projects/Procurement)
C2C Request For Approval To lssue A Request For Qualifications (RFQ) For A Construction Manager At
Risk Firm To Provide Pre-Construction Services And Construction Phase Services Via A Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP) Amendment For The Flamingo Park Tennis Center. (Page 33)
(Capital lmprovement Projects/Procurement)
C4 - Commission Committee Assignments
C4A Referral To The Finance And Citywide Projects Committee - Discussion Regarding Advertising On
Deco Bike Stations, Its Economic Impact To The City And The Enhancement Of The Deco Bike
Program. (Page 45)
(Requested by Commissioner Jorge Exposito)
C4B Referral To The Land Use And Development Committee - Discussion On Off-Leash Hours And/or
Designated Area For Dogs, Not Fenced, In The General South Vicinity Of The Par 3 Golf Course.
(Page 47)
(Requested by Vice-Mayor Jonah Wolfson)
C4C Referral To The Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee - Consideration And Discussion Of
Proposed Amendments To The City's Noise Ordinance. (Page 49)
(City Attorney's Office)
iii
Consent Agenda, June 1,201 1
C6 - Commission Committee Reports
C6A Report Of The Capital lmprovement Projects Oversight Committee Meeting On April 11, 201 1: 1)
Attendance. 2) Public Comments. 3) Old Business: 3a) Status Report: Venetian lsland Neighborhood
lmprovement Project; 3b) Status Report: Sunset Islands I & II Status Report: Status Report: Palm &
Hibiscus lsland Undergrounding; 3c) Status Report: Sunset Islands Ill & IV; 3d) Status Report: Status
Report: Palm & Hibiscus lsland Undergrounding. 4) Commission Items: 4a) A Resolution To Execute
Amendment No. 9 To The Agreement Between The City And EAC Consulting, Inc., For Professional
Architectural And Engineering Services For The Biscayne Point Neighborhood Right-of-way
lmprovement Project; 4b) A Resolution To Execute Amendment No. 20 To The Professional Services
Agreement With CH2M Hill For The Professional Landscape Architectural And Engineering Services
For The Right-of-way lnfrastructure lmprovements Program For Neighborhood No. 8 Bayshore And
Sunset Islands; And A Resolution To Execute Amendment No. 21 To The Professional Services With
CH2M Hill For The Professional Landscape Architectural And Engineering Services For The Right-Of-
Way lnfrastructure lmprovements Program For Neighborhood No. 8 Bayshore And Sunset Islands,
Dated May 16,2001, To Provide Additional Design Documents And Permitting Services To Procure
The DERM Tree Removal Permits For The Bayshore And Sunset lsland Neighborhoods No. 8A, 88,
8C, And 8D Projects, To Participate In Value Engineering, Provide Design Modifications And
Associated Re-Permitting Services To Incorporate The Level Of Service Review Comments
Requested By The City Commission. 5) Review And Acceptance Of Minutes. 6) Adjournment.
(Page 61)
C6B Report Of The Finance And Citywide Projects Committee Meeting On April 27,201 1: 1) Discussion
Regarding Sunset Islands 3 And 4 Guardhouse. 2) Discussion Regarding The Implementation Of A
Municipal Marketing (Corporate Sponsorship) Program For The City - Beverage Contract. 3)
Discussion Regarding Approval Of The Traffic Calming Manual. 4) Recommendation To Reject All
Bids Received For The Coast Guard Wastewater Booster Pump Station Project. 5) Quarterly Reports
On The Status Of New Potential Revenue Initiatives. 6) Discussion On A Request For Approval To
Issue A Competitive Process For Certain Advertising Programs, And Advertising Sales Support, As
Part Of The City's Revenue Enhancement Initiatives. 7) Discussion Regarding Granting The Miami
Beach Garden Conservancy The Right To Receive Naming Gifts As Part Of The Garden Renovation.
8) Discussion Regarding Extending The Amount Of Time Residents Have To Pay Their Utility Bill. 9)
Discussion Regarding Incentives For Fa~ade Renovation In North Beach Commercial Corridors. 10)
Explanation For Any lncreases In Individual Department Budgets (Net Of lncreases From Pension
Reallocations And Internal Service Increases). 11) Discussion Of All Fees Administratively Set Or
Have Been Administratively Set. 12) A Resolution ... Approving And Authorizing The Purchase Of Ten
(10) Apple IPADS (Including A Security Server), For The Individual City Commissioners, City
Manager, City Clerk, And City Attorney, In The Amount Of $16,000. (Page 69)
Consent Agenda, June 1,201 1
C6 - Commission Committee Reports (Continued)
C6C Report Of The NeighborhoodslCommunity Affairs Committee Meeting On May 5,201 1 : 1) Selection
Of A Chair And Vice-Chair For The NeighborhoodslCommunity Affairs Committee For A Term Of One
Chair; 2) Discussion Regarding The Signage For The Adopt-A-Beach Program; 3) Follow-Up
Report On Efforts Made Regarding Excessive Use Of Sign Advertising And Aggressive Solicitation
On Lincoln Road And Ocean Drive; 4) Discussion Regarding An Ordinance Amending The Code Of
The City Of Miami Beach, By Amending Chapter 2, Entitled "Administration," By Amending Article Ill,
Entitled "Agencies, Boards And Committees," By Amending Division 2, Entitled "Disability Access
Committee," By Amending Sec. 2-31 (D) To Increase The Number Of Members From Seven (7) To
Fourteen (14) And Amending The Quorum Requirement; Providing For Codification, Repealer,
Severability, And An Effective Date; 5) Discussion Regarding The Mapping Of Old Alton Road On
Miami Beach; 6) Discussion Of Potential Policies For The NominationINumber Of Memorial Or
Commemorative Plaques; 7) Follow-Up Discussion Concerning The Placement Of A Plaque On The
Jose Marti Bust In Honor Of Mr. Luis C. Hernandez For His Contributions To The Local Hispanic
Community; 8) Discussion Regarding Licensing And Authorization Requirements For Mobile Food
Trucks And Proposal For A City Sponsored Food Truck Festival; 9) Discussion Regarding The
Impact Of Bicycles - Including The Deco Bike Program And The Bike Master Plan - And Other
Vehicles, Such As Segways And Skateboards, On Pedestrian Paths And Discussion Regarding
Regulating The Speed Of Segways In Pedestrian Areas; 10) Discussion Regarding Methods Of
Discouraging The Sale Of Smokeless Candy Flavored Tobacco Products In The City, As
Recommended By The Quality Of Education Committee; 11) Discussion Regarding Improving The
Appearance Of Washington Avenue Between 7th And 16th; 12) Discussion Regarding A Resolution
Opposing Cultural Exchanges Between Cuba And The United States; 13) Discussion Regarding
Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park's (ADMSP) Request For An Extension Of Time Of ADMSP's Deadline
To Obtain A Building Permit From May 13, 201 1 To February 13, 2012; 14) Discussion Regarding
The Status Of Sunrise Plaza; 15) Discussion Concerning The Flamingo Park Neighborhood
Becoming Florida's Most Pedestrian Friendly Neighborhood; And 16) Quarterly Crime Statistics.
(Page 77)
Report Of The Land Use And Development Committee Meeting On May 18,201 1 : 1) Proposed Alton
Road Historic District Buffer Overlay. 2) Proposed Parking District #5 For The Alton Road Corridor. 3)
Discussion Regarding An Ordinance Requiring A Maintenance Bond To Ensure Abandoned
Construction Sites Meet Property Maintenance Standards. 4) Discussion On The Development Of A
Citywide Transportation Plan. 5) Discussion Regarding Temporary Storefront Signs. 6) Temporary
Removal Of Parking Spaces. 7) a) Discussion On A Possible Amendment To The Accessory Use
Regulations For The RM-2 Zoning District To Permit A Limited Number Of Commercial Accessory
Uses In An Apartment Building Adjacent To A Public Baywalk To Be Open To The Public; b)
Discussion Regarding The Baywalk Conservation District Proposal Put Forth By Members Of The
Lincoln West Neighborhood Association. 8) a) Discussion Concerning The Short-Term Rental
Ordinance In Flamingo Park Neighborhoods For Less Than 3 Units; b) Discussion On Including A
Clause For Exceptions In The Short Term Rentals Ordinance. 9) Discussion Regarding Changing The
Permitted Uses In A CD-2 District To Allow For Self Storage. 10) Discussion On The De-
Intensification Of The 1-1 Light Industrial District. I I) Discussion Regarding The Gale Hotel Height
Limits. 12) Discussion Regarding The Former South Shore Hospital Site. 13) Short-Term Rental
Ordinance Enforcement. 14) Discussion On The Ocean Beach Historic District R-Ps4 Zoning
Amendment. (Page 89)
Consent Agenda, June 1,201 1
C7 - Resolutions
C7A A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The City Manager Or His Designee To Submit Applications
To: 1) The US Department Of Transportation For The Transportation, Community And System
Preservation (TCSP) Program In The Approximate Amount Of $2,000,000 For The Middle Beach
Recreational Corridor; 2) The Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization For
Transportation Enhancement Program Funding From Florida Department Of Transportation For The
Middle Beach Recreational Corridor In The Approximate Amount Of $400,000; 3) Florida Department
Of State, Division Of Cultural Affairs, Culture Builds Florida Program For Funding In The Approximate
Amount Of $25,000 For Sleepless Night 201 2; 4) Miami-Dade County ADA Parking Fines Program,
For Funding In The Approximate Amount Of $90,000 For Eligible ADA Projects; 5) Miami-Dade
County Tourist Development Council Grants Program For Funding In The Approximate Amount Of
$25,000 For The City's July 4,201 1 Celebration; And, 6) Retroactively, To The Walmart Foundation's
Local Community Contribution Program For Funding In The Approximate Amount Of $5,000 For
Elderly Care Services; Appropriating The Above Grants, Program Funds And Matching Funds, As
Necessary If Approved And Accepted By The City, And Authorizing The Execution Of All Documents
Related To These Applications. (Page 97)
(Budget & Performance Improvement)
C7B A Resolution Electing Commissioner Edward L. Tobin, Group V, As Vice-Mayor For A Term
Commencing On July 1,201 1, And Terminating On October 31,201 1, Or On Such Date When A New
Vice-Mayor Is Thereafter Elected. (Page 109)
(City Clerk's Office)
C7C A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager Pursuant To Request For
Proposals (RFP) No. 16-1 011 1 For Investigative And Adjusting Services For Selected Tort Liability
Claims And Workers' Compensation Claims; Authorizing The Administration To Enter lnto
Negotiations With Horizon Investigations, lnc. As The Primary Firm, And KWIC, Inc. As The
Secondary Firm; And Further Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute Agreements Upon
Conclusion Of Successful Negotiations By The Administration. (Page 113)
(Human Resources & Risk Management)
A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager Pertaining To The Ranking Of
Firms Pursuant To Request For Proposals (RFP) No. 1 1-1 011 1 For Wide Area Network (WAN)
Services To Provide Computer Network Connectivity Between The Main And Remote City Facilities;
Authorizing The Administration To Enter lnto Negotiations With The Top-Ranked Firm Of AT&T
Corporation, And Should The Administration Not Be Able To Negotiate An Agreement With The Top-
Ranked Firm, Authorizing The Administration To Negotiate With The Second- Ranked Firm Of
Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC; And Further Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute An
Agreement Upon The Completion Of Successful Negotiations By The Administration. (Page 121)
(Information Technology Department)
C7E A Resolution Authorizing A Sole Source Procurement, Pursuant To Section 2-367 (D) Of The Miami
Beach City Code, From Laserfiche Solutions Group, The Sole Source Manufacturer Of Laserfiche
Software And Provider Of Laserfiche Software Maintenance, For An Upgrade From The City's
Laserfiche Records Management System (RMS), To The Laserfiche RIO System, In The Amount Of
$1 2,160.09; VIP Advanced Support Services, In The Amount Of $1 6,800; And Annual Maintenance,
In The Amount Of $20,153.33. (Page 129)
(Information Technology Department)
Consent Agenda, June I, 201 1
C7 - Resolutions (Continued)
C7F A Resolution Waiving, By 5l7ths Vote, The Competitive Bidding Requirement, Finding Such Waiver
To Be In The Best Interest Of The City, And Approving And Authorizing The Purchase Of Ten (10)
Apple iPADs (Including A Security Server) For The Individual City Commissioners, City Manager, City
Clerk, And City Attorney, In The Amount Of $16,000, That Will Allow The City Commissioners To
View And Annotate The City Commission Agenda. (Page 139)
(Information Technology)
C7G A Resolution Retroactively Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute An
Agreement With ePARK Systems, Inc., The Sole Source Distributor Of The In-Vehicle Parking Meters
(IVPMs) Or IPARK Devices, For The Purchase Of IVPMs And Prepaid Parking Reloads, In An
Amount Not To Exceed $200,000 Annually (Of Which The Actual Cost To The City Is Less Than
$25,000, With The Remaining Balance Reimbursed To The City). (Page 145)
(Parking Department)
C7H A Resolution Setting A Public Hearing, As Required Pursuant To Section 82-504 Of The City Code,
To Accept The Recommendation Of The Neighborhood1Community Affairs Committee And Approving
The Placement Of A Commemorative Plaque Honoring Luis Hernandez, To Be Installed On The
North Side Of The Jose Marti Monument Located In Collins Park (Attached To The Monument's
Foundation) With Said Public Hearing To Be Scheduled For The City Commission Meeting Of July
13,201 1. (Page 167)
(Parks & Recreation)
C71 A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute Amendment No. 4 To
The Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) Between The City And The Florida Department Of
Transportation (FDOT), Dated October 31, 2007, For The Milling And Resurfacing Improvements
Along Indian Creek Drive (SR AIA) Between 26 And 41 Streets; Said Amendment Extending The
Contract For An Additional Three (3) Months, Through September 30, 201 1; Extending The Final
Invoice Submittal Date To January 28, 2012; And Utilizing The U.S. Department Of Homeland
Security's E-Verify System To Confirm Employment Eligibility Of All Persons Employed By The City
During The Term Of The JPA. (Page 175)
(Public Works)
C7J A Resolution Reappropriating Eighty-One Thousand Dollars ($81,000) Of Funds From FY 1011 1
Capital Budget Fund 440 - Electrical Buss Duct Replacement For West Wrap Project To The Glass
Block Window Replacement Project At The Convention Center. (Page 195)
(Tourism & Cultural Development)
C7K A Resolution Authorizing The Appropriation And Expenditure Of $18,750 For The City's Joint Tourism
And Hospitality Scholarship Program In Partnership With Global Spectrum And Centerplate; And
Further Awarding Said Scholarships. (Page 199)
(Tourism & Cultural Development)
End of Consent Aaenda
vii
PRESENTATIONS
AND
AWARDS
Presentations and Awards
PA1 Proclamation To Be Presented To The Miami Beach Police Department's Civilian And
Officer Of The Month For April 201 4.
(Requested by Commissioner Jorge R. Exposito)
PA2 Certificates Of Appreciation To Be Presented To North Beach Elementary Awardees Of
The Annual Jennifer Beth Turken Heart Program.
(Requested by Commissioner Jorge Exposito)
PA3 Proclamation To Be Presented To The Goodwill Ambassadors Program.
(Requested by Commissioner Jorge R. Exposito)
PA4 Certificates Of Completion To Be Presented To Community Emergency Response Team
(CERT) Graduates.
(City Manager's Office)
PA5 Certificates Of Recognition To Be Presented To Miami Beach High School Students
Who Participated In The Romance In A Can Film Festival.
(Requested by Commissioner Deede Weithorn)
PA6 Certificates Of Recognition To Be Presented To The Students That Participated In The
1'' Annual Biscayne Elementary Design Fair.
(Requested by Commissioner Michael Gongora)
PA7 Certificate Of Appreciation To Be Presented To George Rodez For His Dedication In
Organizing The 1 '' Annual Miami Beach Sister Cities International Artist Showcase.
(Requested by Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Commissioner Michael Gongora)
PA8 Certificates Of Appreciations To Be Submitted To Participants In The Third Annual
Miami Beach Women's Conference.
(Requested by Mayor Matti Herrera Bower)
Agenda Item PA\ - 8
Date 6-1-11
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMPETITIVE BID REPORTS
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Request For Approval To Issue A Request For Qualifications (RFQ) For A Design Criteria Professional To Prepare
The Design Criteria Package For the Palm And Hibiscus Neighborhood Right-of-way Improvement Project, Which Is
lntended To Be A Design-Build Contract; And To Serve As The City's Representative During The Selection Of The
Design-Build Firm For The Project, Concerning The Evaluation Of The Responses Submitted By The Design-Build
Firms; Review And Approve For Compliance Of The Detailed Working Drawings For The Project; And For Evaluation
Of The Compliance Of The Project Construction With The Design Criteria Package.
Key lntended Outcome Supported: I Ensure well-maintained infrastructure
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
The 2007 Community Satisfaction Survey noted 82% of North Beach residents rated recent capital projects
completed as "excellenf' or "good" compared to 89% of residents citywide.
Issue: 1 Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the issuance of the RFQ? 1
Item Sum~ry/Recommendation:
The City is'irequesting qualification statements from a "Design Criteria Professional", which for the purpose of this RFQ
is a firm who holds a current certificate of registration under chapter 471 as a registered engineer to practice
engineering and who has documented experience in the preparation of design criteria package for public facilities and
meets the minimum qualifications described in this document.
The Consultant shall provide the City a Design Criteria Package for Palm and Hibiscus Island as well as a Master
Design Criteria Package to be used as a template for other City horizontal right of way projects. The Palm and
Hibiscus Neighborhood improvement project consists of landscaping I imgation and street lighting, replacement of
existing water main infrastructure, improved storm water drainage collection and disposal infrastructure including
swale restoration, curb and gutter and other facilities, street resurfacing 1 pavement markings, repair andlor extension
of existing sidewalks to comply with ADA requirements, incorporation of traffic calming features, consistent with
community preferences and the incorporation and coordination of the undergrounding of utilities including Florida
Power and Light (FPL), Atlantic Broadband (ABB) and AT&T.
The Design Criteria package at a minimum shall contain concise, performance-oriented drawings or specifications of
the public construction project. The purpose of the design criteria package is to furnish sufficient information to permit
design-build firms to prepare a bid or a response to an agency's request for proposal, or to permit an agency to enter
into a negotiated design-build contract. The design criteria package must specify performance-based criteria for the
public construction project, including the legal description of the site, survey information concerning the site, material
quality standards, schematic layouts and conceptual design criteria of the project, cost or budget estimates, design
and construction schedules, site development requirements, provisions for utilities, storm water retention and disposal,
and parking requirements applicable to the project.
The basic services provided by the Design Criteria Professional shall include but not be limited to preparation of
bidding documents incorporating schematic design, performance specifications and design criteria for the project (the
bidding documents shall require compliance with the design criteria by the Design-Build firm awarded this Project) and
enforcement of the design criteria including but not limited to notifying the City of regarding the Design-Builder's
compliance or non-compliance with the requirements of the design criteria.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
iWEtUDA ITEM ca A
Financial Information:
DATE 6-/-//
Approved Source of
Funds:
OBPl
Account
1
Amount
NIA
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.rniarnibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
June 1,201 1
REQUEST FOR APPROVA @ TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR
QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) FOR A DESIGN CRITERIA PROFESSIONAL TO
PREPARE THE DESIGN CRITERIA PACKAGE FOR THE PALM AND
HIBISCUS NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
WHICH IS INTENDED TO BE A DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACT; AND TO
SERVE AS THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE DURING THE SELECTION OF
THE DESIGN-BUILD FIRM FOR THE PROJECT, CONCERNING THE
EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSES SUBMITTED BY THE DESIGN-BUILD
FIRMS; REVIEW AND APPROVE FOR COMPLIANCE OF THE DETAILED
WORKING DRAWINGS FOR THE PROJECT; AND FOR EVALUATION OF
THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WITH THE
DESIGN CRITERIA PACKAGE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve issuance of the RFQ.
ANALYSIS
Midway between Miami and Miami Beach off the MacArthur Causeway are the Palm, and
Hibiscus Islands of Miami Beach. These islands were created in the early 1920's sand dredged
from the bottom of Biscayne Bay. With views of Miami Beach, downtown Miami, the Venetian
Islands, and the shipping channel to the south, these islands provide the setting for unique and
beautiful single-family residential neighborhoods.
On May 16, 2001, the City entered into a professional services agreement with EDAW, Inc.,
pursuant to Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 134-99100, for design and construction services
associated with Palm and Hibiscus Islands streetscape projects.
On May 3, 2002, the City Commission approved Resolution Number 2002-24853 approving and
officially adopting the Basis of Design Report (BODR) for the Palm and Hibiscus Islands
Neighborhood Right of Way (ROW) Improvement Project. The BODR identified the priority
improvements that set the goals and objectives for the ROW Improvement's project. These
improvements include but are not limited to the following:
Enhanced landscaping I irrigation and street lighting
Commission Memorandum - RFQ Issuance for Design Criteria Professional for the Palm and
Hibiscus Neighbor ROW Project
June 1,201 1
Page 2 of 15
Replacement of existing water main infrastructure
Improved storm water drainage collection and disposal infrastructure including swale
restoration, curb and gutter, backflow prevention devices and other facilities
Street resurfacing I pavement markings
Repair and/or extension of existing sidewalks to comply with ADA requirements
Incorporation of traffic calming features, consistent with community preferences
On October 11, 2006 the City terminated the referenced professional services agreement with
EDAW, Inc., pursuant to resolution Number 2006-26345. EDAW, Inc., submitted the 30%
design documents to the City as part of the termination agreement and subsequently the project
was placed on hold due to the inability of the Palm and Hibiscus residents to reach consensus
regarding the undergrounding of electrical services.
During this time the Palm-Hibiscus-Star Islands Association (HOA) elected to pursue the
creation of a Special Taxing District with Miami-Dade County in order to finance the expense
associated with its underground utilities project.
At its May 13, 2009 meeting, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2009-27065 - A
resolution endorsing, as required pursuant to section 18-2 of the Miami-Dade County Code, the
creation by Miami-Dade County of a Special Taxing District for Palm lsland and Hibiscus Island,
respectively, for the undergrounding of overhead utilities, subject to and contingent upon
compliance with and satisfaction of the requirements for the creation of Special Taxing Districts,
as set forth in Chapter 18 of the Miami-Dade County Code.
After successful petition drives and various required public hearings the registered voters
elected on December 7, 2010 to move forward with the underground project only for Hibiscus
lsland. Palm lsland West residents elected not to proceed with the underground project (Palm
lsland East already has the undergrounding of the utilities).
Recently, the Palm and Hibiscus HOA requested that CIP proceed with the Palm and Hibiscus
Islands Neighborhood Right of Way (ROW) lmprovement Project and phase the Palm lsland
improvements ahead of Hibiscus lsland in order not to continue to delay the capital
lmprovement project due to the undergrounding issue.
This will to allow the process between the County, FPL and the City to occur concurrently with
the preparation of a design criteria package in the hopes that by the time the project is released
for proposals to a Design Build Firm the issue of the undergrounding has been resolved.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City is requesting qualification statements from a "Design Criteria ProfessionalJ'. For the
purpose of this RFQ is a firm who holds a current certificate of registration under chapter 471 as
a registered engineer to practice engineering and who has documented experience in the
preparation of design criteria package for public facilities and meets the minimum qualifications
described in this document.
The Consultant shall provide the City a Design Criteria Package for Palm and Hibiscus lsland as
well as a Master Design Criteria Package to be used as a template for other City horizontal right
of way projects. The Palm and Hibiscus Neighborhood improvement project consists of
landscaping / irrigation and street lighting, replacement of existing water main infrastructure,
Commission Memorandum - RFQ Issuance for Design Criteria Professional for the Palm and
Hibiscus Neighbor ROW Project
June I, 201 1
Page 3 of 15
improved storm water drainage collection and disposal infrastructure including swale
restoration, curb and gutter and other facilities, street resurfacing 1 pavement markings, repair
andlor extension of existing sidewalks to comply with ADA requirements, incorporation of traffic
calming features, consistent with community preferences and the incorporation and coordination
of the undergrounding of utilities including Florida Power and Light (FPL), Atlantic Broadband
(ABB) and AT&T.
The Design Criteria package at a minimum shall contain concise, performance-oriented
drawings or specifications of the public construction project. The purpose of the design criteria
package is to furnish sufficient information to permit design-build firms to prepare a bid or a
response to an agency's request for proposal, or to permit an agency to enter into a negotiated
design-build contract. The design criteria package must specify performance-based criteria for
the public construction project, including the legal description of the site, survey information
concerning the site, material quality standards, schematic layouts and conceptual design criteria
of the project, cost or budget estimates, design and construction schedules, site development
requirements, provisions for utilities, storm water retention and disposal, and parking
requirements applicable to the project.
Pursuant to FL 287.055(9)(b) a Design Criteria Professional who has been selected to prepare
a design criteria package for the City is not eligible to render services under a design-build
contract executed pursuant to the design criteria package.
The basic services provided by the Design Criteria Professional shall include but not be limited
to preparation of bidding documents incorporating schematic design, performance specifications
and design criteria for the project (the bidding documents shall require compliance with the
design criteria by the Design-Build firm awarded this Project) and enforcement of the design
criteria including but not limited to notifying the City of regarding the Design-Builder's
compliance or non-compliance with the requirements of the design criteria.
The successful firm will be tasked with the following duties and responsibilities:
Task One I : Phase One Schematic 30%
The DCP shall become familiar with the Project site through frequent site visits, research, and
examination of any record drawings, as applicable, including the attached 30% Schematic
Phase documents prepared by the City's Public Works Department dated January 10, 2010, the
approved Basis of Design Report dated March 21, 2002, the FPL preliminary drawings dated
April 11, 201 1 and shall notify the City of any existing site condition omitted from or incorrectly
shown on record drawings, as may have been reasonably discovered. Frequent visits shall
continue until the DCP is thoroughly familiar with the Project site, problem areas, and existing
hazardous conditions, if any. The City will facilitate the DCP's access to the Project site, as
needed, for investigative purposes.
The DCP shall be responsible to provide the City with the following services as part of this task:
Task 1 .I : Evaluate and update the 30% schematic plans dated January 18, 201 0 and compare
the scope of work contained therein with the approved BODR prepared by EDAW dated March
21, 2002. The DCP is to make any and all revisions necessary to these drawings as requested
by the Agencies Having Jurisdiction over the project and incorporate said revisions into the 30%
Commission Memorandum - RFQ Issuance for Design Criteria Professional for the Palm and
Hibiscus Neighbor ROW Project
June 1,201 1
Page 4 of 15
schematic drawings and become the Successor Design Criteria Professional (DCP) 1
Engineering Professional for these documents.
The DCP shall identify all the necessary requirements with all applicable agencies having
jurisdiction over the work andlor utility providers and coordinate the work to make sure that
there are no conflicts in the drawings and update the drawings accordingly for the construction
of the Project by the Design Builder.
Task 1.2: Evaluate the existing outfalls and ascertain if any upgrades will be required to conform
to the proposed storm water system.
Task 1.3: Analyze the cost estimates prepared by the City for this Project and provide an
updated construction estimate in format provided by the City.
Task 1.4: Review and validate the City's proposed Project schedule and construction phasing
plan.
Task 1.5: Coordinate with FPL, AT&T and Atlantic Broadband (ABB) for conversion of overhead
electrical, telephone and cable to underground for the Hibiscus Island and incorporate as an
Add Alternate to the 30% Schematic Plans.
Task 1.6: Update the Public Works Design Standard Manual and incorporate it into the master
specifications for the Design Criteria Package.
Task 1.7: Provide a Phase One Environmental and Provide a Phase Two Environmental if
required by DEPIDERM or any other Agency Having Jurisdiction.
Task 1.8: Update existing topographic and specific purpose survey provided by the City and
prepared by PBS&J dated April 22, 1999.
Task 1.9: Provide Geotechnical Soils report as required for the project.
Task 1.10: Provide Drainage Calculations and preliminary drainage analysis to substantiate
proposed 30% storm water design.
Task 1 .I 1: Prepare a Traffic Analysis and Assessment.
Task 1 .I 2: Prepare an Encroachment Analysis and Survey.
Task 1.13: Prepare requirements for monitoring for compliance with regard to loading
requirements for bridges.
Task 1.14: Update the Public Works Manual which contains the City's specification and design
standards for work in the right-of-way. This shall be used as the basis of Task 1.15.
Task 1.15: Create a "Master Design Criteria" boilerplate package to be re-used by the City for
future project specific Design Build projects.
Task 1.16: Coordinate and conduct the necessary meetings with appropriate City staff and the
Commission Memorandum - RFQ Issuance for Design Criteria Professional for the Palm and
Hibiscus Neighbor ROW Project
June 1,201 1
Page 5 of 15
Palm and Hibiscus Homeowner's Association to review the proposed scope of work and any
other issues that may impact this Project. The DCP shall prepare and distribute minutes of
meetings with the City regarding this Project.
Task 1.17: The DCP shall seek approval of the 30% schematic design documents and design
criteria package including but not limited to the following agencies at a minimum:
City of Miami Beach Public Works Department
City of Miami Beach Parks Department
City of Miami Beach Planning Department
Miami Dade County Water & Sewer Department
Miami-Beach Fire Prevention Division
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Miami Dade Department of Environmental Resource Management
South Florida Water Management District
Florida Department of Health
Florida Department of Transportation
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
Task 2: Design Criteria Package
Task 2.1: The DCP shall coordinate with the City, as to the methodology, procedures, format
and other specifics that the design criteria package shall contain.
The DCP shall study all issues and requirements relating to and affecting this Project including,
but not limited to, the following:
The project requirements and scope as specified in the approved BODR dated March
21, 2002, and the 30% drawings submitted by the Public Works Department dated
January 18,2010.
Evaluation of the neighborhood's infrastructure requirements with respect to this project
including but not limited to, the existence or lack of the necessary utilities andlor
surrounding infrastructure not included in the BODR and the 30% Phase One
documents provided by PWD.
Existing as-built drawings, existing utilities plans andlor atlases provided by the PWD,
existing geotechnical reports, and surveys of the neighborhood.
The FPL drawings dated April 1 1,201 1.
The ATT drawings dated November 24,2008.
Task 2.1: The DCP shall prepare the design criteria package for bidding by incorporating all
information as required by the City, and all federal, state, and applicable local codes. The
preparation of the design criteria bidding documents shall include, but not be limited to the
following:
Finalize all design criteria for the Project (clearly defining the entire scope of work to be
performed) to be utilized by Design-Build firms to bid, design and construct the Project. The
design criteria shall include issues related to infrastructure design analysis of the schematic
phase 30% design, performance specifications, and all the requirements from the Agencies
Commission Memorandum - RFQ Issuance for Design Criteria Professional for the Palm and
Hibiscus Neighbor ROW Project
June 1,2011
Page 6 of 15
Having Jurisdiction over the project as stated in Task 1 .I 7.
Preparation, coordination and incorporation of all construction related documents, including
front-end documents, specifications, DCP procedural manual, and any other guidelines as
required.
Coordination of bidding documents and other related deliverables, to ensure consistency of
Design-Build bid documents.
Preparation of estimate of probable construction cost (Design-Build) based on units (area,
volume, etc.) and prepared in CSI format or similar component breakdown for the City's review
and approval.
The DCP shall consult with the City in preparation of the design criteria bid documents and shall
seek approval from all applicable City staff prior to bidding the Project.
Task 3: Bidding and Award of Contract
Task 3.1: The DCP shall assist the City in obtaining bids and in the award of the design-build
contract for the work that was bid pursuant to the Design Criteria Contract Documents. At a
minimum, the DCP shall:
Distribute bidding documents to design-build entities and maintain log.
Conduct and document pre-bid conferences, including minutes of all meetings.
Respond to bidder's inquiries.
Prepare and issue addenda, clarifications, information bulletins, etc., as approved by the
City.
Assist the City in the analysis of bids and in determining the lowest responsive bidder.
Make written recommendations to the City on the award of the design-build contract.
Task 4: Submittal Requirements
During the period of this contract, the DCP shall provide the requisite sets of documents to the
City for review at the different levels of completion as determined by the City.
The DCP shall submit to the City five (5) complete sets of contract documents, after award of
the Construction Contract, including all addenda, for design-build contract for signing purposes.
Task 5: Design-Builder's Design Phase
Task 5.1: The DCP shall, at minimum, monitor the Design-Builder's design phase as follows:
5.1 .I The DCP shall instruct the Design-Builder's Engineer of Record (EOR) to prepare
all required drawings utilizing CADD (vector format).
5.1.2 The DCP shall instruct the Design-Builder's EOR team of the City's requirements
as to the various phases of design and approvals required andlor mandated by
the City.
Commission Memorandum - RFQ Issuance for Design Criteria Professional for the Palm and
Hibiscus Neighbor ROW Project
June 1,201 1
Page 7 of 15
5.1.3 Coordinate and monitor the Design-Builder's design phases (Phase 60% and
100%) and recommend approval or disapproval to the City.
5.1.4 Respond to all inquiries and evaluate alternatives presented from the
Design-Builder for compliance with the bidding documents and possible City
approval.
5.1.5 Coordinate all stand-up and/or City reviews with the Design-Builder and the City
or others as required including, but not limited to, the following: City's Public
Works Department, City's Parks and Recreation Department, Planning
Department, Building Department, Fire Department, DERM, DOH, DEP and any
other Agency Having Jurisdiction.
5.1.6 Review all Design-Builder's documentation at all phases of design, submit and
obtain review comments and subsequent approvals from the City's consultants
and/or departments having the authority to review the Project.
5.1.7 Assist and monitor the Design-Builder's design submittals and subsequent
approvals from other agencies having jurisdiction and utility companies having
jurisdiction over the Project.
By performing reviews, monitoring approvals and making recommendations, as described in
Tasks 5.1.1 through 5.1.7 above, the DCP does not assume the Design-Builder's contractual
responsibility and professional liability, in whole or in part, for any design and/or contract
documents prepared by the Design-Builder's EOR.
Task 6: Construction Phase - General Administration of Construction Process
Task 6.1 : Observation
The DCP shall ensure and require that the Design-Builder's EOR team provide construction
administration of the construction to ascertain compliance with all approved construction
documents.
This shall include, but not be limited to construction administration of the Design-Build
Construction Contract as set forth in City's agreement with the DCP and in the General
Conditions of the Design-Build Construction Contract, unless otherwise provided in City's
agreement with the DCP.
On the basis of on-site observations as the DCP, the DCP shall keep the City and Design-
Builder informed immediately in writing of the progress or lack of progress and quality of the
construction work ("Work") and shall endeavor to guard the City against defects and
deficiencies in said Work. The DCP shall at all times have access to the Work, whether it is in
the preparation stage or in progress. The DCP shall not have control over or charge of and shall
not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or
for safety precautions and programs in connection with the Work, since these are solely the
Design-Builder's responsibility under the contract. The DCP shall not be responsible for the
Design-Builder's Schedules or failure to carry out the Work in accordance with the
Commission Memorandum - RFQ Issuance for Design Criteria Professional for the Palm and
Hibiscus Neighbor ROW Project
June I, 201 1
Page 8 of 15
contract documents. The DCP shall not have control over or charge of acts or omissions of the
Design-Builder, subcontractors, or their agents or employees or of any other person performing
portions of the Work.
The DCP shall receive a look-ahead schedule provided by the Design-Builder, appropriate to
the stage of construction, in order to determine potential problems and probable solutions, and
report it to City on a regular basis.
As part of the DCP's basic services, the DCP shall conduct at least one monthly Project
visit/meeting at the Project site during construction to review the Design-Builder's progress and
approve payment requisitions.
Moreover, the DCP shall also conduct on-site observation visits during the construction of the
Project. Compensation for each authorized site visit shall be determined during negotiations at a
lump sum cost per site visit for the DCP (EOR and Engineering consultants). The frequency of
the on-site visits will be determined by the City's Projects Manager ("PM") based on the
Design-Builder's schedule.
The BCP shall provide a report to the PM, in accordance to the outline shown below for each
authorized site visit.
Site visits shall mean a visit authorized by the PM to the Project site (of at least one hour
duration at the Project site) by one or more DCP professional staff or consultants, for the
purposes of observing the Work performed by the Design-Builder. Either the DCP or its
consultant(s) shall complete and submit a site visitation report to the PM which shall contain, at
a minimum, the following information:
Site visitation report number
Name and location of Project
Name of contractor/subcontractor
Time of visitation and weather conditions
Project site administrator sign-in and sign-out
Site personnel on-site by trade
Progress/quality of work by trade
Photographic record (if required by the City)
Remarks
Task 6.2: Progress Reporting
THE DCP shall prepare a monthly progress report in the format acceptable to the City
containing at minimum the following:
a Summary Project Data Sheet
Executive Summary
The status of project items, such as requests for information, change orders, shop
drawings, non-compliances, and others as appropriate.
Commission Memorandum - RFQ Issuance for Design Criteria Professional for the Palm and
Hibiscus Neighbor ROW Project
June 1,201 1
Page 9 of 15
Task 7: Design-Builder's Submittals
The DCP shall review and evaluate samples, schedules, shop drawings, and other submissions
for conformance with the Design Criteria and the Design-Build Contract Documents. The
DCP's review of any submittal, to the extent of the review required, does not constitute an
approval of the entire assembly of which any given item is a part. The DCP shall require the
Design-Builder to be responsible for compliance of the shop drawings with contract documents
and that the Design-Builder notifies the DCP in writing of any deviation in the shop drawings
from contract documents or design criteria. The DCP shall select (after consultation with the
City) all colors for all finish materials from their color charts or prepared by the Design-Builder.
The DCP shall conduct reviews and evaluations, and respond appropriately with reasonable
promptness in order to cause no delay to the progress of the Project, as outlined in the Design-
Builder's City-approved submittal schedule. The DCP shall also prepare in a timely manner
change order items, including the proper documentation, for the City's review and approval.
The DCP shall assemble, for transmittal to the City other written items required of the Design-
Builder including, but not limited to, shop drawings, guarantees, operation and maintenance
manuals, and releases of claim and record documents.
Task 8: Substitutions
The DCP shall review and evaluate in a timely manner, for the City's review and approval,
substitutions proposed by the Design-Builder, for conformance with the Project requirements.
The DCP shall establish submittal requirements in accordance with the City's guidelines and
incorporate them into the Design Criteria.
Task 9: Quality Control
The DCP shall evaluate the materials andlor workmanship for conformance with the Design-
Build Contract Documents, evaluate quality control testing reports, advise the Design-Builder
and the City immediately of any unacceptable materials and workmanship the DCP may
discover and ensure that the Design-Builder take appropriate action to remedy unacceptable
conditions.
Task 10: Agencies Having Jurisdiction (AHJ)
The DCP shall monitor and cooperate with the City's Public Works Department, City's Parks
and Recreation Department, Planning Department, Building Department, Fire Department,
DERM, DOH, DEP and any other Agency Having Jurisdiction and shall advise the Design-
Builder to provide information and explanations as requested. The DCP shall advise the
Design-Builder to respond to any deficiencies noted by the AHJ's in the documents and during
construction, by administering the necessary changes in the plans or taking the necessary
action during construction within five (5) working days from receipt of written notification of the
situation by the AHJ.
Task I I: Certification for Payments
The DCP shall require that the Design-Builder's EOR review and approve all requisitions for
payment prior to submitting them to DCP. The DCP shall review the Design-Builder's notarized
Commission Memorandum - RFQ Issuance for Design Criteria Professional for the Palm and
Hibiscus Neighbor ROW Project
June I, 201 1
Page 10 of 15
requisitions for payment, along with the schedule of values, the Project schedule, and
other requirements as noted in the construction contract and shall determine the amounts to be
paid to'the Design-Builder and shall recommend for City's approval certificates for payments in
such amounts. These certificates will constitute a representation to the City; based on site
observations by all appropriate designated specialists and / or engineering disciplines and on
the data comprising the application for payment that the Work has progressed to the point
indicated.
By recommending a certificate for payment consistent with the Design-Build Contract
documents, the DCP shall also represent to the City that, to the best of the DCP's knowledge,
information and professional judgment, the quality of work is in accordance with the Design-
Build Contract Documents, unless the City has been notified to the contrary in writing. However,
the issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall not be a representation that the DCP has made
any examination to ascertain how and or for what purpose the Design-Builder has used the
monies paid on account of the Contract. Before approving the Design-Builder's requisition for
payment, the DCP shall review the status of the Design-Builder's record documents and verify
that they are up-to-date and accurate to the extent visual observation of the Work will disclose.
The DCP shall be responsible for obtaining the contractor and subcontractor's partial releases
of lien from the Design-Builder prior to processing subsequent payment applications.
The DCP shall process the Design-Builder's requisitions for payment in accordance with the
timeliness established in the general conditions of the Design-Build Contract.
Task 12: Record Drawings
Upon completion of construction, the DCP shall coordinate and require that the Design-Builder's
EOR, utilizing record data provided by the Design-Builder along with the EOR's own record
data, shall revise and update the original working drawings showing all changes made by
addenda, substitutions, change orders or field instructions during construction, in
accordance with the Design-Build Contract. After original working drawings have been
updated by the Design-Builder's EOR to conform to the record data, and after review and
approval of these record drawings has been obtained from the DCP and the City, the DCP shall
require the EOR, at the Design-Builder's expense for duplication, to furnish the City these
documents pursuant to the Design Build contract.
Task 13: Operations and Maintenance Manuals (O&M)
The DCP shall coordinate the acquisition of comprehensive O&M testing reports; trouble
shooting procedures; warranty files; starting-up testing procedures; shutdown procedures;
training materials; emergency full load and part load operations and others as required.
Task 14: Substantial Completion
Upon notification from the Design-Builder's EOR that the Project is substantially complete
including, but not limited to, the Design Builder's contract and all Regulatory Agency and Life
Safety Standards, the DCP shall promptly do the following:
Conduct inspections to determine the date or dates of substantial completion for the Project. If
the Project is found substantially complete and in accordance with the Design-Build Contract
Commission Memorandum - RFQ Issuance for Design Criteria Professional for the Palm and
Hibiscus Neighbor ROW Project
June 1, 201 1
Page 11 of 15
Documents, the DCP shall then certify that to the best of the DCP's knowledge and professional
judgment the Project has been constructed in accordance with the Contract Documents, and
shall furnish such other certifications as required by applicable laws or regulations. If the
Project is deemed to be incomplete, the DCP shall notify the Design-Builder in writing of the
deficiencies and shall verify the Design-Builder's correction of the deficiencies, as required, and
shall then certify as stated above.
Upon certification by the DCP that substantial completion has been achieved, the City
representatives, accompanied by the DCP, shall perform a substantial completion inspection of
the Project as outlined in the Design-Build contract. if deficiencies are still found, the DCP shall
assemble a punch list of comments from any participants representing the City in the inspection
and shall evaluate each comment to determine whether or not they are part of the Construction
Contract. Any not-in-contract (N.I.C.) items shall be further evaluated by the DCP and
recommendations made to the City by the DCP whether they should be added to the Contract
as change orders or be handled by some other vehicle outside the Contract.
The DCP shall provide to the Design-Builder the official, edited punch list within five (5) working
days, and shall verify the correction of in-contract punch list items.
Task 15: Final Completion
If the DCP finds the Project to be complete and acceptable, the DCP shall obtain the City's
approval to advise the Contractor of acceptance and commencement of the warranty period.
Task 16: Projects Closeout
Upon acceptance of the Project by the City as outlined in the Design Build contract, the DCP
shall immediately commence the closeout of the Project, finalizing all aspects of the
construction phase, including: obtaining from the Design-Builder's EOR all required submittals,
such as marked-up record documents, warranties, operating and maintenance manuals,
releases of claim; updating and submitting record documents; verifying the Contractor's
completion of punch list items; assisting the City with respect to the final inspection by all AHJJs;
completing the processing of any remaining contract change orders; evaluating the assessment
of liquidated damages, if any and reviewing and processing final payments to the contractor(s).
Task 17: Additional Services
If additional services are required during the performance of the work, they will be requested by
the City and negotiated in accordance with the Contract requirements.
Task 18: Reimbursable Services
The City may reimburse additional expenses such as reproduction costs, underground utility
verification costs material testing / abatement and/or any other service as required for
successful project completion.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
For purposes of compliance with this minimum experience requirement, the term "Proposer" is
hereby defined to mean the firm and/or business entity which is submitting a proposal pursuant
Commission Memorandum - RFQ Issuance for Design Criteria Professional for the Palm and
Hibiscus Neighbor ROW Project
June 1,201 1
Page 12 of 15
to this RFQ. Accordingly, the firm andlor business entity must meet the minimum requirements
listed below in order to be deemed responsive. Non-responsive bids will be disqualified from
consideration.
Qualifications will be considered only from consultants that are regularly engaged in the
business of providing the professional specialization services as described in this RFQ.
Interested Firms shall address the following items in the RFQ response:
ltem I. Firm Experience:
Indicate the team's number of years of experience in providing the requested
professional services;
List all similar projects undertaken in the past ten (10) years, describe the scope of each
project in physical terms and by cost, describe the respondent's responsibilities, and
provide the name and contact telephone number of an individual in a position of
responsibility who can attest to respondent's activities in relation to the project;
Provide the name(s) of the person, or persons within your organization who was most
actively concerned with managing each project.
0 List and describe all legal claims against any member of the team alleging errors andlor
omissions, or any breach of professional ethics, including those settled out of court,
during the past five (5) years.
The Design Firm must demonstrate prior experience in serving as the Design Criteria
Professional for public facilities and in the preparation of design criteria packages for
public and municipal facilities in particular in horizontal infrastructure construction in the
right of way.
The Design firm must include a Professional Engineer licensed in the state of Florida
whose expertise is civil engineering.
ltem 2. 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 eight (8) years experience as a Design Criteria Professional
and been involved in the preparation planning, design, and construction administration of public
or private projects with similar scope of work - including experience in horizontal infrastructure
projects in the right-of way and should have served as Project Manager on a minimum of three
previous projects having the same approximate value (i.e., construction budget of $5.0 million or
greater) and complexity as required by this Request for Qualifications.
item 3. Previous Similar Projects: Please provide a list of a minimum of five projects which
demonstrates the Team's experience in providing the services as required under this RFQ and
in the scope of services for this project. Please provide the following information for each
sample project:
Client name, address, phone number, e-mail address
Consultant (Architect or Engineer) name, address, phone number, fax and email
Description of the scope of the work
Month and Year the project was started and completed
Total cost and/or fees paid to your firm
Total cost of the construction, estimated and actual
Commission Memorandum - RFQ Issuance for Design Criteria Professional for the Palm and
Hibiscus Neighbor ROW Project
June 1,2011
Page 13 of 15
Role of the firm and the responsibilities
ltem 4. Qualification of Project Team: Provide a list of the personnel I subconsultants to be
used on this project and their qualifications. A resume of each individual, including education,
experience, and any other pertinent information shall be included for each team member
including any subcontractors, to be assigned to this project.
ltem 5. Project Approach: Provide a detailed description on the Project Team approach to the
required services. Information should include:
Organizational structure of project team.
Project specific approach to this neighborhood.
Narrative description of team's understanding of the design services for the Project.
RFQ PROCESS
The procedure for response evaluation and selection is as follows:
I. 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, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate each
response in accordance with the requirements of this RFQ. If further information is
desired, consultants may be requested to make additional written submissions or oral
presentations to the Evaluation Committee.
5. The Evaluation Committee will recommend to the City Manager the response or
responses acceptance of which the Evaluation Committee deems to be in the best
interest of the City. The following criteria shall be utilized by the Evaluation Committee
for the selection of the Consultant:
(20 points) - The experience, qualifications and portfolio of the Principal Firm
(20points) - 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.
(20 points) - The experience, qualifications and portfolio of the Project Manager,
as well as hislher familiarity with this project and a thorough understanding of the
methodology and design approach to be used in this assignment.
(10 points) - Past performance based on quality of the Performance Evaluation
Surveys and the Administration's due dilligence based upon reference checks
performed of the Firm(s) clients.
(5 points) - Willingness to meet time and budget requirements as demonstrated
by past performance, methodology and approach
(5 points) - Risk Assessment Plan that reflects a clear understanding of project
Commission Memorandum - RFQ Issuance for Design Criteria Professional for the Palm and
Hibiscus Neighbor ROW Project
June 1,201 1
Page 14 of 15
objectives; a thorough review of existing conditions; 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.
(5 points) - Certified minority business enterprise participation. Either the Prime
Consultant or the sub-consultant team may qualify for proof of certification for
minority business enterprise participation. Accepted minority business enterprise
certifications include the Small Business Administration (SBA), State of Florida,
or Miami-Dade County.
(5 points) - Location
(5 points) - Recent, current and projected workloads of the firms
(5 points) - The volume of work previously awarded to each firm by the City, with
the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms,
provided such distribution does not violate the principle of selection of the most
highly qualified firm.
The City may request, accept and consider proposals for the compensation to be paid under the
contract only during competitive negotiations.
6. After considering the recommendation(s) of the Evaluation Committee, the City Manager
shall recommend to the City Commission the response or responses acceptance of
which the City Manager deems to be in the best interest of the City.
7. The City Commission shall consider the City Manager's recommendation(s) in light of
the recommendation(s) and evaluation of the Evaluation Committee and, if appropriate,
approve the City Manager's recommendation(s). The City Commission may reject City
Manager's recommendation(s) and select another response or responses. In any case,
City Commission shall select the response or responses acceptance of which the City
Commission deems to be in the best interest of the City. The City Commission may also
reject all proposals.
8. Negotiations between the selected respondent and the City Manager will take place to
arrive at a contract. If the City Commission has so directed, the City Manager may
proceed to negotiate a contract with a respondent other than the top ranked respondent
if the negotiations with the top ranked respondent fail to produce a mutually acceptable
contract within a reasonable period of time.
9. A proposed contract or contracts are presented to the City Commission for approval,
modification and approval, or rejection.
10. If and when a contract or contracts acceptable to the respective parties is approved by
the City Commission, the Mayor and City Clerk sign the contract(s) after the selected
respondent(s) has (or have) done so.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and the City Commission authorize the
issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a Design Criteria Professional to prepare the
design criteria package for the Palm and Hibiscus Neighborhood Right of Way Improvement
Commission Memorandum - RFQ Issuance for Design Criteria Professional for the Palm and
Hibiscus Neighbor ROW Project
June 1,201 1
Page 15 of 15
Project, which is intended to be a design-build contract; and to serve as the City's
representative during the selection of the design-build firm for the project, concerning the
evaluation of the responses submitted by the design-build firms; review and approve for
compliance of the detailed working drawings for the project; and for evaluation of the
compliance of the project construction with the design criteria package.
T:LL\GENDAEOlIWune I\Consent\RFQ for Design Criteria Professional - MEMO.doc
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Request For Approval To Issue A Request For Qualifications (RFQ) For Resident Project
Representative Services For Right-of-way Improvements To Neighborhood No.8, Bayshore (Package
E), Sunset lslands 1 & 2.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Ensure Value and Timely Delivery of Quality Capital Projects. Maintain City's Infrastructure.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): The 2009 Miami Beach Community
Satisfactory Survey indicates that 100% of the projects were substantially completed within 120 days of
construction schedule. The 2007 Miami Beach Community Satisfactory Survey indicates that 84% of
residents and 86% of businesses rated the services as good or excellent for recently completed capital
improvement projects.
ssue:
Shall the City Commission authorize the issuance of the RFQ? I
tem SummarylRecommendation:
In order to ensure a high level of quality control and oversight during construction of the project, the
City desires to contract with an independent firm to provide full-time Resident Project Representative
Services (RPR) to observe the construction of the work associated with the Bayshore Neighborhood
(8E) Right-of-way lmprovements Project for Sunset Islands 1 & 2. The current engineering firm, Chen
Moore & Associates, will be granted extended services to provide design support during construction.
On May 3, 201 1, the City of Miami Beach issued ITB No. 27-10111 for construction of right-of-way
improvements for Bayshore Neighborhood 8E for Sunset Islands 1 & 2 with the intention of bringing a
recommendation to the Commission in July, 201 1.
The City is projecting to commence construction by late 201 1 which provides for neighborhood right-of-
way improvements including the installation of water mains, storm water infrastructure, outfall relining
and reconstruction; and milling and resurfacing of existing roadways.
The RPR shall be qualified, meet all the requirements referenced herein, and have adequate
understanding of the Project, and be able to address, process, evaluate, recommend, respond to, and
review construction related correspondence. In general, RPRs will conduct onsite observations of the
Contractor's work to assist the City in determining if the provisions of the respective Contract
Documents and permit conditions are being fulfilled and to reasonably protect the CITY against defects
and deficiencies in the Work of the Contractor. It is intended that the RPR will be responsible for
providing final certifications based on the entire scope of work for the project.
I APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF THE RFQ. I
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I I I
Financial Impact Summary: 1
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Gus Lopez ext 6641
Financial Information:
@ MIAMI
Source of
Funds:
OBPl
4
2
3
Total
Amount Account
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miarnibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the Ci Commission P
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June1,2011
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
(RFQ) FOR RESIDENT PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES FOR RIGHT-
OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS TO NEIGHBORHOOD N0.8, BAYSHORE (PACKAGE
E), SUNSET ISLANDS 1 & 2.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve issuance of the RFQ.
ANALYSIS
In order to ensure a high level of quality control and oversight during construction of the
project, the City desires to contract with an independent firm to provide full-time Resident
Project Representative Services (RPR) to observe the construction of the work associated with
the Bayshore Neighborhood (8E) Right-of-way Improvements Project for Sunset Islands 1 &
2. The current engineering firm, Chen Moore & Associates, will be granted extended services
to provide design support during construction.
On May 3, 201 1, the City of Miami Beach issued ITB No. 27-1011 1 for construction of right-of-
way improvements for Bayshore Neighborhood 8E for Sunset Islands 1 & 2 with the intention
of bringing a recommendation to the Commission in July, 201 1.
The City is projecting to commence construction by late 201 1 which provides for neighborhood
right-of-way improvements including the installation of water mains, storm water infrastructure,
outfall relining and reconstruction; and milling and resurfacing of existing roadways.
The RPR shall be qualified, meet all the requirements referenced herein, and have adequate
understanding of the Project, and be able to address, process, evaluate, recommend, respond
to, and review construction related correspondence. In general, RPRs will conduct onsite
observations of the Contractor's work to assist the City in determining if the provisions of the
respective Contract Documents and permit conditions are being fulfilled and to reasonably
protect the CITY against defects and deficiencies in the Work of the Contractor.
The RPR shall review materials and evaluate, on a daily basis, the workmanship of the
Contractor on each of the projects, report as to the progress, and report to City any deviations
from the respective Contract Documents. It is the City's intent for the RPR to be present
onsite to provide general oversight and direction. The means and methods of construction
shall be the responsibility of each Contractor. As such, the RPR will not be expected to advise
on or suggest methods of construction to the Contractor.
Commission Memorandum - RFQ For RPR Services for ROW Improvements.
June I, 201 1
Page 2 of 9
RPR's services shall be based upon a construction duration period of approximately fourteen
(14) months, including close-out of the project. Construction activities are currently scheduled
to commence in the 4th quarter of 201 1 with estimated completion in the 4th quarter of 2012.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The following outlines the Resident Project Representative's (RPR's) duties and
responsibilities:
General Coordination: The RPR will communicate daily or periodically with the CITY, the
CITY'S NE CONSULTANT and CONTRACTOR, as needed. They will report on concerns as it
relates to the construction effort and activities. In addition, the RPR shall also coordinate with
the CONTRACTOR'S Public lnformation Officer where notifications such as utility outages,
road closures, etc. may be required. The RPR will monitor and verify that the CONTRACTOR
has made the required notifications to the utility owners, residents and businesses as may be
required.
Resident's lnformation Meetings: The RPR will be expected to attend and participate in
Resident lnformation Meetings with the ClTY and NE CONSULTANT for each of the Projects.
Pre-Construction Meetings: The RPR will be expected to attend and participate in Pre-
Construction Meetings with the CITY, NE CONSULTANT and CONTRACTOR for each of the
Projects. The Pre-construction Meeting shall be scheduled once the first Notice-to-Proceed is
issued to the CONTRACTOR.
Weekly Construction Progress Meetings: The RPR shall attend and participate in weekly
construction project meetings with the CITY, NE CONSULTANT and CONTRACTOR on each
Project. These meetings will serve as forums to review the status of construction progress,
discuss construction issues, discuss schedule andlor cost concerns, discuss potential changes
or conflicts, review the status of shop drawing submittals and contract document clarifications
and interpretations, and to resolve problems before they become critical. RPR shall review
weekly meeting minutes distributed by NE CONSULTANT and two week look ahead provided
by the CONTRACTOR and provide comments or objections to written statements within the
specified timeframe. The RPR will prepare detailed weekly reports that describe the
construction activities, progress, incidents and issues that have occurred on the construction
site and distribute to the attendees in advance of the weekly construction progress meetings.
Field Inspections: The RPR shall conduct field inspections on a daily basis throughout the
duration of construction. The RPR shall be present at the construction site daily during the
construction phase of the project and will be expected to be available, as needed, throughout
the CONTRACTOR'S work day.
Specialty AIE CONSULTANT Site Visits: The RPR will monitor the number of specialty site
visits requested by the CONTRACTOR or ClTY and conducted by the NE CONSULTANT.
When it becomes evident that a specialty site visit from the design Engineer of Record (EOR)
will be required, the RPR will notify the EOR to discuss and schedule a mutually acceptable
time for meeting at the construction site.
Daily Reports: The RPR will prepare daily reports, on the same date as construction occurs,
Commission Memorandum - RFQ For RPR Services for ROW Improvements.
June 1,201 1
Page 3 of 9
to record the daily performance of the CONTRACTOR as well as other significant contract
related matters. Daily reports shall be uploaded to the CITY's E-Builder document
management system by the RPR. At the end of each week, the RPR will forward the original
daily reports to the ClTY for review. The RPR will maintain and file paper copies of the daily
reports onsite for reference. The daily reports shall include records of when the
CONTRACTOR is on the job-site, field inspections, weather conditions, change orders,
changed conditions, list of job site visitors, daily drilling and testing activities, testing results,
testing observations, and records of the outcome of tests and inspections. At a minimum the
daily reports will contain the following information:
Weather and general site conditions
CONTRACTOR'S work force counts by category and hours worked
Description of Work performed including location
Equipment utilized
Names of visitors to the jobsite and reason for the visit
Tests made and results
Construction difficulties encountered and remedial measures taken
Significant delays encountered and apparent reasons why
Description of (potential) disputes between the CONTRACTOR and ClTY
Description of (potential) disputes between the CONTRACTOR and residents
Summary of additional directions that may have been given to the CONTRACTOR
Detailed record of materials, equipment and labor used in connection with extra work, or
where there is reason to suspect that a claim or request for Change Order may be
submitted by the CONTRACTOR
Summary of any substantive discussions held with the CONTRACTOR andlor ClTY
Summary of nonconforming work referenced to corresponding Non-Compliance Notice
A log of photographs taken
Photographic Record: Provide a photographic record of the overall progress of construction,
beginning with preconstruction documentation, following with on-going construction
documentation, and ending with post-construction documentation. Photographs shall be digital
snapshot type taken to define the progress of the project and shall be filed electronically by
month in the CITY's E-BuilderTM document management system, labeled by date, time and
location. The RPR will upload all photos to the E-BuilderTM document management system on
a weekly basis.
Adherence to Contract Documents: The RPR shall review materials and workmanship of
the projects and report to the ClTY any deviations from the Contract Documents that may
come to the RPR's attention. RPR shall determine the acceptability of the work and materials
and in concert with the NE CONSULTANT (as necessary) and make recommendations to the
ClTY to reject items not meeting the requirements of the Contract Documents.
Delivery of Unaccepted Materials to Jobsite: As new materials are delivered to the jobsite,
the RPR will check the material's certifications and samples and verify that an approved shop
drawing was submitted for the material in question. If it is determined that a submittal has not
been approved, the RPR shall immediately notify the ClTY and issue a Non-Compliance
Notice. In conjunction with the NE CONSULTANT, the RPR will direct and supervise the
sampling and testing of materials to be performed by the CITY'S independent testing
laboratory. The RPR shall maintain test report logs which shall be submitted to the ClTY for
review on a monthly basis and uploaded to the CITY's €-BuilderTM document management
Commission Memorandum - RFQ For RPR Services for ROW Improvements.
June 1,201 1
Page 4 of 9
system on a weekly basis. RPR shall also review invoices submitted by the independent
testing laboratories and recommend payment by the CITY.
Shop Drawing Submittals: .The RPR shall review shop drawing and product approvals
throughout the duration of the construction period for familiarity prior to delivery of materials.
RPR shall verify that CONTRACTOR is maintaining a submittal log, conducting timely
submittals, and uploading approved shop drawings to the CITY's E-BuilderTM document
management system.
Issuance of Non-compliance Notices: The RPR will be responsible for notifying the ClTY
when they become aware of a condition that is believed to be in noncompliance with Contract
Documents. Anytime the RPR notices a potential construction problem or a condition that
could result in non-complying materials, equipment or workmanship the RPR will need to
determine whether the condition poses an immediate threat to public health or safety. If a
condition does not pose a threat to public health or safety, immediate verbal notification or
"Pre-Noncompliance Notice" of the potential noncompliance should be made to the
CONTRACTOR and the CITY. This verbal notice shall be documented in the RPR's daily
report and shall advise the CONTRACTOR of potential construction problems, errors, or
deficiencies that can be promptly resolved and do not warrant a Noncompliance Notice. If the
CONTRACTOR fails to respond to the verbal notification within a reasonable timeframe, the
RPR will notify the ClTY and the CITY's Senior Capital Projects Coordinator will issue a Non-
compliance Notice. If a condition poses an immediate threat to public health or safety, the
RPR will notify the CONTRACTOR and ClTY immediately and the CITY's Senior Capital
Projects Coordinator will issue a Non-compliance Notice to the CONTRACTOR. Non-
compliance Notices will include a description of the Work that does not meet contract
requirements, along with a required timetable for corrective work to be implemented by the
CONTRACTOR. Other items that should be included in the Notice include a reference to the
provision of the Contract Documents that has been violated.
Damage to Existing Facilities: The RPR will identify any existing facilities damaged by the
CONTRACTOR and verify that the CONTRACTOR has notified the respective owner(s).
Include record of such occurrences in the daily reports.
Change Orders: RPR shall perform an independent review of any Change Orders submitted
by the CONTRACTOR and provide a written statement noting recommendation for approval or
denial of the Change Order to the CITY. If recommended for approval, the RPR will note if the
requested cost and schedule impacts are fair and reasonable. The RPR will be responsible for
verify that AIE CONSULTANT is maintaining a Change Order log and uploading approved
Change Orders to the CITY's E-BuilderTM document management system. The RPR shall also
participate in change request review meetings, with ClTY and CONTRACTOR to resolve
and/or negotiate the equitable resolution of request.
Requests for InformationIContract Document Clarification (RFlslCDCs): When RFls and
CDCs involve design issue interpretations, the RPR will coordinate with the AIE
CONSULTANT, as needed, to resolve the CONTRACTOR'S Requests for Information,
Contract Document Clarifications, Field Orders, and other related correspondence. The RPR
will be also be responsible for verifying that the AIE CONSULTANT is providing a written
response to RFls and CDCs in a timely matter and that they are processing, logging, and
distribute all RFlslCDCs. RPR will verify that AIE CONSULTANT is uploading RFI and CDC
responses to the CITY's E-BuilderTM document management system.
Commission Memorandum - RFQ For RPR Services for ROW Improvements.
June 1,201 1
Page 5 of 9
Schedule: RPR will review and familiarize themselves with the construction schedule, monitor
the progress of construction, and ensure the CONTRACTOR'S adherence to the schedule.
The CONTRACTOR will be required to submit a detailed schedule to the RPR at the pre
construction meeting. This schedule will be reviewed and approved by the RPR and the CITY.
This schedule will be updated in by weekly basis by the CONTRACTOR; however, the RPR
will be responsible for reviewing the contactor's schedule to confirm accuracy of the work
activities completed. Analysis of the CONTRACTOR schedule will be on the basis of planned
versus actual costs for the month and contract to date.
Pay Requisitions: RPR shall verify CONTRACTOR'S pay requisition quantities and sign off
on all pay requisition quantities in the field. RPR shall be responsible for reviewing with the
CONTRACTOR the monthly payment requisition to confirm the status of completed and
uncompleted work and stored materials. The RPR shall advise the ClTY of quantities being
approved for subsequent concurrence for payment purposes. Payment Requisitions shall only
be approved by the CITY.
Equipment Tests and Systems Start-up: RPR shall be responsible for coordinating various
tests for quality control on the projects and verify that equipment tests and systems start-up
are conducted in the presence of appropriate personnel, and that the CONTRACTOR
maintains adequate records thereof; and observe, record, and report appropriate details
relative to the test procedures and start-up.
Record Drawings: RPR will monitor that record drawing mark-ups are properly maintained
by the CONTRACTOR. At a minimum, the RPR will review the record drawing mark-ups on
the 20th working day of every month, or more often, as deemed necessary by the CITY.
CONTRACTOR'S failure to maintain the record drawings in up-to-date condition may be
deemed grounds for withholding CONTRACTOR'S monthly payment requisitions until such
time as the record drawings are brought up-to-date. The RPR will notify the ClTY if it
considers the mark-up documents insufficient. The ClTY will make final determination of
payment withholding.
Safety: RPR's will be expected to recognize a hazard that any reasonable non-safety
professional might be expected to recognize. In addition, those safety obligations extend only
to recognizable hazards that the RPR may note while in the normal conduct of onsite
business.
If a situation presents itself, the following procedures should be followed:
Immediately direct personnel to remove themselves from the apparent danger,
* Notify the CONTRACTOR'S superintendent of the apparent condition that caused the
concern and that the affected personnel were directed to remove themselves
accordingly,
Notify the CONTRACTOR of the situation that arises concern, both in writing and
verbally,
Issue a written Notice of Noncompliance stating that the CONTRACTOR should take
immediate action as it deems necessary to correct the deficiency / condition.
Write a full report in the Daily Report on the condition found to be unsafe, all actions
taken, and correspondence written, including times and names,
Take photographs, of the concern,
If the CONTRACTOR does not make corrections, the RPR should notify the CITY,
Commission Memorandum - RFQ For RPR Services for ROW Improvements.
June 1,201 1
Page 6 of 9
The RPR will review the situation with the ClTY for further direction,
The condition, as well as all conversations and correspondence, will be recorded in the
RPRs Daily Report.
In the case of a construction-related accident, RPR will notify the ClTY of the accident.
RPR will direct the CONTRACTOR to prepare an accident report with a copy
forwarded to the CITY.
Quality Control: The RPR will review and monitor the CONTRACTOR'S adherence to an
acceptable quality control program submitted by the CONTRACTOR prior to the issuance of
the second Notice-to-Proceed by the CITY. This program will describe the Contactor's quality
control, organizational procedures, documentation controls and processes for each phase of
the work. Quality control during construction will be the responsibility of the CONTRACTOR;
however, oversight and ensuring the CONTRACTOR complies with applicable jurisdictional
construction standards will be enforced on the CITY'S behalf by the RPR.
Proceeding with Disputed Work: In the event that an agreement cannot be reached on a
Change Order, the CONTRACTOR must carry on the work and adhere to the project schedule
in accordance with the contract general conditions. The RPR will log all forced work efforts
related to disputed change order on a Forced Work Daily Log Reports which will be signed
and dated by the RPR and the CONTRACTOR'S representative at the completion of each
workday. The RPR will forward copies of this form to the ClTY for record purposes.
Maintenance of Traffic (MOT): The CONTRACTOR shall provide the RPR, ClTY and NE
CONSULTANT with approved copies of its MOT at the Pre-Construction Meeting for general
information purposes. It will be the RPR's responsibility to verify compliance with the MOT in
the field.
Contractor Request for Services: When the CONTRACTOR requires services from the
ClTY for issues such as water main shutdowns, tie-ins to existing water mains, special
regulatory inspections, etc., a request shall be made in writing by the CONTRACTOR, and
forwarded by the RPR to the CITY, a minimum of three working days prior to when required.
Substantial Completion: When the CONTRACTOR considers that the Work has reached
Substantial Completion, the CONTRACTOR will notify the RPR who will verify that the work
has progressed to the substantial completion point in accordance the Contract Documents. If
the RPR is in agreement, the RPR will contact the ClTY to agree on a schedule for conducting
a substantial completion "walk-through" inspection of the Work. RPR shall attend and
participate in the substantial completion "walk-through", perform a substantial completion
inspection with the CONTRACTOR, NE CONSULTANT and the CITY, and prepare a punch
list that describes items remaining to be completed. This punch list will be attached to the
certificate of substantial completion.
Final Completion and Project Closeout: When the CONTRACTOR considers that the Work
has reached Final Completion, the CONTRACTOR will notify the RPR who will verify that the
work has progressed to the Final Completion point in accordance the Contract Documents. If
the RPR is in agreement, the RPR will contact the ClTY to agree on a schedule for conducting
a Final Completion "walk-through" inspection of the Work. RPR shall attend and participate in
the Final Completion "walk-through" and perform a Final Completion inspection with the
CONTRACTOR, NE CONSULTANT and the CITY. If the work is determined to be incomplete,
RPR and other attendees will each develop a punch list of items requiring completion or
correction prior to consideration of final acceptance of each project which shall be forwarded to
Commission Memorandum - RFQ For RPR Services for ROW Improvements.
June 1,201 1
Page 7 of 9
the CONTRACTOR by the RPR for each project. RPR will complete all necessary close-out
and construction completion forms and documentation in coordination with the CITY for the
projects. The RPR will work with the AIE CONSULTANT and the CONTRACTOR, as
necessary, to ascertain materials required for the closeout binder, as required by the CITY,
and review the Operation and Maintenance manuals for each project for completeness prior to
forwarding documentation to the CITY. Once all parties determine the work is complete and
the CONTRACTOR has delivered all close-out documentation to the CITY, the RPR will
prepare a Final Certificate for Payment. It is intended that the RPR will be responsible for
providing final certifications based on the entire scope of work for the project.
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 WlLL BE DEEMED NON-RESPONSIVE. QUALIFICATIONS
WlLL BE CONSIDERED ONLY FROM PROPOSERS THAT ARE REGULARLY ENGAGED IN THE
BUSINESS OF PROVIDING THE PROFESSIONAL SPECIALIZATION SERVICES AS DESCRIBED
IN THIS RFQ.
Proposer: For purposes of compliance with this minimum experience requirement, the term
"Proposer" is hereby defined to mean the firm andlor business entity which is submitting a
proposal pursuant to this RFQ. Accordingly, the firm andlor business entity must meet the
minimum requirements listed below in order to be deemed responsive. Non-responsive bids
will be disqualified from consideration.
Interested Firms shall address the following items in the RFQ response:
ltem 1. Team Experience:
List all projects undertaken in the past five (5) years, describe the scope of each
project in physical terms and by cost, describe the respondent's responsibilities,
and provide the name and contact telephone number of an individual in a position
of responsibility who can attest to respondent's activities in relation to the project.
An SF254 can suffice this request.
Provide the name(s) of the person, within your organization who was most actively
concerned with managing each project;
List and describe all legal claims against any member of the team alleging errors
and/or omissions, or any breach of professional ethics, including those settled out
of court, during in the past five (5) years.
The team must demonstrate through sample projects, firm philosophy, and design
approach their commitment to Green Building and/or environmental quality and
long-term operational efficiency of design products.
Provide the name(s) of the person, or person within your organization who was
most actively involved with managing each project.
ltem 2. 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 similar public or private projects and should have served as Project
Manager on a minimum of three (3) previous projects having similar sizes and scopes.
Commission Memorandum - RFQ For RPR Services for ROW Improvements.
June 1,201 1
Page 8 of 9
ltem 3. Previous Similar Projects:
Please provide a list of a minimum of ten (10) projects which demonstrates the Team's
experience in providing the services as required under this RFQ and in the scope of services
for this project. Please provide the following information for each sample project:
Client name, address, phone number and e-mail address.
Consultant (Architect or Engineer) name, address, phone number, fax andlor e-mail
address.
Description of the scope of the work.
Month and year the project was started and completed.
Total cost andlor fees paid to your firm.
Total cost of the construction, estimated and actual.
* Role of the firm and the responsibilities.
ltem 4. Qualification of Project Team:
Provide a list of the personnellsub-consultants to be used on this project and their
qualifications as it relates to project scope. A resume of each individual, including education,
experience, and any other pertinent information shall be included for each team member
including any subconsuitants, to be assigned to this project.
ltem 5. Project Approach:
Organizational structure of project team
Project specific approach to this project
EVALUATION PROCESS
The procedure for response, evaluation and selection will be as follows:
RFQ issued
Receipt of responses.
Opening and listing of all responses received.
An evaluation committee, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate each
response in accordance with the requirements of this RFQ. If further information is
desired, proposers may be requested to make additional written submissions or oral
presentations to the evaluation committee.
The evaluation committee will recommend to the City Manager the proposer(s) that the
evaluation committee deems to be in the best interest of the City by using the following
criteria for selection:
Total
Points
20
Criteria
The experience, qualifications, and portfolio of the Principal Firm
The ex~erience, qualifications and portfolio of the Project Manager, as well as
20
30
hislher 'familiarity' with this project and permitting process and a thorough
understanding of the methodology and design approach to be used in this
assignment.
The experience and qualifications of the professional personnel assigned to the
Commission Memorandum - RFQ For RPR Services for ROW Improvements.
June 1,201 1
Page 9 of 9
The City may request, accept, and consider proposals for the compensation to be paid
under the contract only during competitive negotiations.
10
10
10
After considering the recommendation(s) of the Evaluation Committee, the City
Manager shall recommend to the City Commission the response or responses
acceptance of which the City Manager deems to be in the best interest of the City.
The City Commission shall consider the City Manager's recommendation(s) in light of
the recommendation(s) and evaluation of the Evaluation Committee and, if appropriate,
approve the City Manager's recommendation(s). The City Commission may reject the
City Manager's recommendation(s) and select another response or responses. In any
case, City Commission shall select the response or responses, acceptance of which
the City Commission deems to be in the best interest of the City. The City Commission
may also reject all proposals.
Negotiations between the selected proposer(s) and the City take place to arrive at
agreement terms. If the City Commission has so directed, the City may proceed to
negotiate an agreement with a proposer other than the top ranked proposer if the
negotiations with the top ranked proposer ail to produce a mutually acceptable
agreement within a reasonable period of time.
A proposed contract or contracts are presented to the City Commission for approval,
modification and approval, or rejection.
If and when a contract or contracts acceptable to the respective parties is approved by
the City Commission, the Mayor and City Clerk sign the contract(s) after the selected
proposer(s) has (or have) done so.
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.
Project Approach
The volume of work previously awarded to each firm by the City, with the object of
effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms, provided such
distribution does not violate the principle of selection of the most highly qualified firm.
Past performance based on quality of the Performance Evaluation Surveys and the
Administration's due dilligence based upon reference checks performed of the
Firm(s) clients
Should the Mayor and Commission authorize the issuance of this RFQ, all procurement rules
(i.e. Cone of Silence, etc.) will apply.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the issuance of a Request
for Qualifications (RFQ) for Resident Project Representative Services for Right-of-way
Improvements to Neighborhood No. 8E, Sunset Islands 1 & 2.
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Request For Approval To Issue A Request For Qualifications (RFQ) For A Construction Manager At Risk
Firm To Provide Pre-Construction Services And Construction Phase Services Via A Guaranteed Maximum I Price (GMP) Amendment For The Flamingo Tennis Center Project.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Ensure well-maintained infrastructure
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): The 2009 Customer Satisfaction Survey
indicated that 79% of businesses rated recently completed capital improvement projects as "excellent" or I "good." I
Issue: I Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the issuance of the RFQ? I
Item SummarylRecommendation: ' The scope of work for this project consists of the demolition of the existing tennis center building and
courts, and construction of a new one-story tennis center facility and seventeen (17) tennis courts,
inclusive of courts lighting, landscape and irrigation work.
The Construction Manager's at Risk (CMR) Scope of Services shall include, without limitation, all of the
Preconstruction Services set forth below and, upon approval by the City of the Guaranteed Maximum
Price (GMP) and as contemplated in any GMP Amendment(s), all of the Construction Services required to
complete the Work in strict accordance with the Contract Documents, and to deliver the Project to the City
at or below the GMP and within the Contract time.
The CMR shall review Project requirements, existing on-site and off-site development, surveys and
preliminary budget, and make recommendations to the City for revisions. The CMR shall prepare a
preliminary Project Schedule in accordance with the Contract Documents and in coordination with the City
and the ArchitectlEngineer, identifying all phases, critical path activities, and critical duties of each of the
Project team members. The CMR shall review the plans and advise the City and the ArchitectlEngineer
regarding the constructability of the design and of any errors, omissions, or conflicts it discovers. The
CMR shall prepare an outline of proposed bid packages and detailed cost estimates, and advise the City
regarding trends in the construction and labor markets that may affect the price or schedule of the Project.
The CMR shall attend all Project related meetings. The CMR's Preconstruction Services shall be provided,
and the City shall compensate the CMR for such services, based upon a fixed fee. At the conclusion of the
Preconstruction Services, the CMR shall, provide the City a proposal for a GMP Amendment for
construction phase services and without assuming the duties of the ArchitectlEngineer, warrant to the
City, that the plans, specifications and other Contract Documents are consistent, practical, feasible and
constructible, and that the Project is constructible within the contract time.
There have been ongoing discussions concerning the number and composition of the tennis courts, and a
final determination has been made to construct the (1 7) hydro-courts pursuant to the approved master
plan (Resolution 2009-271 90). The GMP amendment will include seventeen (1 7) hydro-courts.
I I
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I NIA
OBPl 1 Total I I
Financial Impact Summary: NIA
City Clerk's mice Legislative Tracking:
[ Thais Vieira exf, 2702
.... . I
Financial Information:
Source of
Funds:
I Amount I Account
I I NIA
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June1,2011
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO IS Ad A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ)
FOR A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK FIRM TO PROVIDE PRE-
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES VIA A
GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE (GMP) AMENDMENT FOR THE FLAMINGO
PARK TENNIS CENTER PROJECT.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve issuance of the RFQ.
ANALYSIS
The scope of work for this project consists of the demolition of the existing tennis center building
and courts, and construction of a new one-story tennis center facility and seventeen (17) tennis
courts, inclusive of courts lighting, landscape and irrigation work.
CIP staff has studied the use of Construction Management at Risk (CMR) project delivery
method for this project in lieu of a standard Design-Bid-Build process, and recommends the
CMR option as the most advantageous project delivery method to successfully complete the
construction of the new tennis center facility and courts. One of the most important distinctions
between the CMR project approach and the Design-Bid-Build is that the CMR is selected based
on the CMR firms qualifications. The CMR approach will give the City the added value of having
a qualified contractor evaluate the project documents for any inconsistencies, errors and
omissions between the various design disciplines and constructability of the project.
There have been ongoing discussions concerning the number and composition of the tennis
courts, and a final determination has been made to construct the (17) hydro-courts pursuant to
the approved master plan (Resolution 2009-27190). The GMP amendment will include
seventeen (1 7) hydro-courts.
This project delivery method also minimizes additional costs from the Contractor, including
change orders and time extensions, since the GMP amendment prohibits most project cost
adjustments. Under this approach, time is of the essence to the Contractor because there will
be no compensation considered for delays. Furthermore, through the implementation of this
type of delivery method, the City was recently able to capture savings in the amount of
$1 71,555.00 for the Scott Rakow Project. The agreement between the City and CMR included a
clause that stated "Should the Construction Manager at Risk realize any savings from the
negotiated schedule of values, the City shall receive 75% of said savings with no line item
integrity".
The Project Team, consisting of the Owner (City), Design Professional and CMR work together
to produce a quality project with a design that is also buildable in an environment based on a
collaborative effort between the three parties in order to work out all the potential conflicts in the
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the
Flamingo Park Tennis Center Facility
June I, 201 1
Page 2 of 8
project prior to construction.
To this end the CMR firm is contracted to perform pre-construction services and provide at the
City's request or option, a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) and certifies by signing the GMP
contract with the City that the CMR firm can build the project for the GMP.
The City will request Pre-Construction Services as follows:
Constructability and Value Engineering
Review of Onsite and Offsite Conditions
Scheduling
Bidding (GMP submittal & Negotiations)
The CMR is tasked to work with the Design Professional to advise the City of the constructability
of the design and provide value engineering of the Design Professionals documents, to check
the quality of the documents and advise the Owner of the most efficient, and economical ways
to build the project pursuant to the Owners goals and objectives.
The end result is a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) from the Contractor, which is subject to
restrictions in change order requests and minimizes, or eliminates, additional costs to the City.
In order to ensure that the City is successful in negotiating the best value for this project, the
City will hire an independent Construction Estimator to provide assistance in validating the
CMR's construction costs according to the current market.
The "Best Value" Procurement process will be used to select a firm with the necessary
experience and qualifications, as well as demonstrating the ability, capacity and proven past
successful performance in providing Construction Management at Risk services.
The City's latest estimate of probable cost for the project, including the Tennis Center building
and courts, is $5,098,329.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Construction Manager's at Risk (CMR) Scope of Services shall include, without limitation,
all of the Preconstruction Services set forth below and, upon approval by the City of the
Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) and as contemplated in any GMP Amendment(s), all of the
Construction Services required to complete the Work in strict accordance with the Contract
Documents, and to deliver the Project to the City at or below the GMP and within the Contract
time.
The CMR shall review Project requirements, existing on-site and off-site development, surveys
and preliminary budget, and make recommendations to the City for revisions. The CMR shall
prepare a Project Schedule in accordance with the Contract Documents and in coordination with
the City and the ArchitecVEngineer, identifying all phases, critical path activities, and critical
duties of each of the Project team members. The CMR shall review the permitted set of plans
and advise the City and the ArchitecVEngineer regarding the constructability of the design and
of any errors, omissions, or conflicts it discovers. The CMR shall prepare an outline of
proposed bid packages and detailed cost estimates, and advise the City regarding trends in the
construction and labor markets that may affect the price or schedule of the Project. The CMR
shall attend all Project related meetings. The CMR's Preconstruction Services shall be provided,
and the City shall compensate the CMR for such services, based upon a fixed fee. At the
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the
Flamingo Park Tennis Center Facility
June I, 2077
Page 3 of 8
conclusion of the Preconstruction Services Phase, the CMR shall, provide the City a proposal
for a GMP Amendment for construction phase services and without assuming the duties of the
ArchitectlEngineer, warrant to the City, that the plans, specifications and other Contract
Documents are consistent, practical, feasible and constructible, and that the Project is
constructible within the contract time.
The successful firm will be tasked with the following duties and responsibilities:
Task 1 - Coordination with the Design Professional: In providing the CMR's services
described in this Agreement, the CMR shall maintain a working relationship with the
ArchitectlEngineer. However, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to mean that the
CMR assumes any of the responsibilities or duties of the NE. The CMR shall be solely
responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequence and procedures used in
the construction of the Project and for the safety of its personnel, property, and operations in
accordance with the CMR's Agreement with the City. The AIE is responsible for the design
requirements of the Project as indicated in the Agreement between the City and the NE. The
CMR's services shall be rendered in conjunction with and in cooperation with the NE's services
under the City. It is not intended that the services of the NE and the CMR be competitive or
duplicative, but rather be complementary.
Task 2 - Review of Design Documents, Scheduling, Estimating, and Cost Control: The
CMR, as a result of the review of the design documents and recommendations provided to the
City, shall be fully responsible for the coordination of the drawings with the written
specifications. This includes but is not limited to, the CMR's review of the construction
documents in coordination of the drawings and specifications themselves, with the existing
buildings and sites to ensure proper coordination and constructability, lack of conflict and to
minimize unforeseen conditions. The CMR shall, during this phase, be responsible for the
proper identification and location of all utilities, services, and other underground facilities which
may impact the Project. The CMR agrees specifically that no Contract Amendments shall be
requested by the CMR or considered by the City for reasons involving conflicts in the
documents; questions of clarity with regard to the documents; and incompatibility, or conflicts
between the documents and the existing conditions, utilities, code issues and unforeseen
underground conditions.
Task 3 - Bid and Award Phase: The CMR shall prepare a Subcontractor's Prequalification
Plan in compliance with the requirements currently determined by the City. The CMR shall
submit to the City the CMR's list of pre-approved sub-contractors for each element of the Work
to be sub-contracted by the CMR. This list shall be developed by the execution by the CMR of
the sub-contractor's Pre-qualification Plan noted above. The City reserves the right to reject
any sub-contractor proposed for any bid to be considered by the CMR. Any claims, objections
or disputes arising out of the Pre-qualification Plan or list, are the responsibility of the CMR.
The CMR shall hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the City, its employees, agents, and
representatives in any matter arising out of the pre-qualification plan andlor the sub-contractor's
list, except where the sole cause of the matter is a City directed decision.
Task 4 - Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP): After taking, reviewing and identifying the
proposals from the responsive and responsible sub-contractors, the CMR shall propose to the
City, a GMP, which shall be the sum of the proposed sub-contracts and the CMR's General
Conditions (including any fee, profit, overhead and all like amounts) and the agreed upon
Contingency amount. The GMP shall be the full and complete amount for which the CMR
agrees to go forward from the receipt of sub-contract bids to the full completion of the Project.
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the
Flamingo Park Tennis Center Facility
June I, 201 1
Page 4 of 8
Prior to acceptance and execution of the GMP, the CMR shall submit a Best Value quality
control plan that identifies risks and potential risks that the CMR does not control, or risk that is
impacted by factors that the CMR does not control, and includes the CMR's plan to minimize
that risk. A risk would be any existing or potential condition, situation or event that could
negatively impact the project's cost, schedule, quality and the City's expectations.
Upon acceptance and execution of the GMP proposal, by the City, the CMR shall enter into sub-
contract agreements with the sub-contractors selected for the amounts included in the GMP
Proposal for that sub-contract work, and shall function as a General Contractor and comply with
the Contract Documents accordingly with regard to the Project as well as a CMR with regard to
other services required by the Contract Documents.
Task 5 - Construction Phase: Once the City has accepted the GMP, the City will issue a GMP
Amendment which will include the Contract for Construction. CMR activities shall include, but
are not limited to:
Coordinating site construction management services including but not limited to: regular
job site meetings, maintaining daily on-site project log and schedule reports, overseeing
quality assurance, testing and inspection programs, monitoring construction
management staff and sub-contractor work performance for deficiencies, maintaining
record copies of all contract documents, change orders and other documentation on site,
and overseeing construction management staff and subcontractor safety programs.
Staffing each assigned project in a satisfactory manner. As a minimum, the CMR site
personnel during the construction phase will include: a project manager, a full- time
project superintendent and project administrative personnel. The CMR shall provide site
personnel that are competent, English-speaking and able to communicate effectively.
Updating and maintaining master project schedules, detailed construction schedules,
submittal schedules, inspection schedules and occupancy schedules.
Preparing a schedule of values associated with the identified bid package and submitting
it for approval by the Architect and City's representative(s). All payment requests must
be in accordance with the schedule of values approved.
Processing payment requests for approval by the Architect and the City's
representative(s).
Processing any change orders due to scope and modifications and submitting them for
approval by the Architect and the City's representative(s), including a cost estimate of
the proposed change.
Processing requests for information and coordination with the Architect.
Providing construction program accounting and reporting to the City as required.
Monitoring for the presence of existing asbestos containing building materials and certify
to the City that no asbestos containing material has been used.
Providing monthly progress reports to the City.
Submitting exception-based status reports, associated with the Best Value Quality
Control Plan, addressing conditions, situations, and events that introduce risk to the
project, in terms of cost, schedule, quality, and City's expectations, and including the
CMR's plan to mitigate the risk (s).
Coordinating with the Architect and City representative(s) the substantial and final
inspections, prior to the Architect's approval and issuance of the Certificate of
Substantial Completion.
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the
Flamingo Park Tennis Center Facility
June I, 201 I
Page 5 of 8
Task 6 - Post-Construction Phase: The CMR will coordinate project closeout, start-up and
transition to operations, per the contract for Construction. Activities include but are not limited to:
The CMR shall coordinate project close-out, start-up and transition to operations.
The CMR will coordinate with the Architect to provide a complete project record including
project manual and CADD drawings to show all construction changes, additions, and
deletions compared to the Construction Document (CADD disks will be provided to the
CMR by the Architect).
The CMR will coordinate with the City to prepare the Certificate of Final Inspection.
The CMR will obtain and review for completeness, have corrected if necessary, and
submit to the City, following the Architect's approval, all Warranties, Operations and
Maintenance Manuals, and other such documents.
The CMR is responsible for Warranties and Guaranties.
The CMR will complete all punch-list items generated by Contractor during their
inspections.
The CMR will coordinate and conduct the Occupancy Evaluation and Warranty
Inspection.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
For purposes of compliance with this minimum experience requirement, the term "Proposef is
hereby defined to mean the firm andlor business entity which is submitting a proposal pursuant
to this RFQ. Accordingly, the firm andlor business entity must meet the minimum requirements
listed below in order to be deemed responsive. Non-responsive bids will be disqualified from
consideration.
Interested Firms shall address the following items in the RFQ response:
I. Team's Experience
Indicate the firm's number of years of experience in providing CMR Services
or Design Build services for projects of the same size and complexity as
required by this RFQ.
The firm must demonstrate an ability to provide multi-disciplinary
management in the areas of facility assessment, scope definitionlvalidation,
planning, public engagement, cost estimating, scheduling, quality control and
assurance plan, building code reviewlinspection, design, construction,
closeout, and warranty services.
List all successfully completed projects comparable in design, scope, size
and complexity, undertaken in the past five (5) years. Describe the scope of
each project in physical terms and by cost, describe the respondent's
responsibilities, and provide the name and contact telephone number of an
individual in a position of responsibility who can attest to respondent's
activities in relation to the project. An SF254 can suffice this request.
List the firm's successfully completed projects comparable in design, scope,
size and complexity, undertaken in the past five (5) years;
Provide the name(s) of the person, within your organization who was most
actively concerned with managing each project;
List and describe all legal claims against any member of the team alleging
errors andlor omissions, or any breach of professional ethics, including those
settled out of court, during in the past five (5) years.
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the
Flamingo Park Tennis Center Facility
June I, 201 1
Page 6 of 8
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 management of
construction projects, possess extensive knowledge in the management of construction
projects, value engineering, working in a team environment, and be well versed in
project schedules and budgeting. Furthermore, this individual should have served as
Project Manager on projects having the same size (i.e., construction budget of $3.5
million or greater) and complexity.
3. Previous Similar Projects: Provide a list of a minimum of ten (10) projects which
demonstrates the Team's experience in providing the services outlined in this RFQ. Must .
provide the following information for each sample project.
Client name, address, phone number, email
Consultant name, address, phone number, fax andlor e-Mail address
Description of the scope of the work
Role of the firm and the responsibilities
a Month and Year the project was started and completed
Total cost andlor fees paid to your firm
Total cost of the construction, estimated and actual
4. Qualifications of Project Team: Provide a list of the personnel to be used on this
project and their qualifications. A resume of each individual, including education,
experience, and any other pertinent information shall be included for each team member
to be assigned to this project.
5. Risk-Assessment Plan (RAP): All Consultants must submit a Risk-Assessment Plan.
The RAP must not be longer than two (2) pages front side of page only should be
included within the RFQ response. The RAP should address the following items in a
clear and generic language:
Potential project risks. (Areas that may cause the Contractor not to finish on
time, not finish with budget, cause any change orders, or be a source of
dissatisfaction with the owner)
a Explanation of how the risks can be avoidedlminimized
Propose any options that could increase the value of this project
Explain the benefits of the RAP. 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. No brochures or marketing
pieces please.
RFQ PROCESS
The procedure for response evaluation and selection is as follows:
I. 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, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate each
response in accordance with the requirements of this RFQ. If further information is
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the
Flamingo Park Tennis Center Facility
June 1,201 1
Page 7 of 8
desired, consultants may be requested to make additional written submissions or oral
presentations to the Evaluation Committee.
5. The Evaluation Committee will recommend to the City Manager the response or
responses acceptance of which the Evaluation Committee deems to be in the best
interest of the City. The following criteria shall be utilized by the Evaluation Committee
for the selection of the Consultant:
(20 points) - The experience, qualifications, quality control and assurance plan,
and portfolio of the Principal Firm
(25 points) - The experience, qualifications and portfolio of the Project Manager,
as well as hislher 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
(20 points) - Willingness to meet time and budget requirements as demonstrated
by past performance, methodology and approach
(IOpoints) - Past performance based on quality of the Performance Evaluation
Surveys and the Administration's due dilligence based upon reference checks
performed of the Firm(s) clients
(5 points) - Risk Assessment Plan that reflects a clear understanding of project
objectives; a thorough review of existing conditions; 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 City may request, accept and consider proposals for the compensation to be paid under the
contract only during competitive negotiations.
6. After considering the recommendation(s) of the Evaluation Committee, the City Manager
shall recommend to the City Commission the response or responses acceptance of
which the City Manager deems to be in the best interest of the City.
7. The City Commission shall consider the City Manager's recommendation(s) in light of
the recommendation(s) and evaluation of the Evaluation Committee and, if appropriate,
approve the City Manager's recommendation(s). The City Commission may reject City
Manager's recommendation(s) and select another response or responses. In any case,
City Commission shall select the response or responses acceptance of which the City
Commission deems to be in the best interest of the City. The City Commission may also
reject all proposals.
8. Negotiations between the selected respondent and the City Manager will take place to
arrive at a contract. If the City Commission has so directed, the City Manager may
proceed to negotiate a contract with a respondent other than the top ranked respondent
if the negotiations with the top ranked respondent fail to produce a mutually acceptable
contract within a reasonable period of time.
9. A proposed contract or contracts are presented to the City Commission for approval,
modification and approval, or rejection.
10. If and when a contract or contracts acceptable to the respective parties is approved by
the City Commission, the Mayor and City Clerk sign the contract(s) after the selected
respondent(s) has (or have) done so.
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the
Flamingo Park Tennis Center Facility
June I, 2011
Page 8 of 8
RFQ TIMETABLE
The anticipated schedule for this RFQ and contract approval is as follows:
RFQ to be issued June 1,201 1
Commission approvallauthorization of negotiations September 14, 201 1
Pre-construction services I GMP negotiation September 201 1
GMP Amendment Award October 19,201 1
Projected construction start date November 201 1
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and the City Commission authorize the
issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a Construction Manager at Risk to provide
pre-construction services and Construction Phase services via a Guaranteed Maximum Price
(GMP) Amendment for the Flamingo Park Tennis Center Project.
DB\FV\CF\JCC
T:VI\GENDA\2011\6-01-1 I\RFQ for CMR for Flamingo Tennis Center - Memo - Final-I .docx
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION COMMITTEE
ASSIGNMENTS
AM1 BEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
Robert Parcher, City Clerk
Jorge R. Exposito, Commissioner
May 19,2011
SUBJECT: Referral to Finance & Citywide Projects Committee
MEMORANDUM
I would like to refer a discussion item to the Finance Committee regarding a request to allow
advertising on the Deco Bike Stations to determine its economic impact to the city and the
enhancement of the Deco Bike program.
We trust that you will find all in good order. Should you have any questions, please feel free to
get in touch with my aide, Barbie Paredes at extension 6457.
Best regards,
We ale comtnibd to providing excelleni public service ond safely to all who live, work, ond ploy in our vii
Agenda Item C 4A
Date 6-/-/I
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
Jonah Wolfson, Commissioner
May 24'q 201 1
Anenda ltem
Please place on the June lSt, 201 1, Commission Meeting Agenda a referral to the
Land Use and Development Committee for the discussion of a off-leash hours
andlor designated area for dogs, not fenced, in the general south vicinity of the Par
3 Golf Course, or other designated area of the Par 3.
If you have any questions, please contact Leonor Hernandez at extension 6437.
1 Agenda ltem C 49
We are commrt~ed to provtdtng ex cell en^ publrc servrce and safety 10 all who lrvc hark, and play In our u
I Date &/-/I
47
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
CC:
FROM:
DATE:
Honorable Mayor Matti Herrera Bower
Members of the City Commission
Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager
Jose Smith, City Attorney . .,
A-
June 1,201 1
SUBJECT: Referral to the Neighborhoods1Community Affairs Committee: Consideration and
discussion of proposed amendments to the City's Noise Ordinance.
The attached proposed Ordinance is submitted for referral by the Mayor and City
Commission to the NeighborhoodsICommunity Affairs (NACA) Committee. The attached
amendments adopt the County's noise standards in 521-28 of the County Code within the text
of the Miami Beach City Code. Currently, the County's standards, which were upheld in DA
Mortgage, Inc. v. Citv Miami Beach, et al., 486 F. 3d 1254 (I lth Cir. 2007), are adopted in the
City Code by reference to the County Code. In addition, minor amendments to the City's Noise
Ordinance are recommended with regard to the definition of habitual offender to conform to
existing language in 5946-159(a)(6) and (h), and to remove language in $46-158(b)(2) that is no
longer relevant due to the passage of time.
In the course of implementing the City's Noise Ordinance, other sections therein have
been identified that may warrant further review and consideration. Therefore, other proposed
amendments and clarifications are included within the attached draft for consideration and
discussion by the NACA Committee. These potential amendments include: to confirm that
violations are issued after a written warning or when a violation was already issued within the
preceding 12 months; whether to reduce the time after which a second violation due to non-
compliance may be issued; to consider the application of criminal penalties for certain repeat
offenses; and to consider establishing additional fines and penalties for sixth and greater
offenses in a manner more consistent with the increasing schedule of fines and penalties for
other offenses.
T:\AGENDAQ011\6-01-1 l\Referral to NCAC - Proposed Noise Ordinance Amendments 6 1 201 1 .doc
1 Agendaltem C(/c
I Date b-/-//
I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE
ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 46 OF THE
MIAMI BEACH ClTY CODE ENTITLED "ENVIRONMENT," BY
AMENDING ARTICLE IV ENTITLED "NOISE" BY AMENDING
SECTION 46-151 ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS" BY AMENDING THE
DEFINITION OF HABITUAL TO CONFORM TO THE HABITUAL
OFFENDER LANGUAGE SET FORTH IN SUBSECTIONS 46-159(a)(6)
and (h); BY AMENDING SECTION 46-152 ENTITLED "ADOPTION OF
COUNTY CODE SECTION BY REFERENCE; UNNECESSARY AND
EXCESSIVE NOISES PROHIBITED" TO ADOPT THE COUNTY'S
NOISE STANDARDS IN SECTION 46-152; BY AMENDING SECTION
46-158 ENTITLED "ENFORCEMENT BY CODE INSPECTORS;
NOTICE OF VIOLATION; WARNINGS; RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE
CURRENT ADDRESS" TO REMOVE LANGUAGE IN SUBSECTION
(b)(2) THAT IS NO LONGER RELEVANT DUE TO THE PASSAGE OF
TIME AND TO CLARIFY SUBSECTIONS (b)(2)(a) AND (b)(2)(b) THAT
A VIOLATION WILL BE ISSUED IF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS
ISSUED WITHIN THE PRECEDING TWELVE MONTHS OR IF A
VIOLATOR HAS ALREADY RECEIVED A WRllTEN WARNING; BY
AMENDING SECTION 46-159 ENTITLED "FINES AND PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATIONS; APPEALS; ALTERNATE MEANS OF
ENFORCEMENT" TO AMEND AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FINES
AND PENALTIES FOR SIXTH AND GREATER OFFENSES; AND
PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach has adopted Miami-Dade County standards for
noise violations as set forth in 921-28 of the Miami-Dade County Code; and
WHEREAS, the noise standards set forth in 921-28 of the Miami-Dade County Code
were held to be facially constitutional in DA Mortsaqe, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, et al., 486 F.
3d 1254 (I lth Cir. 2007); and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach wishes to state the constitutional noise standards
upheld in DA Mortaage within its City Code; and
WHEREAS, other amendments and minor clarifications to the City's Noise Ordinance
contained in ~rticle IV of Chapter 46 of the City Code should be made with regard to the
definition of habitual offender to conform to existing language in Sections 46-159(a)(6) and (h),
to remove language in Section 46-158(b)(2) that is no longer relevant due to the passage of
time, to confirm that violations are issued after a written warning or when a violation was already
issued within the preceding twelve months, and to provide additional fines and penalties for
sixth and greater offenses consistent with the increasing schedule of fines and penalties for
other offenses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY
COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. That Section 46-1 51 of Article IV of Chapter 46 of the Miami Beach City Code is
hereby amended as follows:
CHAPTER 46
ENVIRONMENT
* * *
ARTICLE IV. NOISE
Sec. 46-1 51. - Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning:
Habitual offender means a person or entity who has more than five offenses within 4-8 2
months of the first offense.
SECTION 2. That Section 46-152 of Article IV of Chapter 46 of the Miami Beach City Code is
hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 46-1 52. - 1
Noises; unnecessary and excessive prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for anv person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued
anv unreasonably loud, excessive, unnecessarv or unusual noise. The following acts, amonq
others, are declared to be unreasonablv loud, excessive, unnecessarv or unusual noises in
violation of this section, but this enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive, namely:
(a) Horns, siqnalins devices, etc. The soundinq of anv horn or siqnalinq device on anv
automobile, motorcvcle, bus or other vehicle on any street or public dace of the Countv,
except as a danqer warninq; the creation bv means of anv such siqnalinq device of anv
unreasonablv loud or harsh sound; and the sounding of anv such device for anv
unnecessary and unreasonable period of time.
[b) Radios, televisions. phonoqraphs, etc. The usinq, operating, or permitting to be plaved,
used or operated any radio receiving set, television set, musical instrument. phonoqraph,
or other machine or device for the producinq or reproducing of sound in such manner as
to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of the neighborinq inhabitants, or at anv time with
louder volume than is necessarv for convenient hearinq for the person or persons who
are in the room, vehicle or chamber in which such machine or device is operated and
who are voluntarv listeners thereto. The operation of any such set, instrument,
phonograph, machine or device between the hours of 11:OO p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such
manner as to be plainly audible at a distance of one hundred (100) feet from the
building, structure or vehicle in which it is located shall be prima facie evidence of a
violation of this section.
{c) Animals, birds, etc, The owninq, harboring, possessinq or keepinq of any doq, animal or
bird which causes frequent, habitual or Ions continued noise which is plainly audible at a
distance of one hundred (100) feet from the building. structure or vard in which the dog,
animal or bird is located.
{d) Whistles. The blowinq of any locomotive whistle or whistle attached to anv stationarv
boiler except to give notice of the time to beqin or stop work or as a warninq of fire or
danger or upon request of the proper municipal or County authorities.
{e) Exhausts. The discharqe into the open air of the exhaust of any steam enqine,
stationarv internal combustion enqine, or motor vehicle except through a muffler or other
device which will effectivelv prevent unreasonablv loud or explosive noises therefrom.
[f) Defect in vehicle or load, The use of anv automobile, motorcycle, iet ski, water bike,
recreational vehicle, dirt bike or motor vehicle so out of repair, so loaded or in such
manner as to create unreasonablv loud or unnecessarv grating, grindinq, rattlinq or other
noise within a residential area.
[a) Schools. counls, hospitals. The creation of anv excessive or unreasonablv loud noise on
anv street adiacent to anv school, institution of learninq, house of worship or court while
the same are in use, or adiacent to anv hospital, which unreasonablv interferes with the
workings of such institutions, or which disturbs or unduly annoys the patients in the
hospital, provided conspicuous siqns are displaved in such streets indicating that it is a
school, hospital or court street.
{h) Hawkers, peddlers. The shouting and crvinq of peddlers, hawkers, and vendors which
disturbs the peace and quiet of the neiqhborhood.
li) Noises to attract attention. The use of anv drum, loudspeaker or other instrument or
device for the purpose of attractins attention bv creation of anv unreasonablv loud or
unnecessary noise to any performance, show, sale, displav or advertisement of
merchandise.
li) Louds~eakers, etc. The use or operation on or upon the public streets, alleys and
thorouqhfares anvwhere in this County for any purpose of any device known as a sound
truck, loud speaker or sound amplifier or radio or any other instrument of any kind or
character which emits therefrom loud and raucous noises and is attached to and upon
any vehicle operated or standinq upon such streets or public places aforementioned. It is
provided, however, that this subsection is not intended to be construed in a manner that
would interfere with the leqitimate use of the foreqoinq loudspeaker type devices in
political campaigns.
{k) Power tools and landsca~ina eaui~ment. The operation of noise-producinq lawn
mowers, lawn edqers, weed trimmers, blowers, chippers, chain saws, Dower tools and
other noise-producinq tools which are used to maintain or at a residence out-of-doors
between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
{I) Shoutina. Any unreasonably loud, boisterous or raucous shoutinq in any residential area.
SECTJON 3. That Section 46-158 of Article IV of Chapter 46 of the Miami Beach City Code is
hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 46-158. - Enforcement by code inspectors; notice of violation; warnings;
responsibility to provide current address.
(a) Notice of violation. If the code inspector observes a violation of this article, the inspector
shall issue a notice of violation to each person and entity identified in section 46-153,
and a courtesy copy of the violation shall be provided to an employee or other
representative of the business tax receipt holder who is on the premises of the business
tax receipt holder, except as otherwise provided in subsection (b). The code inspector
shall inform the violators that they must immediately cease the violation. The notice shall
include the following information:
Name of the violator.
Date and time of violation.
Nature of the violation.
Amount of fine or other penalty for which the violator may be liable pursuant to
section 46-1 59 of this Code or as otherwise provided by law.
Instructions and due date for paying the fine.
Notice that the violation may be appealed by filing a written request for an
administrative hearing with the clerk of the special master within ten days after
service of the notice of violation, that failure to do so shall constitute an
admission of the violation and waiver of the right to a hearing, and that unpaid
fines will result in the imposition of liens which may be foreclosed by the city. The
notice shall also inform the violator that repeat violations of this article will result
in the imposition of larger fines and may also result in revocation, suspension, or
the imposition of restrictions on the business tax receipt, and/or certificate of use,
or accessory use, and/or injunctive proceedings as provided by law. The notice
shall be signed by the code inspector who witnessed the violation.
Warnings.
(1) Oral warnings. If a code inspector observes a violation of this article without a
complaint having been made, the inspector may first issue one oral courtesy warning
per day and inform the violator that the violator will be subject to penalties if the
violation continues.
Written warnings. A code inspector shall first issue a written warning to
immediately cease the violation prior to issuing a notice of violation unless one
written warning has been issued in the 12 months preceding the date of . . violation;
The written warning shall be substantially in the same form as the notice of
violation as stated in subsection 46-1 58(a) above. Failure to correct the violation
within 15 minutes following the issuance of a written or oral warning shall result in
the issuance of a notice of violation pursuant to this article.
A code inspector shall not issue a written warning, and instead shall issue a
notice of violation, to any person, entity or establishment who:
Hkas already been issued a written warning as specified
in section 46-1 581bM2); or
In awy the 12-month period precedinq the issuance of a notice of violation . . . . has i~
received a violation as specified in section 46-1 58(a); or
Is also being cited for an illegal commercial or nonpermitted
nonresidential use in a residential zoning district.
Responsibility to provide current address. The holder of the business tax receipt for the
premises where a violation or warning is issued shall have the responsibility to keep the
city advised of its current address and of the current address of the owner of the
premises.
SECTION 4. That Section 46-159 of Article IV of Chapter 46 of the Miami Beach City Code is
hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 46-159. - Fines and penalties for violation; appeals; alternate means of enforcement.
(a) The following civil fines and penalties shall be imposed for violations of this article:
If the offense is the first offense, $250.00 fine.
If the offense is the second offense within the preceding 12 months, $1,000.00
fine.
(3) If the offense is the third offense within the preceding 12 months, $2,000.00 fine.
If the offense is the fourth offense within the preceding 12 months, one weekend
(noon Friday through noon Monday) business tax receipt conditions and/or
accessory use restrictions shall be imposed limiting the ability to produce any live
or amplified sound at that portion of the premises that caused the violation, in
addition to a $3,000.00 fine.
If the offense is the fifth offense within the preceding 12 months, two weekend
(noon Friday through noon Monday) business tax receipt conditions and/or
accessory use restrictions shall be imposed limiting the ability to produce any live
or amplified sound at that portion of the premises that caused the violation, in
addition to a $5,000.00 fine.
If the offense is the sixth or greater offense within the preceding 12 months, it:
weekend (noon Friday through noon Monday) business tax receipt
conditions andlor accessory use restrictions shall be imposed limiting the ability
to produce any live or amplified sound at that portion of the premises that caused
the violation, in addition to a $ fine. A sixth or qreater offense within
the precedinq 12 months shall be considered an habitual offender offense and
may also subiect the violator to the with penalties and fines imposed pursuant to
subsection 46-1 59(h).
The first time an offense is committed while the violator was also engaged in an
illegal commercial or nonpermitted, nonresidential use in a residential zoning
district, $1,000.00, in lieu of the fine provision in subsection (1)
above.
The second or any subsequent time an offense is committed while the violator
was also engaged in an illegal commercial or nonpermitted, nonresidential use in
a residential zoning district, $5,000.00, in lieu of the fine
provisions in subsections (2)+4j(6) above.
A person may receive a separate notice of violation once every minutes if a
violation has occurred at any time within that period. Each violation shall
constitute a separate offense for which a separate fine shall be imposed. An
offense shall be deemed to have occurred on the date the violation occurred.
Business tax receipt conditions or accessory use restrictions pursuant to this
section shall be imposed by order of the special master after finding an offense
warranting suspension or restriction has occurred. An offense occurring 12
months after the last offense shall be treated as a first offense for purposes of
incurring new fines and penalties. However, any fines or penalties imposed in
any prior 12-month period shall not be waived or altered.
(h) In cases of habitual offender violations or offenses, the city manager may issue an
administrative complaint for suspension or revocation of a business tax receipt and
certificate of use as provided in section 102-383. Upon a finding of habitual offender
violations or offenses by the city manager, a business tax receipt suspension, revocation
and/or fine shall be imposed. Suspensions shall be imposed with restrictions limiting the
ability to provide any live or amplified sound as either a condition of the business tax
receipt or as an accessory use restriction. In the event the violator is a hotel, motel,
condominium, apartment or other residential property, accessory use restrictions shall
be imposed in lieu of a business tax receipt revocation which results in the eviction of
residents. Additionally, in the event of a revocation, as a condition of being permitted to
resume operation under the business tax receipt, the city manager shall utilize the
criteria set forth in section 142-1362 of this Code to impose such conditions or
restrictions as deemed appropriate to assure compliance with all city codes.
In determining the length of the suspension or accessory use restriction to be imposed
under this subsection, the city manager shall consider the following factors: the gravity of
the violations or offenses; any actions taken by the violator to correct the violations or
offenses; and, any previous violations or offenses committed by the violator. No
suspension or accessory use restriction imposed under this subsection shall be for a
period of time of less than 30 consecutive days.
(j) In addition, in the event a violator refuses to comply with a notice of violation&
issued under section 46-158 within a 24 hour ~eriod, a violator may be punished by
imprisonment not to exceed 60 days or by imposition of a fine not to exceed $500.00 per
offense or both.
SECTION 5. CODIFICATION.
It is the intention of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, and it is
hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made a part of the
Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or
re-lettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section,"
"article," or other appropriate word.
SECTION 6. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby
repealed.
SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect
the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect the day of ,201 1
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2011.
ATTEST:
MATTI HERRERA BOWER
MAYOR
ROBERT PARCHER, CITY CLERK
Words added are underlined.
Words deleted have been
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
5\25p -
DATE
F:VI\TTO\TURN\ORDINANC\ARTICLE IV NOISE - AMENDED.docx
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS
AMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members %the City Commission
REPORT OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS OVERSIGHT
COMMITI'EE MEETING OF April 11,201 1
The meeting was called to order at 5:48PM
Please note: These minutes are not a full transcript of the meeting.
Full audio and visual record of this meeting available online on the City's website:
h ttp:// www. miamibeachfl.aov/video/video. asp
Introduction of Tony Trujillo, new committee member and introduction of new Assistant City
Manager, Duncan Ballantyne.
550 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
See attendance sheet copy attached.
PUBLIC COMMENT 554 p.m.
Carla Propes, 400 Alton Rd, noted that she wanted to speak regarding the mature oaks
that were removed as part of south of 5th CIP project, even though Commission had
mandated no greenspace would be removed for bike paths, trees were removed. Chair
Gross noted that the Bicycle Master Plan was developed after most of the Basis of Design
Reports were completed for the neighborhoods, and the plans and BODRs were never
really integrated together.
Chuck Fossler, CIP Acting Assistant Director, clarified the issue. The trees were not
removed because of the bike lanes. As part of the stormwater plan the curb and gutter
had to be removed and replaced with a different design. In order to do that, the curb
had to be moved over about 6" inches. In the process it was noticed that on the existing
trees the roots had grown on to the existing curb and gutter. When they went to trim the
roots, Parks Dept was brought in to discuss if the trees where viable. Mr. Fossler explained
the roots were growing in a narrow swale area and were growing in a north/south
direction. Mr. Fossler added that Chris Latt, the City's Urban Forrester, noted that
because of the way the roots were oriented, there is a possibility the trees would fall over
in a hurricane. Mr. Fossler noted that 30 frees were removed and 6 were relocated and
to make up for the lost canopy they will be replacing them with 47 additional oak trees
about 24-27 feet tall.
1 Agenda Item C6A
Date 6 -/-/I
ClPOC Committee Meeting Minutes
April 11, 201 1
Page 2 of 7
Chair Gross explained that these things need to be anticipated and called out during
the plan review stage, additionally letting the residents who are affected by it know
What's going ta happen. Mr. Fossler added that there is a net increase of 270
canopy trees and 13,315 square feet of greenspace going back in the
neighborhood.
Ms. Propes, noted that on the Westside of the Murano Grande and the Icon, the swale
was decreased over 2 feet and would like the City to look into this. Additionally, Ms.
Propes noted that on lst and Alton, a crosswalk was lost. Chair Gross, advised Mr. Fossler
to look into it and get back to Ms. Propes.
Fernando Vazquez, CIP Director, added that Public Works and CIP are developing new
SOP to mitigate as many obstacles as possible when a ROW project conflicts with the
Bike Master Plan.
Daniel Veitia, Normandy lsle HOA, advised that the lighting plan for Normandy lsle has
been drafted. Funding will be coming from PTP funds. Lights & pavers are moving forward
and for all other items on his list, CIP has made budget requests. Update is good and will
be reporting back next meeting with more updates.
Dennis Russ, Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association, advised that several items were
covered on a meeting held Monday. 7th - 9th Streets area, lSt slice of Flamingo being
done, he questioned whether the bump out lanes are longer than necessary. Mr. Russ
stated he is concerned with the Stormwater Master Plan and what the impact will be. A
request was made to meet with design consultants, WolfbergIAlvarez, as they begin the
next level of design plans. Mr. Russ advised a special policy document with respect to
pedestrian orientation in Flamingo has evolved, adopted it in Neighborhood Association
meeting and moving along to the City's Administration and Commission for
consideration, action and implementation. Mr. Russ noted that he is concerned with
slowing traffic in residential areas and creating 4-way stops, and marking it as a special
residential zone. Next stage to possibly move forward will be 16th street corridor and 6th
street corridor. Mr. Russ has advised he has discussed with Mr. Cano regarding,
describing the project in the capital budget.
Jorge Cano, Administration and Business Officer, CIP, advised that active Flamingo bid
packs have about $34 million already programmed in the budget for stormwater
improvements. Public Works is currently working on using remaining RDA funding for work
on the 6th Street corridor. The balance of drainage work in Flamingo and the West
Avenue projects can be funded out of a second series of bonds, pending commission
approval.
16 Street has funding available for design and partial funding for the improvements.
Design focuses on traffic calming. Denis Russ indicated that the neighborhood was
aware of some additional Federal funding available and they hope the City can move
forward with the planned improvements on 16 Street.
OLD BUSINESS
CIP Project Status Report - htt~://web.miamibeachfl.crov/ci~/scroll.as~x?id=3990
ClPOC Committee Meeting Minutes
April 11, 201 1
Page 3 of 7
REQUESTED REPORTS
Status Report: Venetian Island Neiahborhood Im~rovemenf Project 6:21 p.m.
Roberto Rodriguez, Capital Projects Coordinator, advised that plans have been
approved by our Public Works Dept on March 21~t. Meeting was held with Procurement
to discuss issuing an ITB. The issuance of an ITB should be done by the end of April, with
the goal of going to commission and having them award it at July's meeting. Schedule
from the County puts them in Rivo Alto through July, Dilido running close to August and
Sun Marino well into August. Chair Gross, inquired about legal issues on holding the
contractor and advised it should be check with Gus Lopez, Procurement Director, and
the Legal Department.
Greg Carney, Venetian Islands, advised that there will be HOA meeting on April 20, 201 1
at 6:30pm and asked if someone from the City would give an update to the residents of
the island. Mr. Rodriguez advised that he will be attending the meeting and that he has
invited the consultant to also join. Additionally, Mr. Rodriguez noted that a notice has
been sent to the County stating to add additional warning for the bike lanes. Mr.
Rodriguez, added that the county acknowledged his request and forwarded it to their
contractor on April 6th, to add additional warning signs.
Status Report: Sunset Islands I & I1 6:31 p.m.
Maria Hernandez, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator, reported there have been some
changes to the scheduling on outfalls on Sunset Islands I & II. The proposed date of April
20th for delivery of structures to begin to mobilize, and should be completed in 30 days.
100% plans are complete and presently are in Miami Dude Traffic, will have them back
by Wednesday with comments which were minor. Working on the ITB, planning to have it
out to bidladvertised by April 20th, calling for 12 months for construction.
Status Report: Sunset Islands 111 & IV 6:34 p.m.
Mattie Reyes, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator, reported design is soon to start,
pending on the approval of the amendments from the April 13, 201 1 commission
meeting. Meeting was held with the Island HOA, FP&L and ABB, where they identified
timelines that need to be met. Ms. Reyes explained that the guard house is a separate
project not part of Sunset Island Ill & IV right-of-way improvements.
Fred Beckmann, Public Works Director, advised they have not finalized the discussions on
the entrance. Mr. Beckmann noted that there will be a lot of heavy traffic going into the
neighborhood during the construction. The structure is still under discussion at the City
Managers level and has not yet been decided if it's going to be a guard house or a
small portable kiosk.
Terry Bienstock, Sunset Ill & IV HOA, stated that all the issues brought up are new and
have happen in the last 7 days. They were under the impression that it will all be done by
this summer. Mr. Bienstock, advised that it was presented by City staff at their HOA
meeting. Mr. Bienstock explained when the process started, they asked Miami Beach
Police to conduct a security analysis which concluded in placing the guard house in the
middle, additionally it went to William Cary and the Planning Department, who advised
CIPOC Committee Meeting Minutes
April 11, 2011
Page 4 of 7
they recommend tearing it down to build a new structure. Three Architects from the
island got together and designed a new structure for the guard house. Mr. Bienstock
noted that these changes had been going on for a while and thought the City
Manager's office was aware of them. Mr. Bienstock explained there are no budgetary
issues; whatever the budget that got approved last year is the budget and any overage
that they (the HOA) will pay for it.
Rick Saltrick, Assistant City Engineer, explained that the Public Works Department is
currently working on permitting for the guardhouse project. Public Works will report back
when a decision is made on the type of structure selected and how they will proceed.
Sfafus Re~orf: Palm & Hibiscus Island Underaroundinq 652 p.m.
Grace Escalante, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator, stated that at a vote taken in
December, Hibiscus Island was successful in establishing a special taxing district towards
utility undergrounding, but Palm Island was not. Next, FPL has to re-submit their drawings
(April 24), incorporating revisions that were requested by residents. Once the City and
the HOA approves the drawings, the City will request a binding estimate from FPL. Then
the City and HOA have 180 days to do the following: HOA pays Miami-Dude County and
the City enters into an inter-local agreement with the County. In the interim, CIP will
request (at the May Commission Meeting) approval to issue an RFQ to develop a design
criteria package so that the project to be issued as a design-build. Eleanor Carney
inquired if the undergrounding would be integrated into the right-of-way project. Ms.
Escalante replied in the affirmative. (Undergrounding will be entered as an add-
alternate).
Mrs. Carney was concerned that the HOA may miss another deadline while the design-
criteria package is being developed. The HOA asked the County for the money. FPL
requires money in advance at the end of 180-day period. Saul Gross said that perhaps a
funding alternative needs to be found to make this happen. Eleanor Carney asked that
a status report be provided.
COMMISSION ITEMS
a. Biscayne Point Neinhborhood Riaht-of-way lm~rovements
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE ClTY CLERK TO EXECUTE
AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ClTY AND EAC CONSULTING, INC.,
DATED JULY 27, 2005, FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS NO. 42-03/04 FOR THE BISCAYNE POINT
NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; SAID AMENDMENT FOR VALUE
ENGINEERING SERVICES, ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, AND
RESIDENT PROJECT REPRESENTATION (RPR) SERVICES (FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO TWENTY-
FOUR MONTHS), IN THE NEGOTIATED LUMP SUM AMOUNT OF $358,684, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $9,246 FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, FOR A
TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $367,930; WITH PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED FUNDING
IN THE AMOUNT OF $97,362, FROM FUND 376, AND FUNDING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,648,
FROM FUND 420; AND FURTHER APPROPRIATING FUNDING, IN THE AMOUNT OF $179,920
FROM FUND 429, STORM WATER PROJECTS LINE OF CREDIT, WITH SUCH FUNDS TO BE REPAID
ClPOC Committee Meeting Minutes
April 11, 2011
Page 5 of 7
FROM PROPOSED FUTURE STORM WATER BONDS.
This item is a follow-up to the last Commission item, where commission approved
Biscayne Point Neighborhood right-of-way improvement project. This component
provides for inclusion of a Resident Project Representative. This component was missing
from the original contract. The inclusion of an RPR is important for construction oversight,
design clarifications, inspection services, quality control etc. Saul Gross asked for
examples of various models of oversight used on projects. Mr. Vazquez responded that
there is not a "cookie-cutter" approach for all projects. In this case, the RPR (from EAC
Consultants) provides an on-sight individual that can make sure that the construction is
done according to plans, because the engineer of record is supervising their own design.
Mr. Gross pointed out that the City used RPR services for Normandy Shores and
Normandy Sud and the results were not ideal. Mr. Vazquez explained that he is trying to
establish a standard operating model for all projects. It could be the RPR model, or the
hiring of a Certified Independent Engineer or a City-hired inspector. Mr. Gross posed the
hypothetical question: "What if the engineer's drawings are wrong? Would having the
RPR review them be a conflict of interest?" Mr. Vazquez replied that it would not. Anyone
who is a member of the Board of Engineers and is tasked with inspections has an ethical
obligation to ensure the best and most appropriate design. Fred Karlton asked how Mr.
Vazquez thought the City should address projects in order to ensure that they are first
designed well, citing a project where it was found that design was faulty. Mr. Vazquez
responded that he felt it is important not to push projects into construction until design is
evaluated for proper level of service.
Discussion continued about using a third-party consultant to review the work of the A/Es
on the projects. In the case of projects that have already been awarded, it would make
sense to have a party reviewing design documents from a standpoint of value
engineering, rather than regulatory oversight. Going forward, Mr. Vazquez pointed out
that the City is changing the way Public Works reviews drawings and is also working on
ways to catch problems in design before construction begins. In the case of the Biscayne
Point project, Mr. Vazquez recommends the use of third party to review the plans, looking
at pricing, and other items prior to construction.
Michael Adiefe, of EAC Consulting, introduced himself as Engineer of Record. Mr.
Vazquez said that the City conducted a peer review of the design of the Biscayne Point
project. They continue to work with EAC and the contractor and are performing value
engineering in order to streamline the process and adequately review while keeping the
project moving. Part of the reason the RPR component is being requested is because the
City recognized some issues that need to be addressed (including design improvements)
and can be done without delay to the project.
Eleanor Carney announced that she is glad to see that the City retained the engineer of
record for construction administration services, citing other projects that ended up in
litigation because the City did not keep the engineer on board for construction. She
added that she thought the City had not allocated enough funding for this portion.
Construction Administration is usually 10% of a contract, and in this case, it is 3%. Stacy
Kilroy pointed out that the City does not provide more than 3-5% for construction
administration services.
ClPOC Committee Meeting Minutes
April 11, 201 1
Page 6 of 7
Saul Gross clarified that the percentage does not come from the contract total, but from
the total A/E fee. Typically, said Mr. Adiefe, the CA cost is 5-8%.
Janette Arencibia, Capital Project Coordinator for the Biscayne Point project, clarified
that this RPR services amendment adds having a representative on board and on site at
all times. The RPR is a supplemental service to regular construction administration
services.
The overall design cost was $1.5 including design and construction administration. The
added cost for the RPR services is $368,000. This includes salary and overhead for over 24
months.
Stacy Kilroy asked who will serve as the RPR. Mike Adiefe answered that the RPR will be a
certified inspector in the field with much experience with neighborhood projects. Mr.
Vazquez added that the Biscayne Point project will be the RPR's only project.
Chuck Fossler, Acting Assistant Director, CIP, explained that having an RPR from the
Engineering firm of record makes for a better project. If plans need modification and has
to be re-submitted to the EOR, there is likelihood of delay.
Mr. Vazquez explained that hiring an RPR helps in the reduction of backlog of work. The
CIP Staff is more than capable of handling the tasks, but there is such a huge amount of
work that there is need for assistance in completing it.
MOTION: Recommend fo the Mayor and City Commission approval of award but peer
review done before the execution of the contract.
MOVED: Christina Cuero Ist, Stacy Kilroy 2nd
PASSED: Unanimous
b. Bavshore Amendment No. 20 & 21
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ClTY CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 20 TO
THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA,
AND CH2M HlLL FOR THE PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGl NEERING
SERVICES FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FOR
NEIGHBORHOOD NO. 8 BAYSHORE AND SUNSET ISLANDS, DATED MAY 16, 2001,
REALLOCATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $340,069.99, FROM CONSTRUCTION
ADMINISTRATION TO BIDDING AND AWARD SERVICES FOR THE BAYSHORE
NEIGHBORHOODS NO. 8A, 8B88C, AND 8D PACKAGES.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ClTY CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 21 TO
THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA,
AND CH2M HlLL FOR THE PROFESSIONAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM FOR
NEIGHBORHOOD NO. 8 BAYSHORE AND SUNSET ISLANDS, DATED MAY 16, 2001, TO
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DESIGN DOCUMENTS AND PERMITTING SERVICES TO PROCURE THE
DERM TREE REMOVAL PERMITS FOR THE BAYSHORE AND SUNSET ISLAND NEIGHBORHOODS
CIPOC Committee Meeting Minutes
April 11, 201 1
Page 7 of 7
NO. 8A, 8B, 8C, AND 8D PROJECTS, TO PARTICIPATE IN VALUE ENGINEERING, PROVIDE
DESIGN MODIFICATIONS AND ASSOCIATED RE-PERMITTING SERVICES TO INCORPORATE THE
LEVEL OF SERVICE REVIEW COMMENTS REQUESTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION, FOR A NOT-
TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $135,112.97, AND $63,605.00, FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES; WlTH
PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $113,297.18; APPROPRIATING
$85,420.79 FROM FUND 429, STORMWATER PROJECTS LINE OF CREDIT, WlTH SUCH FUNDS TO
BE REPAID FROM PROPOSED FUTURE STORMWATER BONDS.
Amendment 20: During the design process, City Staff met with DERM and were told that
there are more stringent requirements for de-watering. In order to plan for the
appropriate and sufficient dewatering, the decision was made to bring in the engineer
early to redesign the plans. The first amendment shifts some funds ($340,000) for
extended engineering design services.
Walt Schwartzman, from CH2MHil1, explained that the engineer of record worked to put
as much de-watering information on the plans so that the contractor knew what they
were bidding on.
Amendment 21 : Additional services from the EOR based on items that were determined
needed addressing under per review process (as spearheaded by Mr. Bill Goldsmith).
MOTION: Recommend to the Mayor and City Commission approval to execute
amendment 20 and 21.
MOVED: Eleanor Carney 1% Stacy Kilroy 2"d
PASSED: Unanimous
DISCUSSION: The City is now looking into private sector input, making the CIP operation
more efficient. Last FCWPC, ClPOC was asked to come back with recommendations for
owners' rep model. Every project is being looked at for where it best merits adding this
component. CIP will bring a list of all the projects and what methods were used to date
as well as a list of future projects and the recommendations for how the new models can
be used as projects move forward. CIP is also looking at bringing in an expert in
estimating.
REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES
The following revisions were requested to the March 7,201 1 Meeting Minutes:
Christina Cuervo's name to be corrected.
MOTION:
MOVED:
PASSED:
Approve minutes as amended
Christina Cuervo 1st Elizabeth Camargo 2nd
Unanimous
Meeting Adjourned: 8:30 pm
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
AMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.rniarnibeachfl.gov
COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: City Manager Jorge M. Gonzalez
DATE: June 1, 201 1
MEETING OF April 27,201 1.
SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE
OLD BUSINESS
1. Discussion regarding Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Guardhouse
ACTION
The Committee approved $50,000 in allowances for the installation of a bar code
activated gate for the new guard house along with the demolition of the existing
guardhouse and enhanced security.
The Committee recommended the City enter into a license agreement with the
HOA for the guardhouse.
City Manager Jorge Gonzalez presented and gave a brief history of the item.
On March 25, 2010, the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (Committee) received
a status report for the proposed project, which included a sketch and cost estimate. The
intent of the project was to beautify the entry to the islands and add security features.
The Committee saw a preliminary sketch and a budgetary cost estimate in the amount of
$364,318 for landscaping, hardscaping, decorative lighting, and security enhancements.
The estimate include $50,000 in allowances for repairs to the existing guardhouse
($15,000), construction of a kiosk for ancillary services to the guardhouse ($25,000), and
installation of a bar code activated gate ($10,000). At an HOA meeting, not attended by
City staff, residents were concerned with the aesthetics of the kiosk. The HOA indicated
that it wanted a new guardhouse in the center median and would be willing to sacrifice
other improvements for it. The City and representatives of the HOA met to discuss the
changes. At this meeting, the HOA agreed to pay any costs for the construction of a
guardhouse, including water and sewer connections, installation of new gates, and
demolition of the existing guardhouse beyond $50,000. The Committee approved
$50,000 in allowances for installation of a bar code activated gate, demolition of the
existing guardhouse and enhanced security. The Committee approved $50,000 in
allowances for the installation of a bar code activated gate for the new guard house
along with the demolition of the existing guardhouse and enhanced security. Chief
Deputy City Attorney Raul Aguila stated that since the guardhouse is being funded that
the City owned the guardhouse and that it should be leased back to the HOA. The
Agenda Item C 6@
Date 6-1-11
Committee recommended the City enter into a license agreement with the HOA for the
guardhouse.
2. Discussion regarding the implementation of a Municipal Marketing
(Corporate Sponsorship) program for the City - beverage contract
ACTION
The Committee asked that staff clarify what a City event is and recommended that
the item be brought to the full Commission.
Assistant City Manager Hilda Fernandez presented the item and gave a brief synopsis of
the memo.
The City has been involved in efforts to maximize its strong brand presence by
partnering with corporate entities in a manner that generates good publicity and
marketing for the City, while at the same time generating revenue or providing savings to
the City. As reported during the budget discussion last summer, the City's municipal
marketing consultant, The Superlative Group (TSG), identified priorities for their initial
efforts, while other activities were identified that would be pursued internally with the
City's Development Coordinator. TSG initiated a selection process for an
exclusivelofficial non-alcoholic beverage partner for the City. This process involved the
initial identification of potential respondents, an invitation for those companies to submit
proposals, the selection of the best two potential partnership offers for the submission of
a "best and final" offer, and the recommendation of a final offer for the City to consider.
A "Question and Answer" session with prospective partners was held on January 18th.
Three prospective partners attended: PepsiCo, Dr. PepperISnapple and Coca Cola
Bottling. The "best and final" offers were presented in person to TSG from PepsiCo and
Coca Cola Bottling. In reviewing the two proposals submitted, TSG evaluated the short
and long term benefits to the City of each partnership. TSG recommended the selection
of Coca Cola Bottling as the City's partner, which was also the recommendation of the
City Administration. The major deal points of the proposals are as follows:
S~onsorship fee: Coca Cola Bottling proposed an annual sponsorship fee of
$325,000, as compared to the offer of $100,00O/year submitted by PepsiCo. The
total value of the Coca Cola sponsorship fee over the proposed ten-year (10)
term is $3,250,000.
Sinning fee: Both proposers submitted signing bonuses, with PepsiCo proposing
the payment of $150,000, and Coca Cola Bottling proposing $475,000. In total,
Coca Cola's first year payments total $800,000.
Commissions/Pricinn/Rebates: Both proposers submitted similar commission
structures (%). The City's revenues from commissions would increase as
business is built over the term of the agreement. Coca Cola Bottling estimates
that based on their proposed commission percentage the commissions would
average approximately $85,000-90,000 a year, with the likelihood that this figure
would increase, especially with the implementation of credit card readers on
vending machines.
Other: While there were differences in the initial cash support, the proposals also
varied in the proposed additional components. In particular, Coca Cola
presented several additional proposals as part of their partnership of interest to
the City. Coca Cola estimates the value of these components as over
$2,000,000 over the term of the partnership agreement, and include:
o Sustainability Partnership: While Coca Cola has been engaged in
sustainability efforts through new product components (such as greener
plastic bottles), hybrid delivery fleet, etc., the company has a
comprehensive program that they would roll out in the City. This
includes, but is not limited to:
Provision of recycling bins for interior and exterior locations,
including temporary bins that can used at parks events
Recycling education program through their mobile recycling
vehicle and program
Assistance to the City in consumer messaging on recycling
Roll out of their "crusher" - reverse vendor- machine placed
alongside of certain vending machines to provide a mechanism for
recycling (fully serviced by Coca Cola)
o Marketing: The largest investment made by Coca Cola will be in creating
a co-branded presence promoting the exclusive partnership between the
world's number one beverage brand and the City of Miami Beach. The
value of the marketing concepts proposed are estimated at approximately
$200,000 a year. These include:
Strategic Partnerships available for marketing activation: Coca
Cola currently has existing partnerships with major existing
brands, such as the NCAA, Disney, Target, major airlines (Delta,
American, and United), Live Nation, etc. Coca Cola would
develop marketing opportunities linking these partners
Participation in My Coke Rewards: This program is the leading
consumer goods loyalty program in the country. This program
provides rewards to consumers who redeem points earned for
products or services. Coca Cola has proposed two concepts,
which can be further explored or modified; these are a reward
program for a weekend getaway to Miami Beach, and a link with
NASCAR.
Co-promotion with Lebron James: Already linked with the City
through his "bring his talents to South Beach" statement, Coca
Cola has a marketing relationship with James through their
Vitaminwater and Sprite brands. Potential opportunities offered
include "meet and greet" and appearances at City events;
sweepstakeslpromotions that include James.
Advertising/Promotion exposure for the City: The City would be
provided opportunities for advertisinglpromoting the city brand or a
program through several products, including truck-back
advertising on delivery trucks; Papa Johns Pizza Box toppers; and
a potential can-back program. The truck-back and box topper
programs have a value of almost $50,000, and provide both in
market (pizza box) and out market (truck-back)
advertisinglpromotional potential.
Open Happiness Tour Viral marketing concept that places a "live"
machine in a high visibility area.
Integrated logo: a new logo that integrates both the Miami Beach
brand with the Coca Cola brand provides increased visibility and
ties the marketing approach into a recognizable and consistent
program. This would be used in all promotional activities.
Community Support Program: Funding is allocated for a program
that can include anything from the provision of products to our
parks for programs, to the use of funds to purchase bicycles for
our police or code compliance division.
o Vending approach: The proposal looks at establishing a unique
connection between Coca Cola and the City through the vending
products, providing for a customized vending front, with opportunities for
City messaging. The proposal looks at assessing current fountain
dispensing and vending equipment and upgrading as necessary, as well
as providing additional products to increase "point of purchase''
opportunities. The vending approach also includes the introduction of an
interactive vending machine that can be placed at select locations, as well
as the placement of cashless vending at appropriate locations. The total
investment in equipment is estimated at approximately $320,000.
The estimated total value of the proposed Exclusive Partnership with Coca Cola Bottling
over the term of the agreement is approximately $7 million, inclusive of the signing
payment and sponsorship fee ($3.725 million), estimated commission (approximately
$901,000), marketing program ($2 million), recycling program ($15,000-25,000),
equipment ($320,000) and Community support program ($25,000). By comparison,
PepsiCo's proposal provided a total partnership value of $2.3 million in cash with an
additional $1.1 million in marketing support (non-cash convertible) and
equipmentlservice.
Chairperson Deede Weithorn asked for clarification on the requirements of the City,
specifically regarding what a City event was. Mayor Matti Herrera Bower suggested that
the City specifically state what events are excluded from the agreement. Conversation
ensued. The Committee asked that staff clarify what a City event is and recommended
that the item be brought to the full Commission.
NEW BUSINESS
3. Discussion regarding approval of the Traffic Calming Manual
ACTION
The Committee recommended the item be brought to the full Commission.
Public Works Director Fred Beckmann presented and gave a brief history of the item.
The Administration has been working with the County on the approval of the City Traffic
Calming Manual (TCM) as well as on its respective Intergovernmental Agency
Agreement (IAA). On July 22, 2010, the CountyJ Public Works Director submitted a
letter to the City granting authority to the City to follow the guidelines of the City's TCM
when performing traffic studies. In the meantime, the city has been working to finalize
the respective IAA that will grant the City its respective authority, pursuant to Section 2-
96.1 of the Miami-Dade County Code. The current agreement spells out that even
though the City would be granted the authority to gauge, measure, and develop traffic
calming measures, the County would still be the final authority in the approval of any
traffic calming measures proposed by the City. The City would be responsible for
incurring all costs associated with the implementation of traffic calming devices. The
Committee recommended the item be brought to the full Commission.
4. Recommendation to reject all bids received for the Coast Guard
Wastewater Booster Pump Station Project
ACTION
The Committee recommended rejecting all bids for the Coast Guard Wastewater
Booster Pump Station Project and placing the project on hold at this time.
The Coast Guard Wastewater Booster Pump Station (CGWBPS) was originally
proposed in 1994 as an element of the wastewater infrastructure improvements required
to comply with the Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resource Management
(DERM) Volume Sewer Customer Ordinance requirements and handle the projected
peak flows. At the time the CGWBPS was out to bid in 2009, the City initiated a
Wastewater Peak Flow Management Study that compared projected wastewater peak
flows to actual wastewater peak flows. This study revised the wastewater peak flows
from 90 MGD to 70 MGD. This reduction is due in large part to the effects of the
recession of 2008 which essentially stopped major new developments, and as a
consequence changed the previously expected growth affecting utility systems.
To address the 22% reduction in expected wastewater peak flows, City staff retained a
consultant to conduct a costlbenefit analysis and a Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO)
frequency analysis to provide the data needed to determine if the CGWBPS should still
be built. The cost benefit analysis finds that, assuming a 50-year life cycle for the
CGWBPS, there is an estimated $3,600,000 net present value in additional operating
and maintenance costs associated with not constructing the CGWBPS. This is
contrasted with the $12,764,522 capital cost for constructing the CGWBPS (assuming
award to the apparent low bidder). The Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department
(WASD) has a long-term plan to replace the sanitary sewer forcemain from the City to
the Central District Wastewater Treatment Plant on Virginia Key. This replacement may
include an increase to the diameter of the forcemain which could further reduce the need
for the CGWBPS. The Administration recommended that the CGWBPS not be built at
this time, that the bids should no longer be held, and that the project should be de-
funded. The Committee recommended rejecting all bids for the Coast Guard
Wastewater Booster Pump Station Project and placing the project on hold at this time.
5. Quarterly reports on the status of new potential revenue initiatives
ACTION
None Required
The Committee reviewed the memo and recommended that any questions related to this
item be brought to a future Finance & Citywide Projects Committee meeting.
6. Discussion on a Request for Approval to issue a competitive process for
certain advertising programs, and advertising sales support, as part of the
City's revenue enhancement initiatives;
Discussion regarding Master Meter and Parking elevator door public
service initiative proposal by Rebuzz Marketing and how it can bring
revenue to the City without taxation
ACTION
The Committee approved issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to identify
potential partners for revenue enhancement partnerships and to obtain
advertising sales support.
Assistant City Manager Hilda Fernandez presented the item and gave a brief synopsis of
the memo.
During the budget process last summer several concepts were presented as potential
revenue enhancement opportunities. As part of these continuing discussions regarding
potential revenue enhancement, staff engaged in a review of potential advertising
partnerships/opportunities that are designed to generate income to the City in a manner
that does not create an overly-commercial environment, and that are sensitive to existing
restrictions in City Code. Staff has been researching alternative revenue enhancement
opportunities. In some instances it has been identified that there may be more than one
entity that might be engaged in the development of a particular program. It was
concluded that a competitive process would be the best mechanism to identify potential
partners for certain current advertising products that the City wishes to pursue
immediately, as well as potential products the City may wish to pursue in the future. In
addition, a competitive process was recommended to secure advertising sales support
services, on an as-needed basis. Discussion ensued. The Committee approved
issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to identify potential partners for revenue
enhancement partnerships and to obtain advertising sales support.
7. Discussion regarding granting the Miami Beach Garden Conservancy the
right to receive naming gifts as part of the garden renovation
ACTION
The Committee recommended amending the City's Naming Ordinance of the City
Code and the Management Agreement with the Miami Beach Garden
Conservancy.
On January 17, 2007 the Mayor and City Commission approved a new Management
Agreement with the Miami Beach Garden Conservancy (Conservancy) for the operation
of the Botanical Garden, with an initial term of five (5) years, commencing on July 1,
2007 (upon expiration of previous agreement), with an option at the City's sole
discretion, to renew and extend the Agreement for an additional five (5) year term. On
January 13, 2010 the City Commission approved the Basis of Design Report (BODR) for
the Miami Beach Botanical Garden providing for the implementation of improvements in
three (3) phases, totaling an estimated $2,148,044. A fourth phase of the adopted
Master Plan includes certain improvements not considered an integral part of the
immediate design plan, totaling an additional $358,488. This includes such items as a
future visitor center, a reflecting pool, refurbishing the existing fountain, adding an on-
site rain water collection system, and a shade structure over the patio for outdoor
events. The Conservancy has proposed to fund these elements through private donors,
in exchange for naming rights for these interior improvements acknowledging the
donors. Chapter 82 Article VI of the City Code, "Naming of Public Facilities and
Establishment of Monuments and Memorials" (the City's Naming Ordinance), sets forth
the manner in which public facilities may be named, monuments/memorials established
and street co-designated. On several occasions the City has provided for an exemption
from the requirements of the provisions of Chapter 82 Article VI allowing for the naming
of interior portions of City facilities by the entities managing these city facilities. The
Committee recommended amending the City's Naming Ordinance of the City Code and
the Management Agreement with the Miami Beach Garden Conservancy.
8. Discussion regarding extending the amount of time residents have to pay
their utility bill
ACTION
Item Deferred
9. Discussion regarding incentives for fa~ade renovation in North Beach
Commercial Corridors
ACTION
The Committee recommended approving a fa~ade program with a budget of
$120,000, $1 00,000 for the program and 20% for administrative costs, and bringing
the item back to a July F&CWP Budget meeting.
Assistant City Manager Hilda Fernandez presented the item.
The purpose of fa~ade programs is to provide financial assistance to property owners
and business owners who would like to improve their building facades, business
signage, awnings, and to correct any exterior code violations. When using any federal
entitlement funds (such as Community Development Block Grants) for a faqade
revitalization program, those businesses that receive the funds are located in or serve
the income-eligible areas and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Target
Areas. The City's prior programs were funded with federal entitlement funds with the
last program funded in FY I99912000 with CDBG funds. In the City's prior program,
grants were generally provided as 50150 matching grants and the funds were provided
on a reimbursement basis. Since the last time the program was funded, the City's
CDBG allocation has decreased from $2,768,000 to an estimated $1,572,379 in FY
11/12. The City issues a competitive process for the allocation of its entitlement funds,
including CDBG funds. The City sets aside and allocates through the competitive
process up to the maximum allowable percentage for public service funding (15% of total
allocation) to provide funding for the programs that assist the elderly, youth, homeless,
etc., and the City also retains the administrative percentage permitted by federal
regulations to cover the City's cost in managing the program. The Administration
determined that funding for a faqade revitalization program would require a budget of
approximately $140,000 and would be allocated from the "Housing, Rehabilitation and
Public Facilities Improvements" line item. In terms of funding to any individual recipient,
based on the requirements for managing the program, prior experience, the approach of
other faqade improvement programs, and in light of likely costs associated with typical
fa~ade improvements, it would not be feasible to allocate less than $10,OQO to each
eligible recipient. Likewise, in light of the administrative oversight related to the federal
regulations of the funding source, a program with a value of less than $100,000 may not
be financially feasible to manage.
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower asked what the target area would be in North Beach. Ms.
Fernandez stated that staff has met with representatives from North beach and that their
feedback suggested starting between 73rd and 75th Street. Mayor Bower then asked
what the current cost of administration for the CDBG program is. Ms. Fernandez stated
that it is capped at 20% of the total CDBG allocated to the City, which is approximately
$300,000. Discussion ensued. Chairperson Weithorn was concerned with the
administrative cost of 40% for the program and suggested reducing the budget for the
program from $140,000 to $120,000. The Committee recommended approving a faqade
program with a budget of $120,000, $100,000 for the program and 20% for
administrative costs, and bringing the item back to a July F&CWP Budget meeting.
10. Explanation for any increases in individual department budgets (net of
increases from pension reallocations and internal service increases)
ACTION
None Required
Budget & Performance Improvement Director Kathie Brooks presented the item.
During the budget development process, it was explained that the City's General Fund
budget had increased by $1 1.2 million, primarily due to approximately $19.7 million in
increases that were partially offset by employee givebacks. These increases were
primarily due to the following:
Increases in the General Fund portion of the City's annual required contributions
to the Fire and Police and General Employee pension plans, primarily due to the
downturn in the market and updated assumptions in the Fire and Police Pension
Plan ($1 5.7 million)
Increase in the Internal Service charge-backs to departments primarily due to
increases in the Risk Management Fund for claims incurred but not reported, as
well as increased costs of legal services ($2.3)
e The impact from those bargaining units that had not yet reached agreement with
the City that did not reach agreement with the City until late in the fiscal year
200911 0, thereby resulting in salary increases from merits and steps received in
the current Fiscal Year that had not been budgeted and further increases in FY
2010111 ($3 million).
I I. Discussion of all fees administratively set or have been administratively set
ACTION
None Required
The Committee stated that they had reviewed the memo and no further action was
necessary.
12. A resolution ... approving and authorizing the purchase of ten (10) Apple
lPads (including a security server), for the individual City Commissioners,
City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney, in the amount of $16,000
ACTION
Item Deferred
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 1 39, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
/
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June 1,201 1 p
SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE NElGHBORHOODSlCOMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY, MAY 5,2011.
A meeting of the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee was held on Thursday, May5,2011 at
3:OOpm in the City Manager's Large Conference Room, 4th Floor, City Hall. Commissioners in
attendance: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower, Commissioners Jerry Libbin, Edward L. Tobin, Deede
Weithorn, and Michael Gongora. Members from the Administration and the public were also in
attendance. Please see the attached sign-in sheet.
THE MEETING OPENED AT 3:30 PM
I. SELECTION OF A CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR THE NElGHBORHOODSlCOMMUNITY
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR. (5:49 PM)
Commissioner Weithorn made the motion to select Commissioner Tobin as Chairperson with a
second by Commissioner Libbin. Commissioner Weithorn made the motion to select
Commissioner Libbin as Vice-Chairperson with a second from Commissioner Tobin.
ACTION: The Committee unanimously selected Commissioner Tobin as Chairperson and
Commission Libbin as Vice-Chairperson.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SIGNAGE FOR THE ADOPT-A-BEACH PROGRAM. (5:50 PM)
Fred Beckmann, Public Works Director, explained the status of the Adopt-a-Beach program and
advised that the approval of the signage is needed from this committee.
Commissioner Weithorn made the motion to approve the signage. Motion was seconded by
Commissioner Tobin.
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Libbin, Tobin, and Weithorn present) moved to
approve the Adopt-a-Beach signage as presented.
3. FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON EFFORTS MADE REGARDING EXCESSIVE USE OF SIGN
ADVERTISING AND AGGRESSIVE SOLICITATION ON LINCOLN ROAD AND OCEAN DRIVE.
(4:3 1 PM)
Robert Santos-Alborna, Acting Code Compliance Division Director, presented the item and
reviewed the actions taken since this item was referred.
I
I Agenda Item C 6 C
Date &I-//
City Commission Memorandum
June 1,201 1
Report of the Neighborhoods /Community Affairs Committee of May 5, 201 1
Page 2 of 8
Commissioner Gongora stated that he had put this on for discussion; however, it seems that the
majority of the violations issued were for sidewalk cafe permit violations and not for signage or
solicitation, which were the main concerns. Now he was getting complaints from those
businesses that were cited for not renewing their permits and it seems that the City does not have
a good process for noticing renewals.
Hilda M. Fernandez, Assistant City Manager, explained that the permits are renewable at the
same time every year.
Commissioner Gongora stated that what he is hearing is that the City does not send bills, they are
expected to pay and now they are getting warnings with late fees.
Fred Beckmann, Public Works Director, stated that Finance sends a notice every year.
David Kelsey spoke.
(Commissioner Tobin arrived at 4:38pm.)
Commissioner Gongora would like to see the notice that is sent out because he is hearing that the
City does not send any notice.
Marlo Courtney spoke.
Robert Wennett spoke.
Graziano Sbroggio spoke.
ACTION: The Committee made no motion; however, Commissioner Gongora asked to be
provided a copy of the noticing that is sent out for renewal of sidewalk cafe permits.
4. DISCUSSION REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ENTITLED "ADMINISTRATION," BY AMENDING
ARTICLE Ill, ENTITLED "AGENCIES, BOARDS AND COMMITTEES," BY AMENDING
DIVISION 2, ENTITLED "DISABILITY ACCESS COMMITTEE," BY AMENDING SEC. 2-31(D)
TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS FROM SEVEN (7) TO FOURTEEN (14) AND
AMENDING THE QUORUM REQUIREMENT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, REPEALER,
SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (5:lO PM)
Commissioner Weithorn explained her reason for referring this discussion to this committee. No
one from the Disability Access Committee was present so the discussion was deferred.
ACTION: No action; discussion was deferred.
5. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MAPPING OF OLD ALTON ROAD ON MIAMI BEACH.
(3:30 PM)
Fred Beckmann, Public Works Director, explained that this is an administrative process; the City
will need to go to the County to request that the name be changed. After review by the County
Land Development Division, the request will go to the Board of County Commissioners for final
approval. Then the County Clerk sends it to the County Land Development Division for plat
revision. Once the plat is modified, the name of the street will be changed; however, there is no
guarantee that any of the online mapping services will change their systems to reflect the new
name.
City Commission Memorandum
June. I, 201 1
Report of the Neighborhoods /Community Affairs Committee of May 5, 201 1
Page 3 of 8
Commissioner Gongora made the motion to move ahead with this process. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Libbin.
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Libbin and Gongora present) moved to proceed with
the process. (Vote: 2-0)
6. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL POLICIES FOR THE NOMINATIONINUMBER OF MEMORIAL
OR COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUES. (5:50 PM)
Discussion was deferred.
ACTION: No action; discussion was deferred.
7. FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF A PLAQUE ON THE JOSE
MARTI BUST IN HONOR OF MR. LUIS C. HERNANDEZ FOR HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
LOCAL HISPANIC COMMUNITY. (3:34 PM)
Hilda M. Fernandez, Assistant City Manager, explained the steps this item has gone through and
the steps that will follow if it is approved today, which will include going to the City Commission
where it would be scheduled for a public hearing.
Commissioner Gongora made the motion to approve sending this item to the City Commission for
approval and scheduling of a public hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Weithorn.
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Libbin, Weithorn, and Gongora present) unanimously
moved to approve sending this item to the City Commission for its approval and scheduling of a
public hearing. (Vote: 3-0)
8. DISCUSSION REGARDING LICENSING AND AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS AND PROPOSAL FOR A CITY SPONSORED FOOD TRUCK
FESTIVAL. (4:45 PM)
Commissioner Gongora explained his interest in this subject and his vision that this would be a
great opportunity for the North Beach area.
Commissioner Tobin expressed his interest in seeing this in the North Beach area with some
provisions established for the local restaurants to also participate, maybe a discounted fee for
them to highlight their own business.
Hilda M. Fernandez, Assistant City Manager, explained the research that has been done on this
subject. The Administration is looking at this as an economic development generator, or as an
opportunity to drive foot traffic into an area of the City which needs foot traffic.
Commissioner Libbin suggested going slowly and checking with the local businesses.
Commissioner Gongora stated that he gets complaints regarding the homeless and he believes
these events may drive the homeless away.
David Wallack spoke.
Robert Wennett spoke.
Marlo Courtney spoke.
City Commission Memorandum
June 1,201 1
Report of the Neighborhoods /Community Affairs Committee of May 5, 201 1
Page 4 of 8
Ms. Fernandez explained this could be tested once or twice via a special event permit.
Commissioner Libbin suggested the Administration coordinate a meeting in the North end with
those businesses in the area. Commissioner Weithorn added that all businesses should be
included in this meeting, not just restaurants.
Commissioner Tobin made the motion for Administration to reach out to the business in the area
bounded by 71'' Street to 75'h Street and from Ocean Terrace to Harding Avenue to discuss a
pilot program. Motion seconded by Commissioner Weithorn.
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Libbin, Tobin, Weithorn, and Gongora present) moved
to direct the Administration to reach out to the business in the area bounded by 71'' Street to 75'h
Street and from Ocean Terrace to Harding Avenue to discuss a pilot program. (Vote: 3-0)
9. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE IMPACT OF BICYCLES - INCLUDING THE DECO BlKE
PROGRAM AND THE BlKE MASTER PLAN -AND OTHERVEHICLES, SUCH AS SEGWAYS
AND SKATEBOARDS, ON PEDESTRIAN PATHS. (4:17 PM)
AND
DISCUSSION REGARDING REGULATING THE SPEED OF SEGWAYS IN PEDESTRIAN
AREAS.
Commissioner Weithorn explained that she has received several complaints on the speed of
Segways and asked if the City can regulate the speed of motorized and non-motorized vehicles
such as bicycles.
Hilda M. Fernandez, Assistant City Manager, suggested one option may be to require those
businesses licensed to rent Segways in the City be required to have a regulator set to a lower
setting in order to limit the speed. This is something that can be researched.
Mayor Bower expressed her concern with the speed and silence of bicycles and their being
allowed on sidewalks.
Colby Reese spoke.
Mayor Bower requested more education on safety and rules of the road be provided.
Commissioner Libbin suggested utilizing MBTV-77 and MB Magazine to educate the public on
bicycle safety. Commissioner Weithorn also suggested reaching out to the bicycle shops to
ensure customers are educated on the requirement of audible signaling by riders.
Commissioner Libbin suggested sponsoring a bicycle safety and education event for students as
they will be out of school for the summer very soon. Colby Reese, from Deco Bike stated that he
would be happy to help with educational materials.
Commissioner Libbin asked that the Administration investigate the possibility of requiring
regulators for the speed of the Segways and return to the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs
Committee.
Ms. Fernandez added that Segways are regulated by State law which does allow for municipalities
to implement certain regulations for their use on certain pathways or bicycle paths. Municipalities
are not allowed to regulate Segway use on sidewalks. The City has been working to have the
City Commission Memorandum
June 1,201 1
Report of the Neighborhoods /Community Affairs Committee of May 5, 201 1
Page 5 of 8
State law amended to add the wording "or sidewalks" so that at some point in the future, should
the commission want to look at regulating segways, then sidewalks could be a part of that
discussion.
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Libbin, Weithorn, and Gongora present) requested
that the Administration investigate the possibility of requiring regulators for the speed of the
Segways and return to the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee.
10. DISCUSSION REGARDNG METHODS OF DISCOURAGING THE SALE OF SMOKELESS
CANDY FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN THE CITY, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
QUALITY OF EDUCATION COMMITTEE. (4:OO PM)
Mayor Bower introduced the item for discussion.
Karen Rivo, Chairperson of the City's Quality of Education Committee, spoke of the problem with
tobacco and introduced the student representatives of Students Working Against Tobacco
(SWAT) from Fienberg-Fisher K-8 Center.
The SWAT team made a presentation regarding the advertising of candy flavored tobacco
products geared towards children.
Jose Munoz spoke.
Jose Smith, City Attorney, suggested passing a resolution first and allow him time to research if
there is any pre-emption by the State as far as banning these products.
Commissioner Weithorn made the motion to send a resolution to the City Commission for its
approval and to pursue what further action the City has the authority to impose. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Gongora.
Javier Perez spoke.
Sophia Murielle spoke.
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Libbin, Weithorn, and Gongora present) unanimously
moved to send a resolution to the City Commission for its approval and to pursue what further
action the City has the authority to impose. (Vote: 3-0)
11. DISCUSSION REGARDING IMPROVING THE APPEARANCE OF WASHINGTON AVENUE
BETWEEN 7TH AND I 6TH STREETS. (3:36 PM)
Robert Santos-Alborna, Acting Code Compliance Division Director, reviewed the information
provided in the agenda.
Commissioner Libbin expressed his concern with the 28% compliance rate. Hilda M. Fernandez,
Assistant City Manager, explained the process once violations are issued and the extensions that
may be granted as well as the noticing and Special Master process.
Commissioner Weithorn clarified that these numbers do not simply represent that 72% have not
complied, but rather that of the 72%, some have not complied and some that are in various stages
of extensions, noticing, or Special Master. She suggested that next time a more detailed report
would be helpful.
City Commission Memorandum
June 1,201 I
Report of the Neighborhoods /Community Affairs Committee of May 5, 201 1
Page 6 of 8
Commissioner Gongora expressed his concern that this area has been ignored until a
Commissioner referred it. He stated that this area needs to be patrolled on a proactive basis
more frequently and closely, and not wait for a Commissioner referral for Code Compliance to
take action. He suggested that it might be best for this Committee to track this on a quarterly
basis for some amount of time to ensure that things are being followed up on Washington
Avenue.
Commissioner Weithorn suggested receiving a regular report on these types of statistics to either
this committee or via Letter to Commission (LTC) to monitor actions not only in this neighborhood
but the others in the City.
Commissioner Libbin asked for a report as to the compliance status of the cases in the current
report as some have compliance deadlines just prior to the Commission meeting.
There was some discussion regarding the timeframe for scheduling of cases for Special Master.
David Kelsey spoke.
Police Chief Carlos Noriega spoke on the activities that his staff, along with Homeless Outreach
staff, has been implementing regarding the homeless issues on Washington Avenue.
Commissioner Gongora asked that as staffing will allow, the Police Department add foot patrols to
Washington Avenue.
(Mayor Bower arrived at 3:50 pm.)
Commissioner Libbin expressed his frustration with the City's limitations as it relates to the
Pottinger decision.
Mayor Bower asked if a higher standard or penalty can be applied to panhandlers that are not
homeless than to those that are. Jose Smith, City Attorney stated that he will research that
possibility.
Marlo Courtney spoke.
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Libbin, Weithorn, and Gongora present) made no
motion.
12. DISCUSSION REGARDING A RESOLUTION OPPOSING CULTURAL EXCHANGES
BETWEEN CUBA AND THE UNITED STATES. (532 PM)
Mayor Bower explained that this item was changed from just Cuba to include any and all countries
that are deemed by the State Department to be sponsors of terrorism, including Iran, Iraq, North
Korea, and Cuba.
Jose Smith, City Attorney, explained the resolution in the package.
Jeff Borg, representing the Greater Miami Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union spoke.
Manning Salazar, also from the Greater Miami Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union
spoke.
Beth Boone, of the Miami Light Project, spoke.
City Commission Memorandum
June 1,201 I
Report of the Neighborhoods /Community Affairs Committee of May 5,201 1
Page 7 of 8
Cesar Castillo spoke.
Ernesto Castellanos spoke.
Frank Cardenza spoke.
Afier a lengthy discussion both in favor and against this issue, Commissioner Weithorn stated that
she believes this is a policy decision and that it is unfair that the three (3) members of this
Committee make this decision. She recommended that this Committee either send this to the full
City Commission or do nothing at all.
Commissioner Weithorn made the motion to move this discussion to the full City Commission.
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Tobin.
Commissioner Tobin requested more information on cultural exchanges before this discussion
goes to the City Commission.
Commissioner Libbin spoke on his desire for a "true" artist exchange.
Commissioner Libbin asked Commissioner Tobin if he would like to revisit the policy that the City
has with China. Commissioner Tobin said that he would be happy to reconsider. Commissioner
Gongora suggested putting the issue on a future agenda.
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Libbin, Tobin, Weithorn, and Glrngora present) moved
to bring this discussion to the full City Commission and to put the discussion of the City's policy on
China on a future agenda. (Vote: 3-0)
13. DISCUSSION REGARDING ALTOS DEL MAR SCULPTURE PARK'S (ADMSP) REQUEST FOR
AN EXTENSION OF TIME OF ADMSP'S DEADLINE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT FROM
MAY 13,201 1 TO FEBRUARY 13,2012. (4:lO PM)
Max Sklar, Cultural Affairs and Tourism Development Director, presented the item.
Commissioner Libbin clarified that this is a request for an extension of the building permit deadline
and not an extension of the anticipated completion date.
Marlene Saile explained that her husband has been working very hard to raise the needed funds.
Isaac Jaroslawicz spoke.
Commissioner Gongora made the motion to move this extension approval forward.
Commissioner Weithorn asked to be provided a report on proof of funding at the September 14,
201 1 Commission meeting.
Commissioner Gongora amended his motion to be to recommend approval to amend the contract
to grant the extension of the building permit benchmark to March 31, 2012 as well as a
requirement of the benchmark for proof of funds to cover the architectural fee by the September
14, 201 1 Commission meeting. Motion seconded by Commissioner Gongora.
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Libbin, Weithorn, and Gongora present) unanimously
moved to recommend approval to amend the contract to grant the extension of the building permit
benchmark to March 31, 2012 as well as a requirement of the benchmark for proof of funds to
cover the architectural fee by the September 14, 201 1 Commission meeting. (Vote: 3-0)
City Commission Memorandum
June 1,201 1
Report of the Neighborhoods /Community Affairs Committee of May 5, 201 1
Page 8 of 8
14. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE STATUS OF SUNRISE PLAZA. (5:51 PM)
Commissioner Tobin made a motion that the Administration go forward with permitting and getting
it done and true-up the money afterwards. Motion seconded by Commissioner Libbin.
Commissioner Weithorn stated that she thinks the motion goes too far. She has no problem in
advancing money to start the project, but that is it.
After some discussion, Commissioner Weithorn made the motion to authorize advancement of the
funds for "permitting only" for this project and to return to the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs
Committee in two (2) months with a status report.
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Libbin, Tobin, and Weithorn present) moved to
authorize advancement of the funds for "permitting only" for this project and to return to the
Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee in two (2) months with a status report. (Vote: 3-0)
15. DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE FLAMINGO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD BECOMING
FLORIDA'S MOST PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD. (3:32 PM)
Discussion was deferred.
ACTION: No action; discussion was deferred.
16. QUARTERLY CRIME STATISTICS. (4:30 PM)
Discussion was deferred.
ACTION: No action; discussion was deferred.
THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:58 PM.
Note: The remaining meetings of the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee for 201 1 are: -
June 3, 201 1 (Friday)
July 7, 201 1 (Thursday)
August (No Meeting Scheduled)
September 1, 201 1 (Thursday)
October 6, 201 1 (Thursday)
November 10, 201 1 (Thursday)
December 8,201 1 (Thursday)
T:\AGENDA\2011\6-01-1 IWCAC Report- MAY 5-201 1 Final.doc
NElGHBORHOODSlCOMMUNIPI AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 1. May 5,201 4 SIGN-IN SHEET We ore committed fo pm'diing excdlwit public service and sofety to all who l~ve, work, and pby In our vibrant, tro@coI, hisloric community. - ---- - - - -- - - - - -- - . -- PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY I "
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.rniamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City
DATE: June 1, 201 1
SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE MAY 18, 2011 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMllTEE MEETING
A meeting of the Land Use and Development Committee was held on May 18, 201 I.
Members in attendance were Commissioners Wolfson, Gongora and Exposito.
Commissioner Libbin and Mayor Bower were also in attendance. Members from the
Administration and the public were also in attendance. Please see the attached sign-in
sheet. The meeting was called to order at 4:24 pm.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. PROPOSED ALTON ROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT BUFFER OVERLAY.
AFTER-ACTION: DEFERRED (MOVE TO PENDING ITEMS)
2. PROPOSED PARKING DISTRICT #5 FOR THE ALTON ROAD CORRIDOR.
AFTER-ACTION: DEFERRED (MOVE TO PENDING ITEMS)
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING A MAINTENANCE
BOND TO ENSURE ABANDONED CONSTRUCTION SITES MEET PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE STANDARDS.
AFTER-ACTION: The Committee discussed the proposed ordinance briefly.
MOTION: GongordLibbin (vote 3-0) Send the proposed ordinance to Planning
Board for review and recommendation.
4. DISCUSSION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION
PLAN.
AFTER-ACTION: DEFERRED
5. DISCUSSION REGARDING TEMPORARY STOREFRONT SIGNS.
AFTER-ACTION: DEFERRED
6. TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF PARKING SPACES.
AFTER-ACTION: The Committee discussed the proposed ordinance briefly.
I Agenda Item CGD
r Date 6-/-I(
City Commission Memorandum
Report of the Land Use & Development Committee Meeting of May 18,2011
Page 2 of 4
MOTION: GongoraILibbin (vote 3-0). Send to the full Commission.
7. a) DISCUSSION ON A POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO THE ACCESSORY USE
REGULATIONS FOR THE RM-2 ZONING DISTRICT TO PERMIT A LIMITED
NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL ACCESSORY USES IN AN APARTMENT BUILDING
ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC BAWALK TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
7. b) DISCUSSION REGARDING THE BAYWALK CONSERVATION DISTRICT
PROPOSAL PUT FORTH BY MEMBERS OF THE LINCOLN WEST
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AFTER-ACTION: DEFERRED FOR ONE MONTH - TO BE TAKEN AS THE
FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA ON JUNE 6,2011.
8. a) DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE IN
FLAMINGO PARK NEIGHBORHOODS FOR LESS THAN 3 UNITS.
AFTER-ACTION: Tammy Tibbles made a presentation explaining that there is an
internal conflict in the City Code, as the short term rental ordinance requires the
applicant obtain a Certificate of Use, while other sections of the Code contain
exemptions for single-family homes and duplexes. The Committee discussed the issue,
and determined that although all applicants were intended to pay the fee in order to
recover the costs of review by City staff, there did appear to be some confusion with
what the fee was called.
MOTION: GongoraILibbin (vote 3-0) Motion to refer to the Planning Board an
amendment to the short-term rental ordinance amending the definition of the required
fee from a "certificate of use" to a different nomenclature.
8. b) DISCUSSION ON INCLUDING A CLAUSE FOR EXCEPTIONS IN THE SHORT
TERM RENTALS ORDINANCE.
AFTER-ACTION: Commissioner Exposito introduced the item. Simon Ferro,
attorney presented the case of Playa del Oro, LLC at 751 Meridian Avenue, a two story,
12-unit apartment building. They have been engaged in short term rentals in the
Flamingo Park area. The recent short term rental ordinance was enacted, and the client
believes that they complied with all the requirements of the ordinance. However, the
State of Florida had issued a non-transient apartment license, rather than the transient
apartment license that the client had requested. Therefore, they missed out on
qualifying for legalization, since the deadlines have now passed.
MOTION: GongoraILibbin (vote 3-0) Continue for one month to permit staff to
prepare additional analysis of the numbers of possible other properties that might
become eligible, and verify that the State application for transient use was erroneously
issued as non-transient. Draft ordinance amending addressing 8.a) and 8.b) should
come back to the LUDC.
9. DISCUSSION REGARDING CHANGING THE PERMllTED USES IN A CD-2
DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR SELF STORAGE.
City Commission Memorandum
Repott of the Land Use & Development Committee Meeting of May 18,2011
Page 3 of 4
AFTER-ACTION: Richard Lorber introduced the item and explained the current
limitations on storage warehouses. He recommended that any code amendment to
permit these in the Alton Road corridor (CD-2) be linked to the proposed setbacks and
building heights contained in the proposed Alton Road historic district buffer overlay, in
order to protect the residential areas directly to the east. Wayne Pathman, attorney,
made a presentation explaining why the owners of the property desire to pursue the
concept of a storage warehouse, based upon the location of their property at the 600
block of Alton Road. Commissioner Gongora expressed general agreement that storage
was needed within the City, but explained that the location adjacent to the flyover was
the only area of the CD-2 district he could anticipate being appropriate for self storage.
Jack Johnson of the Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association (FPNA) spoke, and
requested that the proposal be studied further and a presentation made to the
association. Arthur Marcus spoke about how the proposal ran counter to the proposed
changes to the Alton Road corridor zoning regulations. Commissioner Gongora asked
that the item be continued to permit Mr. Pathman to reach out to the FPNA.
MOTION: GongoraILibbin (vote 3-0) Continue the matter to July 2oth, 2011 LUDC
meeting in order to permit Mr. Pathman to meet with the FPNA.
10. DISCUSSION ON THE DE-INTENSIFICATION OF THE 1-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT.
AFTER-ACTION: DEFERRED
I I. (FROM THE LIST OF PENDING ITEMS)
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE GALE HOTEL HEIGHT LIMITS.
(RETURNING FROM THE MARCH 16, 2011 LUDC MEETING: ALLOW THE
PLANNING BOARD AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD TO REVIEW THE
MATTER AS A DISCUSSION ITEM, PRIOR TO BRINGING THE MATTER BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. ORIGINALLY REQUESTED BY VICE-MAYOR MICHAEL
GONGORA AND COMMISSIONER JONAH WOLFSON, FEBRUARY 9, 2011 CITY
COMMISSION MEETING ITEM R9G)
AFTER-ACTION: Christina Cardello presented their latest version of the proposal for
the Gale Hotel, showing the removal of a portion of the robotic parking area, and
refinements to the design.
Arthur Marcus, speaking on behalf of the Miami Design Preservation League, expressed
concern about the proposed amendment to permit a higher building at this location, and
requested that the proposal be denied. Charles Urstadt read from a previous Planning
Department staff report to the Historic Preservation Board, expressing opposition to the
proposed increase in height.
Russell Galbut, spoke in favor of the proposal, and explained how he was keeping both
front and rear facades intact. He expressed that this area should have a 10 story height
limit, and that the immediate area was severely distressed. William Cary of the Planning
Department explained the historic preservation concerns. Discussion ensued.
The Committee requested that staff look further into the general area, and make
suggestions for economic revitalization.
City Commission Memorandum
Report of the Land Use & Development Committee Meeting of May 18,2011
Page 4 of 4
12. (OLD BUSINESS, NON-AGENDA ITEM)
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FORMER SOUTH SHORE HOSPITAL SITE.
INFORMATIONAL DISCUSSION
Russell Galbut presented the latest ideas regarding the subject site. The Committee
requested that this discussion be included in the June6, 201 1 agenda.
13. (FROM THE LlST OF PENDING ITEMS)
SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT.
(RETURNING FROM THE MARCH 16, 2011 LUDC MEETING: DIRECT THE CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO INCLUDE THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE INFORMING
BUYERS OF SHORT TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS AND LIMITATIONS IN THE
STANDARD "NO-LIEN LETTERS" SENT OUT BY THE CITY, HAVE THE ClTY PASS
A RESOLUTION OPPOSING STATE LEGISLATION LIBERALIZING SHORT TERM
RENTAL RULES, AND TAKE THE MATTER UP AGAIN AT AN UPCOMING
COMMlnEE MEETING. ORIGINALLY REQUESTED BY COMMISSIONER JORGE
EXPOSITO, JANUARY 19,2011 ClTY COMMISSION MEETING ITEM R9F)
Eric Harari spoke out in opposition to the implementation of the short-term rental
ordinance, with respect to the Building and Fire Codes. The Committee decided to hold
a workshop in September.
14. (FROM THE LlST OF PENDING ITEMS)
DISCUSSION ON THE OCEAN BEACH HISTORIC DISTRICT R-PS4 ZONING
AMENDMENT
(REQUESTED BY VICE-MAYOR JONAH WOLFSON
MAY 11.201 1 CITY COMMISSION MEETING ITEM C4B)
Frank Delvecchio introduced the matter and explained his proposal. Morris Sunshine
expressed concern but not opposition. The Legal Department was directed to provide
additional research regarding spot zoning and applicability of ordinance. Mayor Bower
expressed concern with regards to the historic preservation concerns of the City. The
Committee decided to discuss the matter at the June 6,201 1 LUDC meeting as item #2.
Attachment
T:\AGENDA\2011\6-01-1 I\LUDC Meeting of May 18,201 1 afteraction-rev.docx
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING May 18,201 1 @ 4:00 pm City Manager's Large Conference Room Attendance Sheet
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING May 18,201 1 @ 4:00 pm City Manager's Large Conference Room Attendance Sheet I I I M:\$CMB\CCUPDATES\Land Use and Development Committee\Sign In Sheet 201 1 .docx
RESOLUTIONS
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title: I A Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for and accept six (6) grants andlor funding applications. I
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
I I) and 2) Enhance mobility throughout the City; 3) and 5) increase satisfaction with family recreational 1
activities and maximize ~iami Beach as a destination brand; 4) NIA; and 6) improve the lives of elderly
residents.
Supporting Data:
2009 Community Survey: I) and 2) Nearly two-thirds of all respondents, 63.7%, suggested there are "too
few" bicycle paths/lanes throughout the City; 3) and 5) 24.1 % of residents rated the availability of cultural
activities as 'too few', and 24.6% rated the availability of family friendly activities as "too few" and 69% of
resident believe that the tourism industry contributes 'about the right amount' to their quality of life, 24% of
residents rated Arts and Culture as one of the services the City should strive not to reduce and approximately
30,000 people attend July 4 celebrations and approximately 130,000 people attended at Sleepless Night
2009; 4) NIA; and Environmental Scan: 6) 16% of the population of Miami Beach is over 65 years old
Issue:
(Shall the City support the following funding requests and execute the related agreements? I
Item SummarylRecommendation:
Approval is requested to submit the following applications to: 1) US Department of Transportation for the
Transportation, Community and System Preservation (TCSP) Program in the approximate amount of
$2,000,000 for the Middle Beach Recreational Corridor; 2) Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning
Organization for Transportation Enhancement Program funding from Florida Department of Transportation
for the Middle Beach Recreational Corridor in the approximate amount of $400,000; 3) Florida Department
of State, Culture Builds Florida Program, for funding in the approximate amount of $25,000 for Sleepless
Night 2012; 4) Miami-Dade County ADA Parking Fines Program, in the approximate amount of $90,000 for
eligible ADA projects; 5) Miami-Dade County Tourist Development Council Grants Program in the
approximate amount of $25,000 for the City's July4,2011 celebration; and, 6) retroactively, to The Walmart
Foundation's Local Community Contribution Program for funding in the approximate amount of $5,000 for
elderly care services; appropriating the above grants, program funds and matching funds, as necessary if
approved and accepted by the City, and authorizing the execution of all related documents
Advisory Board Recommendation: NIA
Financial Information: I source I# I Grant NameIProject 1 Approximate ( Match I
of funds
1
2
US DOT TCSPIMiddle Beach
Recreational Corridor
3
MPO FDOT TEPIMiddle
Beach Recreational Corridor
4
rant Amount
$2,000,000
State of Florida Culture Builds
FloridaISleepless Night 201 2
5
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Judy Hoanshelt, Grants Manager, Office of Budget and Performance Improvement
Amount/Source
NIA
$400,000
Miami-Dade County ADA
Parking FinesIADA projects
6
NIA
$25,000 $25,00OICorporate
Support
$90,000
$25,00O/Corporate
Support
Miami-Dade County Tourist
Development CouncilIJuly 4th
The Walmart Foundation1
Elderly Care Svcs
J
NIA
$25,000
$5,000 NIA
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June1,2011
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE
ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE ClTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
SUBMIT APPLICATIONS TO: I) THE US DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNITY
AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION (TCSP) PROGRAM IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $2,000,000 FOR THE MIDDLE BEACH
RECREATIONAL CORRIDOR; 2) THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR
TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING FROM
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE MIDDLE
BEACH RECREATIONAL CORRIDOR IN THE APPROXIMATE
AMOUNT OF $400,000; 3) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
DIVISION OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS, CULTURE BUILDS FLORIDA
PROGRAM FOR FUNDING IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF
$25,000 FOR SLEEPLESS NIGHT 2012; 4) MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
ADA PARKING FINES PROGRAM, FOR FUNDING IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $90,000 FOR ELIGIBLE ADA
PROJECTS; 5) MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL GRANTS PROGRAM FOR FUNDING IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $25,000 FOR THE CITY'S JULY 4,
2011 CELEBRATION; AND, 6) RETROACTIVELY, TO THE
WALMART FOUNDATION'S LOCAL COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION
PROGRAM FOR FUNDING IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF
$5,000 FOR ELDERLY CARE SERVICES; AND, APPROPRIATING
THE ABOVE GRANTS, PROGRAM FUNDS AND MATCHING FUNDS,
AS NECESSARY IF APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY,
AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF ALL DOCUMENTS
RELATED TO THESE APPLICATIONS
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
ANALYSIS
I. Approval to submit an application to the US Department of Transportation for the
Transportation, Community, and Svstem Preservation (TCSP) Program in the
approximate amount of $2,000,000 for the Middle Beach Recreational Corridor
Proiect
Commission Memorandum
Page 2
The TCSP Program is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Program jointly developed
with the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Rail Administration, the Office of the
Secretary, and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration within the US
Department of Transportation, and the US Environmental Protection Agency. TCSP is a
comprehensive initiative of research and grants to investigate the relationships between
transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices and identify private
sector-based initiatives to improve such relationships. Eligible projects include practices
that: improve the efficiency of the transportation system of the United States; reduce
environmental impacts of transportation; reduce the need for costly future public
infrastructure investments; ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade
and examine community development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private
sector development patterns and investments that support these goal.
The Administration requests approval to submit an application to the TCSP Program in the
approximate amount of $2,000,000 for the Middle Beach Recreational Corridor Project
(MBRC). The MBRC consists of the construction of an on-grade pedestrian walkway
encompassing forty blocks or approximately 17,100 feet. The path will run north from
appro~imately23'~ Street to Allison Park at 64th Street, or the southern terminus of the North
Beach Recreational Corridor Project. The project's goal is to increase mobility, support the
use of alternative transportation within the City and improve the dune and beach habitat. The
project will serve as a portion of the coastal northlsouth connector in the larger Atlantic
Greenway Network (AGN), which supports the development of alternative means of
transportation throughout the City.
The entire cost of Phase 2 of the MBRC project is estimated at $1 3.3 million. Funding for
this grant, if approved will be available September 2012. If additional funding is available by
2012, the City will use the total funding available to construct a portion of, or all of Phase 2; if
no other funding is available at that time, then this grant award will be used to build a portion
of the corridor. The Administration intends to continue applying for grant funds and
appropriations in future years. This program does not require matching funds. This project
supports the key intended outcome: enhance mobility throughout the City.
2. Approval to submit a grant to the Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for Transportation Enhancement Program funding for the
Middle Beach Recreational Corridor in the approximate amount of $400,000
The Transportation Enhancement program is administered through Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) District 6 Planning Office and is an element of the Federal Highway
Administration's Surface Transportation program. FDOT works with the MPO to solicit and
review applications. The District will have approximately $4 million available for
programming in FY 2015. FDOT staff has advised the Administration that unfunded
projects that were recommended for funding in last years' application review cycle will take
priority over new applications this year; thus reducing the $4 million available for new
projects.
The City intends to apply for funding in the approximate amount of $400,000 for the Middle
Beach Recreational Corridor (MBRC). Funding, if awarded, will not be available until July
2014 and will be used for the construction phase of the MBRC (see description in TCSP
request, above).
This grant does not require matching funds. This project supports the key intended
outcome: enhance mobility throughout the city.
Commission Memorandum
Page 3
3. Approval to submit a grant to Florida Department of State, Division of Cultural
Affairs for Culture Builds Florida funding in the approximate amount of $25.000
for Sleepless Night 201 2;
The State's Culture Builds Florida program funds cultural programs that support the Division
of Cultural Affair's Strategic Plan. The four key areas are: learning and wellness;
strengthening the economy; design and development and leadership.
The goals of Sleepless Night are to strengthen South Florida's reputation as a top cultural
tourism destination by becoming a major annual signature event, on par with Art Basel
Miami Beach and the South Beach Wine and Food Festival; to build arts audiences,
increase public awareness of the arts and educate the local arts practitioners; to create
community through the shared experience of diverse audiences; to forge dynamic
partnerships of artists, arts organizations and public and private industry; and to enliven both
culturally and economically the previously depressed final month of hurricane season.
Sleepless Night 2012 will present over 150 free arts and entertainment experiences at 100
different locations concentrated in four zones within the city. Included in the event are free
museum admissions, indoor and outdoor art installations and performances, architectural
tours, dance and dancing, theater, music, slam poetry, film, fashion, acrobatics, comedy and
other cultural offerings. There will be outdoor stages at 5 locations throughout the City.
The Administration intends to apply to the Culture Builds Florida Program for funding in the
amount of $25,000; the City has previously received funding, from this program for Sleepless
Night 2009. This grant requires a $1:$1 match which will be funded through corporate
support for the event. This project supports the key intended outcome maximize Miami
Beach as a destination brand.
4. Approval to participate in Miami-Dade County's Parking Fines Reimbursement
Proqram for funding in the amount of $90,000 for eligible American with
Disabilities Act (ADA) proiects
Each year the City participates in Miami-Dade County's Parking fines Reimbursement
Program. The Program is based on Section 316.008, Florida Statutes, and Section 30-447
of the Code of Miami-Dade County, which authorizes the charging of fines for misuse of
specially marked parking spaces for people with disabilities. On June 25,2008, the City of
Miami Beach entered into a new Interlocal Agreement with Miami-Dade County for the
distribution of these funds. The agreement requires that the City annually submit an affidavit
sworn by the chief administrative officer that expenditures will meet the program criteria.
The City's allocation for Fiscal Year 201 1 is approximately $90,000. The funds will be used
by the City to improve accessibility and equal opportunity to qualified disabled persons. As in
previous years, the City's priority will be to address issues in the I998 ADA Settlement
Agreement.
This project supports the key intended outcomes: promote and celebrate our city's diversity.
No matching funds are required.
Commission Memorandum
Page 4
5. Approval Miami-Dade County Tourist Development Council Grants proaram for
fundins in the approximate amount of $25,000 for the City's July 4, 201 1
celebration
The mission of the Miami-Dade County Tourist Development Council (TDC) is to serve as a
catalyst to promote Miami-Dade County's appeal as a tourist destination by encouraging and
investing in outstanding tourism-oriented cultural and special events that distinguish our
destination as a world class center for theater, concerts, recitals, opera, dance, art
exhibitions, festivals, sports events, film and television originations and other tourist-related
activities. The TDC is a nine-member volunteer board created by State Statute and County
Ordinance whose members are appointed by the Miami-Dade Board of County
Commissioners and have backgrounds in the tourism industry.
The TDC works in partnership with other tourism-promoting agencies, including the Greater
Miami Convention & Visitors Bureau. The Tourist Development Council grants funding to
support eligible tourism-oriented events and projects.
The City's July 4th event is eligible for funding, and the TDC has supported this event in
previous years. The City proposes applying for funds to defray the costs of the fireworks at
this year's event. This year's 4th of July celebration, which is always open to the public at no
charge, will take place at loth street and Ocean Drive and will showcase the South Beach
community and the amenities that are available in the surrounding areas. This year we are
celebrating Independence Day with classic American jazz and blues, the uniquely American
forms of music. Big Poppa E and the E Band will kick off the evening with two sets
beginning at 6:30 p.m., followed by the South Florida Jazz Orchestra under the direction of
Chuck Bergeron, with special guest star Nicole Henry providing vocals. A fireworks display
will be launched from the beach at 9 pm.
The program requires matching funds. City matching funds in the amount of $25,000 are
available from corporate support for this event. Supports the key intended outcome:
maximize Miami Beach as a destination brand.
6. Retroactive approval to submit an application to The Walmart Foundation's Local
Community Contribution Proaram for fundina in the approximate amount of
$5,000 for Elderly Care Services
The Walmart Foundation's various grant programs support initiatives focused on enhancing
opportunities in Education, Workforce DevelopmentlEconomic Opportunity, Health &
Wellness, and Environmental Sustainability in an effort to create opportunities so people can
live better. Through the Local Community Contribution program, Walmart facilities are able
to support the needs of their local communities by providing funding to organizations working
to improve the lives of residents. Organizations with programs that benefit communities
within the service area of the Walmart are eligible to apply.
Commissioner Tobin has proposed a program to provide funding, through this grant to the
elderly residents of our community. Funds from this grant will provide food and necessities
to our senior population. This grant does not require matching funds from the city. This
program supports the key intended outcome: improve the lives of elderly residents.
Commission Memorandum
Page 5
CONCLUSION
The Administration requests approval to submit the following applications to: 1) US
Department of Transportation for the Transportation, Community and System Preservation
(TCSP) Program in the approximate amount of $2,000,000 for the Middle Beach
Recreational Corridor; 2) The Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization for
Transportation Enhancement Program funding from Florida Department of Transportation
for the Middle Beach Recreational Corridor in the approximate amount of $400,000; 3)
Florida Department of State, Division of Cultural Affairs for funding in the approximate
amount of $25,000 for Sleepless Night 2012; 4) Miami-Dade County ADA Parking Fines
Program, for funding in the approximate amount of $90,000 for eligible ADA projects; 5)
Miami-Dade County Tourist Development Council Grants Program for funding in the
approximate amount of $25,000 for the City's July 4,201 I celebration; and, 6) retroactively,
to The Walmart Foundation's Local Community Contribution Program for funding in the
approximate amount of $5,000 for elderly care services; appropriating the above grants,
program funds and matching funds, as necessary if approved and accepted by the City, and
authorizing the execution of all documents related to these applications.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE
ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE ClTY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
SUBMIT APPLICATIONS TO: 1) THE US DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNITY
AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION (TCSP) PROGRAM IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $2,000,000 FOR THE MIDDLE BEACH
RECREATIONAL CORRIDOR; 2) THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR
TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING FROM
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE MIDDLE
BEACH RECREATIONAL CORRIDOR IN THE APPROXIMATE
AMOUNT OF $400,000; 3) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
DIVISION OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS, CULTURE BUILDS FLORIDA
PROGRAM FOR FUNDING IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF
$25,000 FOR SLEEPLESS NIGHT 2012; 4) MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
ADA PARKING FINES PROGRAM, FOR FUNDING IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $90,000 FOR ELIGIBLE ADA
PROJECTS; 5) MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL GRANTS PROGRAM FOR FUNDING IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $25,000 FOR THE CITY'S JULY 4,
2011 CELEBRATION; AND, 6) RETROACTIVELY, TO THE
WALMART FOUNDATION'S LOCAL COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION
PROGRAM FOR FUNDING IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF
$5,000 FOR ELDERLY CARE SERVICES; APPROPRIATING THE
ABOVE GRANTS, PROGRAM FUNDS AND MATCHING FUNDS, AS
NECESSARY IF APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED
TO THESE APPLICATIONS
WHEREAS, the TCSP Program is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Program jointly developed with the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Rail
Administration, the Office of the Secretary, and the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration within the US Department of Transportation, and the US Environmental
Protection Agency; and
WHEREAS, eligible projects include practices that: improve the efficiency of the
transportation system of the United States; reduce environmental impacts of
transportation; reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments; ensure
efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade and examine community
development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development
patterns and investments that support these goals; and
WHEREAS, the Administration requests approval to submit an application to the
TCSP Program in the approximate amount of $2,000,000 for the Middle Beach
Recreational Corridor Project (MBRC); and
WHEREAS, the MBRC consists of the construction of an on-grade pedestrian
walkway encompassing forty blocks or approximately 17,100 feet which will run north
from approximately 23rd Street to Allison Park at 64th Street, and the project's goal is to
increase mobility, support the use of alternative transportation within the City and
improve the dune and beach habitat; and
WHEREAS, the entire cost of Phase 2 of the MBRC project is estimated at $13.3
million and funding for this grant, if approved will be available September 201 2; and
WHEREAS, if additional funding is available by 2012, the City will use the total
funding available to construct a portion of, or all of Phase 2; if no other funding is
available at that time, then this grant award will be used to build a portion of the corridor
and the Administration intends to continue applying for grant funds and appropriations in
future years; and
WHEREAS, this program does not require matching funds and this project
supports the key intended outcome: enhance mobility throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the Administration requests approval to submit an application to the
US Department of Transportation for the Transportation, Community, and System
Preservation (TCSP) Program in the approximate amount of $2,000,000 for the Middle
Beach Recreational Corridor Project; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Enhancement program is administered through
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 6 Planning Office and is an
element of the Federal Highway Administration's Surface Transportation program and
FDOT works with the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to solicit
and review applications; and,
WHEREAS, the District will have approximately $4 million available for
programming in FY 2015, however, FDOT staff has advised the Administration that
unfunded projects that were recommended for funding in last years' application review
cycle will take priority over new applications this year; thus reducing the $4 million
available for new projects; and
WHEREAS, the City intends to apply for funding in the approximate amount of
$400,000 for the Middle Beach Recreational Corridor (MBRC) and funding, if awarded,
will not be available until July 2014 and will be used for the construction phase of the
MBRC; and
WHEREAS, this grant does not require matching funds and this project supports
the key intended outcomes: increase satisfaction with family recreational activities and
enhance mobility throughout the city; and
WHEREAS, the Administration requests approval to submit a grant to the Miami-
Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Transportation
Enhancement Program funding for the Middle Beach Recreational Corridor in the
approximate amount of $400,000; and
WHEREAS, the State's Culture Builds Florida program funds cultural projects
that support its Strategic Plan and the four key areas are: learning and wellness;
strengthening the economy; design and development and leadership; and
WHEREAS, the goals of Sleepless Night are aligned with the goals of the
Division's Strategic Plan; and
WHEREAS, Sleepless Night 2012 will present over 150 free arts and
entertainment experiences at 100 different locations concentrated in four zones within
the city, included in the event are free museum admissions, indoor and outdoor art
installations and performances, architectural tours, dance and dancing, theater, music,
slam poetry, film, fashion, acrobatics, comedy and other cultural offerings with outdoor
stages at 5 locations throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the Administration intends to apply to the Culture Builds Florida
Program for funding in the amount of $25,000 and the City has previously received
funding, from this program for Sleepless Night 2009; and
WHEREAS, this grant requires a $1:$1 match which will be funded through
corporate support for the event and this project supports the key intended outcomes
increase satisfaction with family recreational activities and maximize Miami Beach as a
destination brand; and
WHEREAS, the Administration requests approval to submit a grant to Florida
Department of State, Division of Cultural Affairs for Culture Builds Florida funding in the
approximate amount of $25,000 for Sleepless Night 2012;
WHEREAS, each year the City participates in Miami-Dade County's Parking
fines Reimbursement Program, which is based on Section 316.008, Florida Statutes,
and Section 30-447 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, which authorizes the charging of
fines for misuse of specially marked parking spaces for people with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2008, the City of Miami Beach entered into a new
Interlocal Agreement with Miami-Dade County for the distribution of parking fine funds
and the agreement requires that the City annually submit an affidavit sworn by the chief
administrative officer that expenditures will meet the program criteria; and
WHEREAS, the City's allocation for Fiscal Year 201 1 is approximately $90,000
and these funds will be used by the City to improve accessibility and equal opportunity to
qualified disabled persons and as in previous years, the City's priority will be to address
issues in the 1998 ADA Settlement Agreement; and
WHEREAS, this project supports the key intended outcomes: promote and
celebrate our city's diversity and no matching funds are required; and
WHEREAS, the Administration requests approval to participate in Miami-
Dade County's Parking Fines Reimbursement Program for funding in the amount of
$90,000 for eligible American with Disabilities Act (ADA) projects; and
WHEREAS, the mission of the Miami-Dade County Tourist Development Council
(TDC) is to serve as a catalyst to promote Miami-Dade County's appeal as a tourist
destination by encouraging and investing in outstanding tourism-oriented cultural and
special events that distinguish our destination as a world class center; and
WHEREAS, the TDC is a nine-member volunteer board created by State Statute
and County Ordinance whose members are appointed by the Miami-Dade Board of
County Commissioners and have backgrounds in the tourism industry; and
WHEREAS, the Tourist Development Council provides grants to support eligible
tourism-oriented events and projects; and
WHEREAS, the City's July 4th event is eligible for funding, and the TDC has
supported this event in previous years, therefore, the City proposes applying for funds to
defray the costs of the fireworks at this year's event, which is open to the public at no
charge and will take place at loth street and Ocean Drive; and
WHEREAS, a fireworks display will be launched from the beach at 9 pm; and
WHEREAS, grant the program requires matching funds in the amount of $25,000
which is available from corporate support and this program supports the key intended
outcome: maximize Miami Beach as a destination brand; and
WHEREAS, the Administration requests approval to apply to Miami-Dade County
Tourist Development Council Grants program for funding in the approximate amount of
$25,000 for the City's July 4, 201 1 celebration; and
WHEREAS, The Walmart Foundation's various grant programs support initiatives
focused on enhancing opportunities in Education, Workforce Development/Economic
Opportunity, Health & Wellness, and Environmental Sustainability in an effort to create
opportunities so people can live better; and
WHEREAS, through the Local Community Contribution program, Walmart
facilities are able to support the needs of their local communities by providing funding to
organizations working to improve the lives of residents; and
WHEREAS, Commissioner Tobin has proposed a program to provide funding,
through this grant to the elderly residents of our community; and
WHEREAS, this grant does not require matching funds from the city and
supports the key intended outcome: improve the lives of elderly residents; and
WHEREAS, retroactive approval is requested to submit an application to The
Walmart Foundation's Local Community Contribution Program for funding in the
approximate amount of $5,000 for Elderly Care Services.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH hereby approve and authorize the City
Manager or his designee to submit the following applications to: 1) 1) US Department of
Transportation for the Transportation, Community and System Preservation (TCSP)
Program in the approximate amount of $2,000,000 for the Middle Beach Recreational
Corridor; 2) The Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization for
Transportation Enhancement Program funding from Florida Department of
Transportation for the Middle Beach Recreational Corridor in the approximate amount of
$400,000; 3) Florida Department of State, Division of Cultural Affairs for funding in the
approximate amount of $25,000 for Sleepless Night 2012; 4) Miami-Dade County ADA
Parking Fines Program, for funding in the approximate amount of $90,000 for eligible
ADA projects; 5) Miami-Dade County Tourist Development Council Grants Program for
funding in the approximate amount of $25,000 for the City's July 4, 2011 celebration;
and, 6) retroactively, to The Walmart Foundation's Local Community Contribution
Program for funding in the approximate amount of $5,000 for elderly care services;
appropriating the above grants, program funds and matching funds, as necessary if
approved and accepted by the City, and authorizing the execution of all documents
related to these applications.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,201 1
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Electing Commissioner Edward L. Tobin, Group V, As Vice-Mayor For A Term Commencing
On July 1, 201 1, And Terminating On October 31,201 1, Or On Such Date When A New Vice-Mayor Is
Thereafter Elected..
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
NIA.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): NIA
- -
Issue:
Shall the City Commission Elect Commissioner Edward L. Tobin as Vice-Mayor?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
The City Commission has established a policy of rotating the position of Vice-Mayor every four (4) months.
Since 1994, the rotation has been by Commission Group numbers in the following sequence, Group I, II,
Ill, IV, V, and VI.
Based on this direction, the next Vice-Mayor Group is Group V. The term for the next Vice-Mayor is July 1,
201 1 and terminating on October 31, 201 1. Commissioner Edward L. Tobin (Group V) is next in the
rotation to serve as Vice-Mayor.
-- -
Advisory Board Recommendation: 1 NIA
Financial Information:
I I
Source of
Funds:
J I I I
Financial Impact Summaw: I
0
OBPl
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Robert E. Parcher, City Clerk
Approved
1
2
3
4
Total
lppp
Amount Account
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the Ci Commission I"
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June 1,201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ELECTING COMMISSIONER EDWARD L. TOBIN,
GROUP V, AS VICE-MAYOR FOR A TERM COMMENCING ON JULY 1,201 1,
AND TERMINATING ON OCTOBER 31,2011, OR ON SUCH DATE WHEN A
NEW VICE-MAYOR IS THEREAFTER ELECTED.
ANALYSIS
The City Commission has established a policy of rotating the position of Vice-Mayor every
four (4) months. Since 1994, the rotation has been by Commission Group number in the
following sequence, Group I, 11, Ill, IV, V, and VI.
Based on this direction, the next Vice-Mayor Group is Group V. The term for the next Vice-
Mayor is July 1,201 1 through October 31,201 1. Commissioner Edward L. Tobin (GroupV)
is next in the rotation to serve as Vice-Mayor.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE
ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ELECTING COMMISSIONER
EDWARD L. TOBIN, GROUP V, AS VICE-MAYOR FOR A TERM
COMMENCING ON JULY I, 2011, AND TERMINATING ON OCTOBER
31, 2011, OR ON SUCH DATE WHEN A NEW VICE-MAYOR IS
THEREAFTER ELECTED.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission established a policy of rotating the position of
Vice-Mayor every four months; and
WHEREAS, for the term commencing on July 1,201 1, and terminating on October 31,201 1,
the Mayor and City Commission herein elect Commissioner Edward L. Tobin as Vice-Mayor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION
OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA that Commissioner Edward L. Tobin is hereby elected
as Vice-Mayor of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, for a term commencing on July 1, 201 1 and
terminating on October 31, 201 1, or on such date when a new Vice Mayor is thereafter elected.
PASSED and ADOPTED THIS 5 day of June, 201 1
ATTEST:
MATTI HERRERA BOWER,
MAYOR
ROBERT PARCHER,
ClTY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Accepting The City Manager's Recommendation Pertaining To The Ranking of Firms For
Investigative and Adjusting Services, Authorizing The Administration To Enter Into Negotiations, And
Authorizing The Mayor And Cty Clerk To Execute Agreements.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Control costs of payroll, including salary and fringes1Minimize TaxeslEnsure expenditure trends are
sustainable over the long term.
Supporting Data: N/A
Issue: I Shall the Commission Adopt the Resolution? I
Item SummarylRecommendation:
The City of Miami Beach requires the services of one (1) to two (2) experienced firms to provide investigative
(surveillance related) and adjusting services for selected tort liability and workers' compensation claims. The
City is self-insured for both tort liability claims and workers' compensation claims. The current contract with
Horizon Investigations, Inc. will expire on July 10,201 I, with no further options to renew.
The Mayor and City Commission at its February 9,201 1 meeting, authorized the Administration to issue an
RFP for investigative and adjusting services. The RFP did not include the Administration of the Cty's
Workers' Compensation program which is under separate contract. RFP No. 16-1011 1 was issued and sent
to over thirty (30) firms. Proposals were received from Horizon Investigations, Inc. and KWIC, Inc.
An Evaluation Committee appointed by the Cty Manager reviewed, scored and ranked the proposals.
Based on the published evaluation criteria, the Committee ranked Horizon Investigations, Inc. as the primaly
firm, and KWIC, Inc. as the secondary firm.
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Commission adopt the resolution.
Advisory Board Recommendation: I NIA
'inancial Information:
City Clerk's Office ~e~igative Tracking:
Gus Lopez ext 6641
I.:
OBPl
T:\AGENDAUOI 1\6-01 -1 I\Investigative Services ~umXmfy.doc LA'
Account
General Liability Claims Payments, Risk Management
Fund Acct #540-1792-000332
Amount
$60,000
Source of
Funds:
Financial Impact Summary*:
//
Total
I
$15,000
$75,000
Workmen's Comp Claims Fund
ACC~ #540-1792-000381
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June 1,201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
ClTY MANAGER PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 16-
10111 FOR INVESTIGATIVE AND ADJUSTING SERVICES FOR SELECTED
TORT LIABILITY CLAIMS AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS;
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH
HORIZON INVESTIGATIONS, INC. AS THE PRIMARY FIRM, AND KWIC, INC.
AS THE SECONDARY FIRM; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
ClTY CLERK TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS UPON CONCLUSION OF
SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
FUNDING
$60,000 Funding is available from Acct # 540-1792-000332, General Liability Claims
Payments, Risk Management Fund
$1 5,000 Funding is available from Acct #540-1792-000381, Workmen's Comp Claims
$75,000 Total Payments, Risk Management Fund
KEY INTENDED OUTCOMES SUPPORTED
Control costs of payroll including salary and fringe; minimize taxes; and ensure expenditure
trends are sustainable over the long term.
BACKGROUNDIANALYSIS
The City of Miami Beach requires the services of one (I) to two (2) experienced firms to
provide investigative (surveillance related) and adjusting services for selected tort liability
and workers' compensation claims. The City of Miami Beach is self-insured for both tort
liability claims and workers' compensation claims.
Investigative and adjusting services are a very important part of the City's self-insured tort
liability and workers' compensation program. These services help to minimize fraudulent
claims and protect the assets of the City. The current contract with Horizon Investigations,
Inc. will expire on July 10, 201 I, with no further options to renew.
Commission Memorandum
June I, 201 1
RFP #16-10/11 Investigative and Adjusfing Services
Page 2 of 4
The Mayor and City Commission, at its February 9, 2011 meeting, authorized the
Administration to issue an RFP for investigative and adjusting services for selected tort
liability claims and workers' compensation claims. The RFP did not include the
Administration of the City's Workers' Compensation program, which is under separate
contract.
The City contemplates entering into an agreement with the selected proposer(s) for an initial
term of one (1) year, with four (4) one-year renewal options, at the sole discretion of the City.
RFP PROCESS
RFP No. 16-1 011 1 was issued on February 14,201 1, and the Procurement Division e-mailed
as well as uploaded the RFP to BidSync.com and BidNet, sending notifications to over 30
firms or individuals. A non-mandatory pre-proposal meeting to provide information and
respond to questions from prospective proposers was held on February 25, 201 1. On the
due date of March 15, 201 1, two (2) proposals were received from the following firms:
Horizon Investigations, Inc.
KWIC, lnc.
On April 6, 201 I, the City Manager, via Letter to Commission No. 079-2-1 1, appointed an
Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), consisting of the following individuals:
Emomotimi Brisibe
Rafael Granado
Janie Hayes
Kathleen Kowall
Drew Terpak
Alternate:
Silvia Winitzky
Sr. Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney Office
Assistant Director, Human Resources Department
Resident and Safety Committee Member
Resident and Leadership Academy Applicant
Division Director, Fleet Management Division
'P
Resident and Co-President of Bayshore HOA
Due to conflict in scheduling with Emomotimi Brisibe and Drew Terpak, both Rhonda
Montoya Hasan, First Assistant City Attorney, and Silvia Winitzky, served as replacements
on the Committee.
The Committee convened on May 2,201 I, and was provided with an overview of the project,
information relative to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Government in the
Sunshine Law. Cliff Leonard, Risk Manager, addressed the Committee and provided general
information on the scope of services. The Committee then listened to brief proposal
overviews and participated in a question and answer session with each of the two (2)
Proposers.
The Committee was instructed to score and rank each proposal pursuant to the evaluation
criteria established in the RFP, which was as follows (total possible 100 points):
Experience and qualification of the firm - 20 points
Experience and qualifications of the key personnel - 20 points
Proposed fees - 30 points
Evidence of financial stability - 10 points
Methodology and approach - 10 points
Client references - 10 points
Commission Memorandum
June I, 201 1
RFP #16-10/11 Investigative and Adjusting Services
Page 3 of 4
The Committee discussed the proposals and proceeded to rank and score as follows:
The Committee ranked Horizon lnvestigations as the top-ranked firm, having received four
(4) out of five (5) number one rankings.
Horizon Investigations was founded in 1985, and has been providing investigative services
to the City for over 14 years. There are three (3) full time licensed investigators on staff, in
addition to the CEO and the President, who are also licensed investigators. These two (2)
principals have been in charge since the firm was founded. The President, Mr. Lee
Goldwich, is also a licensed adjuster.
The services Horizon has provided to the City over the years have been consistent and
reliable, and their reporting and hourly billing rates have efficiently met the requirements of
the City's Risk Management Division.
On the negative side, during their discussions with Horizon the Committee did not deem
there was sufficient financial information provided, and it came to light that Horizon's
corporate office is facing foreclosure. The principals indicated that they are working on a
refinancing arrangement, and that there would be no impact on their ability to provide the
required services to the City.
KWIC, Inc. was founded in 1977 by a former Special Agent in Charge of the Miami Field
Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Kenneth Whittaker, Sr. The Company is
currently operated by the founder's son, Kenneth Whittaker, Jr., who has been the President
and owner since 1983.
While the required services would be sub-contracted by KWIC, Mr. Whittaker has four (4)
licensed investigators that he contracts locally and a strong network of former FBI agents
and licensed investigators nationally. The adjusting services will also be contracted out. The
City's Risk Manager indicated that he has only outsourced the adjusting services once in the
past sixteen (16) years.
The Committee discussed their concern about KWIC's lack of full time staff, and the limited
revenue on their balance sheet, even though KWIC provides services for clients such a
Publix and Home Depot.
As a result of some concerns raised by the Committee about each of the proposers, rather
than recommending a top-ranked and a second-ranked firm, the Committee unanimously
recommended Horizon Investigations, Inc, as the primary firm, and KWIC, Inc. as the
secondary firm. By utilizing this selection methodology, the City will be able to use both
proposers on an as needed basis.
Commission Memorandum
June I, 201 1
RFP #16-10/1 I Investigative and Adjusting Services
Page 4 of 4
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission approve the attached
resolution, which recommends the acceptance of the ranking of firms and authorizes the
Administration to enter into negotiations with Horizon Investigations, Inc. as the primaryfirm,
and KWIC, Inc. as the secondary firm; and further authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute agreements upon the completion of successful negotiations by the Administration.
T:\AGENDA\2011\6-01-11\InvestigativeServices Memo 0601 1 1 .doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
ClTY MANAGER PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 16-
10/11 FOR INVESTIGATIVE AND ADJUSTING SERVICES FOR SELECTED
TORT LIABILITY CLAIMS AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS;
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS
WITH HORIZON INVESTIGATIONS, INC. AS THE PRIMARY FIRM, AND KWIC,
INC. AS THE SECONDARY FIRM; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITYCLERK TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS UPON CONCLUSION OF
SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
WHEREAS, the City requires the services of one (1 ) to two (2) experienced firms
to provide investigative (surveillance related) and adjusting services for selected tort
liability and workers' compensation claims; and
WHEREAS, these services help to minimize fraudulent claims and protect the
assets of the City; and
WHEREAS, the current contract with Horizon Investigations, Inc. will expire on July
10,201 1, with no further options to renew; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission, at its February 9, 2011 meeting,
authorized the Administration to issue an RFP for investigative and adjusting services for
selected tort liability claims and workers' compensation claims; and
WHEREAS, on February 14, 2011, RFP No. 16-10/11 was issued, and notices
sent to over 30 firms, which resulted in the receipt of proposals from Horizon
Investigations, Inc. and KWIC, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 201 1, the City Manager, via Letter to Commission No. 079-
201 1, appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), consisting of the following
individuals:
Emomotimi Brisibe, Sr. Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney Office;
Rafael Granado, Assistant Director, Human Resources Department;
Janie Hayes, Resident and Safety Committee Member;
Kathleen Kowall, Resident and Leadership Academy Applicant;
Drew Terpak, Division Director, Fleet Management Division;
Alternate:
Silvia Winitzky, Resident and Co-President of Bayshore HOA; and
WHEREAS, due to conflict in scheduling with Emomotimi Brisibe and Drew
Terpak, both Rhonda Montoya Hasan, First Assistant City Attorney, and Silvia Winitzky,
served as replacements on the Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Committee convened on May 2, 201 1, and was provided with an
overview of the project, information relative to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance, the
Government in the Sunshine Law, listened to presentations and participated in a question
and answer session with each of the Proposers, and discussed and evaluated the
proposals based on the evaluation criteria as outlined in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the Committee ranked Horizon Investigations, Inc. as the top-ranked
firm, and KWIC, Inc. as the second-ranked firm; and
WHEREAS, as the result of some concerns raised by the Committee about eacn of
the proposers, rather than recommending a top-ranked and a second-ranked firm, the
Committee unanimously recommended Horizon Investigations, Inc. as the primary firm,
and KWIC, Inc. as the secondary firm, whereby the City will be able to use both proposers
on an as needed basis; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager concurs with the Committee's recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE ClTY
COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby accept the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the
ranking of proposals pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 16-10/11, for
Investigative and Adjusting Services for Selected Tort Liability Claims and Workers'
Compensation Clams; authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations with Horizon
Investigations, Inc. as the primary firm, and KWIC, Inc. as the secondary firm; further
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a agreements upon conclusion of
successful negotiations by the Administration.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,201 1
MAYOR
Matti Herrera Bower
ATTEST:
ClTY CLERK
Robert Parcher APPROVE0 AS r0
FORM & LANGUAGE
FOR EXJCUTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Accepting The Crty Manager's Recommendation Pertaining To The Ranking Of Firms For Wide
Area Network (WAN) Services, Authorizing The Administration To Enter Into Negotiations, And Authorizing
The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute An Agreement.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
) Improve process through information technology I
Issue: I Shall the Commission Adopt the Resolution?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
The City is seeking WAN network services that will allow the successful and reliable transmission of
information in different electronic forms from and to all of its locations. All proposed services must be
proven, secure, reliable and cost-effective. All proposers must provide the necessary security within their
network and all interfaces to external components, customer or othemise, that will ensure the Crty is
protected and that the proposed services are secure and do not create or cause liability issues or concerns.
The City is presently using WAN services provided byAT&T. The agreement had one (I) additional renewal
year term, and the Administration recommended that these services be competitively procured in lieu of
exercising the option to renew. In recent months, the Administration had identified additional competitors that
provide WAN services, and it was believed a more competitive agreement could be reached through the RFP
process.
The Mayor and City Commission at its January 19,201 I, meeting, authorized the Administration to issuean
RFP for Wide Area Network (WAN) services to provide connectivity between the main and remote City
facilities. RFP No. 11-10/11 was issued and sent to over 50 firms. Proposals were received from AT&T
Corporation; Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.; Cogent Communications, Inc.; Hotwire Communicatiins
Ltd., d/b/a Hotwire Business Solutions (HBS); and Sprint Solutions, Inc. Cogent's proposal wasdeemed non-
responsive by Procurement for lacking any signatures, in additiin to other several required documents.
An Evaluation Committee appointed by the City Manager reviewed, listened to presentations, participated in
Q&A with the Proposers, scored and ranked the proposals. Based on the published evaluation criteria, the
Committee unanimously ranked AT&T Corporation as the top-ranked firm, and further ranked Atlantic
Broadband Finance, LLC and the second-ranked firm.
I It is recommended that the Mayor and City Commission adopt the resolution. I
City Clerk's Office ~edsfative Tracking:
I
Gus Lopez ext 6641
i ,<
Advisory Board Recommendation: 1 NlA
Financial Information:
Source of
Funds:
3 OBPl
GG 1 PD~ \@+' I JMG I
T.tAmC&lmA!r,AAdte nA .44\\&tA&t C.--.:--- C. 2-- /I / \
31yIl-u11s. n \
Financial Impact Summgn:
/ i
I
2
Total
City Manager Department Director
Amount 1
$300,000
$300,000
AsMqt\Fity I Manager
Account
IT Telephone Communications Fund
ACC~ #550-1750-000316
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June <, 201 1 375
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ClTY
MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF FIRMS PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 11-10/11 FOR WIDE AREA NETWORK
(WAN) SERVICES TO PROVIDE COMPUTER NETWORK CONNECTIVITY
BETWEEN THE MAIN AND REMOTE ClTY FACILITIES; AUTHORIZING THE
ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WlTH THE TOP-RANKED
FIRM OF AT&T CORPORATION, AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT
BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WlTH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM,
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE WlTH THE SECOND-
RANKED FIRM OF ATLANTIC BROADBAND FINANCE, LLC; AND FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ClTY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT UPON THE COMPLETION OF SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS
BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
FUNDING
$300,000 Estimated Annual Expenditure. Funding is available from the Information
Technology Telephone Communications Fund, Account No. 550-1 750-000316
KEY INTENDED OUTCOMES SUPPORTED
Improve process through information technology
ANALYSIS
On October 11, 2006, the City Commission authorized the issuance of an RFP to solicit
proposals for WAN Services. RFP No. 05-06/07 was issued on October 17,2006, resulting
in the receipt of two (2) proposals from BellSouth Business Systems (BellSouth), and Atlantic
Broadband (Miami), LLC.
In April 2007, the Administration recommended that the Mayor and City Commission approve
a resolution, accepting the ranking of the firms and authorizing the Administration to enter
into negotiations with BellSouth Business Systems, Inc. (now AT&T Corporation), and
Atlantic Broadband (Miami), LLC.; authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
agreement(s) upon the completion of successful negotiations by the Administration.
Pursuant to the above, the City entered into an agreement with BellSouth Business Systems,
Commission Memorandum
June 1, 2011
RFP #I 1-1 0/11 WAN Services
Page 2 of 4
now known as AT&T. The agreement had one (I) additional renewal year term, and the
Administration recommended that these services be competitively procured in lieu of
exercising the option to renew. In recent months, the Administration had identified additional
competitors that provide WAN services, and it was believed a more competitive agreement
could be reached through the RFP process.
The City is seeking WAN network services that will allow the successful and reliable
transmission of information in different electronic forms from and to all of its locations. All
proposed services must be proven, secure, reliable and cost-effective. All proposers must
provide the necessary security within their network and all interfaces to external
components, customer or otherwise, that will ensure the City is protected and that the
proposed services are secure and do not create or cause liability issues or concerns.
The City is presently using WAN services provided by AT&T. The goal of this RFP was to
select a communication provider that can provide the following:
1. Ensures the continuity of the City's WAN infrastructure.
2. Provide a solution that will function as the City's WAN Communication Services and
offers enhancements to meet future communication needs.
The Mayor and City Commission at its January 19, 2011, meeting, authorized the
Administration to issue an RFP for Wide Area Network (WAN) services to provide
connectivity between the main and remote City facilities.
The City contemplates entering into an agreement with the selected proposer for an initial
term of three (3) years, with three (3) one-year renewal options, at the sole discretion of the
City.
RFP PROCESS
RFP No. 11-10/11 was issued on February4,2011, and the Procurement Division e-mailed,
as well as uploaded the RFP to BidSync.com and Bidnet, sending notifications to over 50
firms. A non-mandatory pre-proposal meeting to provide information and respond to
questions from prospective proposers was held on February 14,201 1. On the due date of
March 4, 201 1, five (5) proposals were received from the following firms:
AT&T Corporation
* Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.
* Cogent Communications, Inc.
Hotwire Communications Ltd., d/b/a Hotwire Business Solutions (HBS)
Sprint Solutions, Inc.
The proposal submitted by Cogent Communications, Inc. did not contain any signatures and
was therefore deemed non-responsive by Procurement. Cogent's proposal was also missing
several required documents.
On May 3, 201 1, the City Manager via Letter to Commission No. 106-201 1 appointed an
Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), consisting of the following individuals:
Derrick Arias
Gerald Cunningham
Assistant Director, IT Department, City of Miami
Sr. Network Administrator, IT Department
Commission Memorandum
June 1, 2011
RFP #I 1-1 0/11 WAN Services
Page 3 of 4
Gayle Durham
Georgie Echert
Ariel Sosa
Alternate
Luis Aller
Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate
Assistant Director, Finance Department
Technical Services Manager, IT Department
Sr. Network Administrator, IT Department
The Committee convened on May 18, 201 1, and was provided with an overview of the
project, information relative to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance, and the Government in
the Sunshine Law. The Committee listened to presentations and participated in question and
answer sessions with each of the four (4) responsive proposers.
The Committee was instructed to score and rank each proposal pursuant to the evaluation
criteria established in the RFP, which was as follows (total possible 100%):
Quality of Proposed Technical Proposal - Project understanding and soundness of
proposed project methodology, including but not limited to: the details and accuracy
of the proposed scope and statement of work and implementation plan, and the
impact of the proposed solution on the operations of the City, and the demonstrated
ability of the solution to enhance operational efficiency and effectiveness - 35%
Maintenance and Support - The performance, reliability, and scalability of the
proposed solution - 30%
Financial strength and references - Proposer's financial qualifications and
references to perform the work required by the RFP - 10%
Cost - The cost of recurring maintenance, support costs and other fees -
25%
The Committee discussed each of the proposals and the corresponding presentations, and
proceeded to score and rank them as follows:
The Committee unanimously ranked AT&T as the top-ranked firm. AT&T has offered the
best pricing of the four (4) responsive proposals received, however, it essentially does not
differ from the fees the City is currently paying AT&T for these services. Their proposed
solution is to keep the existing network in place, and upgrade the bandwidth at the sites
which have increased need to do so. Also, in their proposal package, AT&T offered an
alternate proposal for additional savings, if the other services currently under contract
between the City and AT&T were to be extended and bundled with this WAN project.
Commission Memorandum
June I, 2011
RFP #I 1-1 0/11 WAN Services
Page 4 of 4
Furthermore, by continuing to utilize the incumbent provider, the City would not incur
downtime for implementation of the network pursuant to this RFP.
During Atlantic Broadband's presentation, it came to light that two (2) remote sites would not
be serviced under their proposed solution. These sites would either require additional time
for Atlantic Broadband to create a connectivity solution, or would require being serviced by
another provider.
Sprint's proposed solution was sound, however it was the most costly that was submitted.
Additionally, during the presentation there was discussion that they would rely on AT&T to
connect one segment of the network with theirs.
HBS proposed a totally new fiber optic solution. While HBS over the past six (6) years has
installed over 1000 miles of fiber optic cable in South Florida, the City would be their first
municipality. The proposed implementation would take a minimum of 90 to 120 days,
according to HBS, contingent upon the timing of acquiring the required permits for building
the network.
Following is a summary of the proposed monthly fees:
CONCLUSION
AT&T
Atlantic Broadband
Sprint
HBS
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission approve the attached
resolution, which recommends the acceptance of the ranking of the firms and authorizes the
Administration to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked firm of AT&T Corporation and,
should the Administration not be able negotiate an agreement with the top-ranked firm,
authorize the Administration to negotiate with the second-ranked firm of Atlantic Broadband
Finance, LLC.; and further authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement
upon the completion of successful negotiations by the Administration.
T:\AGENDA\2011\6-01-1 I\WAN Services Commission Memo.doc
Monthly Recurring Costs For All City
Locations Requiring WAN Services
$16,777.87
$29,000.00
$84,109.00
$29,167.00
Comments
Existing network; No
implementation time
- 200 days for
implementation; 2 sites
require further analysis
Unclear timeline; 1 segment
would rely on AT&T
connection
All new fiber optic; -90-120
days for implementation
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF FIRMS PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 11-10/11 FOR WIDE AREA
NETWORK (WAN) SERVICES TO PROVIDE COMPUTER NETWORK
CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN THE MAIN AND REMOTE ClTY FACILITIES;
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS
WlTH THE TOP-RANKED FlRM OF AT&T CORPORATION, AND SHOULD THE
ADMINISTRATION NOT BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WlTH
THE TOP-RANKED FIRM, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
NEGOTIATE WlTH THE SECOND-RANKED FlRM OF ATLANTIC BROADBAND
FINANCE, LLC; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ClTY
CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT UPON THE COMPLETION OF
SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
WHEREAS, the City is seeking WAN network services that will allow the
successful and reliable transmission of information in different electronic forms from and to
all of its locations; and
WHEREAS, the City currently has an Agreement with BellSouth Business
Systems, now known as AT&T, for these services, with one (1) additional renewal year
term; and
WHEREAS, the Administration recommended that these services be competitively
procured through an RFP process in lieu of exercising the option to renew the Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission at its January 19, 2011, meeting,
authorized the Administration to issue an RFP for WAN services to provide connectivity
between the main and remote City facilities; and
WHEREAS, on February 4,201 1, RFP No. 1 1-1 011 1 was issued, and notices sent
to over 50 firms, which resulted in the receipt of proposals from AT&T Corporation; Atlantic
Broadband Finance, LLC.; Cogent Communications, Inc.; Hotwire Communications Ltd.,
d/b/a Hotwire Business Solutions (HBS); and Sprint Solutions, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the proposal submitted by Cogent Communications was deemed non-
responsive by Procurement for lacking any signatures, in addition to other several required
documents; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 201 1, the City Manager via Letter to Commission No. 106-
201 1 appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), consisting of the following
individuals:
Derrick Arias, Assistant Director, IT Department, City of Miami;
Gerald Cunningham, Sr. Network Administrator, IT Department;
Gayle Durham, Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate;
Georgie Echert, Assistant Director, Finance Department;
Ariel Sosa, Technical Services Manager, IT Department;
Alternate
Luis Aller, Sr. Network Administrator, IT Department; and
WHEREAS, the Committee convened on May 18,201 1, and was provided with an
overview of the project, information relative to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance, the
Government in the Sunshine Law, listened to presentations and participated in a question
and answer session with each of the four (4) responsive proposers, and discussed and
evaluated the proposals based on the evaluation criteria as outlined in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the Committee unanimously ranked AT&T Corporation as the top-
ranked firm, and further ranked Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC. as the second-ranked
firm; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager concurs with the Committee's recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE ClTY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby accept the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the
ranking of proposals pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 11 -1 011 1, for Wide
Area Network (WAN) Services to Provide Computer Network Connectivity Between the
Main and Remote City Facilities; authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations
with the top-ranked firm of AT&T Corporation; and should the Administration not be able to
negotiate with the top-ranked firm, authorize the Administration to negotiate with the
second-ranked firm, Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.; further authorizing the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute an agreement upon conclusion of successful negotiations by the
Administration.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,201 1
MAYOR
Matti Herrera Bower
ATTEST:
ClTY CLERK
Robert Parcher
T:\AGENDA\2011\6-01-1 I\WAN Services Reso.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
I A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Approving Pursuant To Section 2-367 (d) Of The Miami I
Beach City Code, The sole source Upgrade; Software Licenses And Support Services; And Annual
Maintenance From Laserfiche Solutions Group.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Improve processes through information technology
Issue: I Shall the Commission Adopt the Resolution? I
Item SummarylRecommendation: I The City currently uses the Laserfiche Records Management System. Laserfiche RMS has been provided 1
and supported by R&S lntegrated Products and Services, Inc (R&S). City departments have been utilizing
the product for document imaging over the past ten (1 0) years. On February 21,201 1, the City received a
letter from Laserfiche advising that R&S lntegrated Products and Services, Inc. is no longer an authorized
representative of Laserfiche Software products and support.
Laserfiche Solutions Group is dedicated to assuring the City that they can fulfill all of our Laserfiche
document imaging and electronic content management software and support needs, and has provided a
proposal to the City for the upgrade to the Laserfiche Rio System solution which includes some features
such as unlimited Laserfiche repositories to allow other City departments to have their own image
repository, advanced audit trails, Laserfiche WebLink unlimited access Public Portal for use by City staff,
residents and visitors to access our web Laserfiche documents, and the Laserfiche Import Agent which
allows integration with other City systems.
Laserfiche has proposed a significantly more valuable solution at a lesser price than had been previously
approved. The proposal also includes a full-price trade-in discount of more than $88,000.
The proposed solution at a cost of $28,960 includes the implementation of the Planning Department
Laserfiche Repositories.
The Laserfiche Software Assurance Plan (LSAP) provides the coverage necessary to maintain the
Laserfiche solution through inevitable technological changes. The cost for annual LSAP maintenance will
be approximately $20,153.33.
The Laserfiche system is a proprietary software application which Laserfiche Solutions Group maintains
complete and singular control over the source code, licensing and maintenance agreements. As a result,
Laserfiche is the only vendor or manufacturer that can provide described level of integration with
Laserfiche.
I The Administration recommends adopting the resolution, 1
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I 1 NlA
Financial Information:
I Source of I Amount I Account I Approved I
Funds:
El-
OBPl
1
2
3
4
Total
$15,874.78
$1 7,570.00
$1,856.00
$13,812.64
$49,113.42
IT Annual Operating Maint Acct #550.0630.000325.
IT and Communications Acct #552.6889.000674
IT Professional Services Acct #550.0630.000312
General Fund Acct #011.0520.000343
. -
Cigr of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Bench, Florida 33 139, w.ruriarnibeachR.goir
COMMISSION MEMOMNDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June 1, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING A SOLE SOURCE
PROCUREMENT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-367 (d) OF THE MIAMI
BEACH ClTY CODE, FROM LASERFICHE SOLUTIONS GROUP, THE
SOLE SOURCE MANUFACTURER OF LASERFICHE SOFTWARE AND
PROVIDER OF LASERFICHE SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE, FOR AN
UPGRADE FROM THE CITY'S LASERFICHE RECORDS MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM (RMS), TO THE LASERFICHE RIO SYSTEM, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$12,160.09; VIP ADVANCED SUPPORT SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$16,800; AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,153.33.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution.
AMOUNT AND FUNDING
$15,874.78 Contract Maintenance Communications Fund Account
#550-0630-000325
$1 7,570.00 Machinery and Equipment Information1 Communications Tech. Fund
Account # 552-6889-000674
$ 1,856.00 Professional Services Communications Fund Account # 550-0630-000312
$13.812.64 General Fund, Other Operating Expenditures Account # 01 1-0520-000343
$49,113.42
BACKGROUND
The City of Miami Beach currently uses the Laserfiche Records Management System
(RMS). The Laserfiche RMS is provided and supported by R&S lntegrated Products and
Services, Inc (R&S). City departments have been utilizing the product for document
imaging over the past ten (10) years, and all of the City Clerk's Archive documents can
be accessed online, which provides our constituents accessibility and transparency of
City records.
The Laserfiche RMS has been provided and supported by R&S lntegrated Products and
Services, Inc (R&S). However, on February 21, 201 1, the City received a letter from
Laserfiche advising that R&S lntegrated Products and Services, Inc. is no longer an
authorized representative of Laserfiche Software products and support. Despite this
change, Laserfiche is dedicated to assuring the City that they can fulfill all of its
June 1,201 1
Commission Memorandum
Laserfiche Rio Sole Source
Laserfiche document imaging and electronic content management software and support
needs. They have provided a proposal to the City for the upgrade to the Laserfiche Rio
System solution which includes some features such as unlimited Laserfiche repositories
to allow other City departments to have their own image repository, advanced audit
trails, Laserfiche WebLink unlimited access Public Portal for use by City staff, residents
and visitors to access our web Laserfiche documents, and the Laserfiche lmport Agent
which allows integration with other City systems,
ANALYSIS
Laserfiche is the software manufacturer, and will provide the City direct Laserfiche
support. In addition, they will be able to provide the integration of other City systems
using Laserfiche Import Agent technologies.
The Laserfiche system is a proprietary software application which Laserfiche Solutions
Group maintains complete and singular control over the source code, licensing and
maintenance agreements. As a result, Laserfiche is the only vendor or manufacturer
that can provide described level of integration with Laserfiche (See attached letter),
Laserfiche has proposed a significantly more valuable solution at a lesser price than had
been previously approved. The proposal also includes a full-price trade-in discount of
more than $88,000.
The proposed solution at a cost of $28,960 includes the implementation of the Planning
Department Laserfiche Repositories; Upgrade to the Laserfiche Rio System which
consists of the following:
50 Named Rio Users
Laserfiche Rio License Manager Laserfiche Email & Snapshot for all Rio Users
Unlimited Laserfiche Server deployment
Unlimited Laserfiche Repositories
Laserfiche Advanced Audit Trail
Unlimited WebAccess Server deployment
Laserfiche WorMlow for all Rio Users
0 Laserfiche WebLink unlimited access Public Portal (dual processor support)
Laserfiche lmport Agent
Since we are obtaining services direct from the manufactures, their services include the
Laserfiche Software Assurance Plan.
The Laserfiche Software Assurance Plan (LSAP) provides the coverage necessary to
maintain the Laserfiche solution through inevitable technological changes.
100% Credit for Software Upgrades
Laserfiche systems undergo continual customer-driven enhancements, and
Laserfiche engineers leverage advancements in hardware and software to best
serve customer needs. Periodic new releases and updates are necessary to deliver
these improvements to customers. LSAP helps subscribers preserve existing
investments by providing 100% credit for software upgrades.
June 1,201 1
Commission Memorandum
Laserfiche Rio Sole Source
LSAP subscribers also receive free 24-hour FTP access to new Laserfiche releases
as well as updated drivers. Laserfiche routinely issues two to four new releases and
updates per year. Running the most current version of Laserfiche guarantees the
best possible system performance.
Information direct from the manufacturer
Reliable, factory-direct information is the best way to stay informed of developments
that affect your document imaging and management solution. LSAP subscribers
receive regular newsletters and technical bulletins to keep users and administrators
informed, including technical tips and stories about how others get the most out of
their systems.
The Laserfiche User and Support sites, available exclusively to LSAP subscribers,
also contain advanced technical information, training videos and a user community
forum where users share ideas with thousands of other Laserfiche customers around
the world.
The cost for annual LSAP maintenance will be approximately $20,153.33.
Laserfiche is the software manufacturer that will provide the most efficient development
and support of software maintenance for these products. Future growth and new City
projects would require additional technologies and thus raising the annual software
maintenance costs.
Other vendor products and solutions would cost $100,000 for software and $10,000 to
$20,000 for services (not considering additional costs for travel and per diem).
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission adopt the
attached resolution, authorizing a sole source procurement, pursuant to Section 2-367
(d) of the Miami Beach City Code, from Laserfiche Solutions Group, the sole source
manufacturer of Laserfiche software and provider of Laserfiche software maintenance,
for an upgrade to the City's Laserfiche Records Management System (RMS), to the
Laserfiche Rio System, in the amount of $12,160.09; VIP Advanced Support Services, in
the amount of $16.800; and annual maintenance, in the amount of $20,153.33.
T:\AGENDA\2011\6-01-1 l\Laserfiche Rio Sole Source Memo.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY
OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING A SOLE SOURCE
PROCUREMENT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-367 (d) OF THE MlAMl
BEACH ClTY CODE, FROM LASERFICHE SOLUTIONS GROUP, THE
SOLE SOURCE MANUFACTURER OF LASERFICHE SOFTWARE AND
PROVIDER OF LASERFICHE SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE, FOR AN
UPGRADE FROM THE CITY'S LASERFICHE RECORDS MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM (RMS), TO THE LASERFICHE RIO SYSTEM, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$12,160.09; VIP ADVANCED SUPPORT SERVICES, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$16,800; AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,153.33.
WHEREAS, the City currently uses the Laserfiche Records Management
System (RMS), which is provided and supported by R&S lntegrated Products and
Services, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, on February 21, 201 1, the City received a letter from Laserfiche
advising that R&S lntegrated Products and Services, Inc. is no longer an authorized
representative of Laserfiche Software products and support; and
WHEREAS, Laserfiche Solutions Group is dedicated to assuring the City that
it can fulfill the City's Laserfiche document imaging and electronic content management
software and support needs; and
WHEREAS, Laserfiche Solutions Group has provided a proposal to the City for
the upgrade to the Laserfiche Rio System solution; and
WHEREAS, the Laserfiche system is a proprietary software application which
Laserfiche Solutions Group maintains complete and singular control over the source
code, licensing, and maintenance agreements, and is the only vendor or manufacturer
that can provide the described level of integration with Laserfiche; and
WHEREAS, as provided pursuant to Section 2-367(d) of the Miami Beach City
Code, the Administration has determined that Laserfiche Solutions Group meets the
requirements as the sole source manufacturer and provider of the upgrades, software
licenses and support services, and annual maintenance.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY
COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH FLORIDA, that the Mayor and the City
Commission hereby authorize a sole source procurement, pursuant to Section 2-367 (d)
of the Miami Beach City Code, from Laserfiche Solutions Group, the sole source
manufacturer of Laserfiche software and provider of Laserfiche software maintenance,
for an upgrade from the City's Laserfiche Records Management System (RMS), to the
Laserfiche Rio System, in the amount of $12,160.09; VIP Advanced Support Services, in
the amount of $16,800; and annual maintenance, in the amount of $20,153.33.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,201 1
ATTEST:
ClTY CLERK
Robert Parcher
T:\AGENDA\2011\6-01-1 ?\Laserfiche Rio Sole Source Reso.doc
MAYOR
Matti Herrera B~WRROVED AS TO -.
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOH EXECUTION
slzalr'
Date
3545 Long Beach BLvd., Long Beach, CA 90807
(5621 988-1688 www.1aserfiche.com
May 5,2011
Gladys Gonzalez, IT Director
City of Miami Beach
1755 Meridian Ave, 4th Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Re: Laserfiche Support and Software Maintenance
Dear Ms. Gonzalez;
With the termination of your reseller's relationship with Laserfiche I am writing to confirm our
on-going support for the City of Miami Beach directly through the Laserfiche technical support
department.
Although the Laserfiche system adheres to industry standards, it is, at its core, a proprietary
software application of which we maintain complete and singular control over the source code,
licensing, and maintenance agreements.
In order to maintain continuity of service, and to ensure the highest certainty of availability of
the system supporting the City's information technology architecture, we invite you to work
directly with Laserfiche in renewing your software maintenance and support subscription.
w
Chuck Barrick Solutions Manager
Phone: 1.562.988.1688 x 190
E-mail: cbarrick@laserfiche.com
\iVebsite: www.laserfiche.com
Laserfiche
Run Smarter'"
2011 - 2012 Laserfiche Rio Upgrade
Gladys Gonzalez
IT Director
City of Miami Beach
1755 Meridian Ave, 4th Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
3545 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90807
tel: 562-988-1688 fax: 562-988-1886
www.laserfiche.com
LSAP Exp: 08/28/2011
Acct#: 5156
Rio system includes:
50 Named Rio Users
Laserfiche Rio License Manager
Laserfiche Email & Snapshot for all Rio Users
Unlimited Laserfiche Server deployment
Unlimited Laserfiche Repositories
Laserfiche Advanced Audit Trail
Unlimited WebAccess Server deployment
Laserfiche Workflow for all Rio Users
Laserfiche WebLink unlimited access Public Portal (dual processor support)
Laserfiche Import Agent
Laserfiche Plus Plug-in (Qty. 2)
With this order, the renewal date for annual LSAP will change to 1 year from date of order.
Annual LSAP maintenance cost will be approx. $20,153.33
Total
$100,766.67
$20,153.33
($80,850.58)
($7,756.00)
$16,800.00
$49,113.42
N.B. Laserfiche offers electronic delivery for all software licenses and maintenance purchases
which allows the transaction to be exempt from sales tax. Please indicate whether or not you
would like to take advantage of this capability with your order.
PIN
Rio
Rio LSAP
Credit
Credit
VIP
Please remit purchase order or billing approval to:
Chuck Barrick (x190)
cbarrick@laserfiche.com
Qty
1
1
1
1
1
Description
Laserfiche Rio - 50 Users w/ Dual CPU Public Portal
*Includes Import Agent and Qty 2 Plus Publishing
Laserfiche Rio LSAP - Annual Maintenance
United licensing trade-in credit
United LSAP credit (as of 03/22/2011)
VIP advanced support services (12 days / 96 Hours)
For billing inquiries please contact:
Ellen Castillo, (x532)
ecastiIlo@laserfiche.com
Price
$100,766.67
$20,153.33
($80,850.58)
($7,756.00)
$16,800.00
Total
Gladys Gonzalez
IT Director
City of Miami Beach
1755 Meridian Ave, 4th Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
3545 Long Beach BLvd., Long Beach, CA 90807
tel: 562-988-1688 fax: 562-988-1886
www.laserfiche.com
LSAP Exp: 08/28/2011
Am#: 5156
Current Licensed Product:
PIN
97830
97840
97871
97830A
SA3 I Laserfiche Standard Server Additional Database 1 4 I
F
PM
PS
R
S30
Product Name
WebLink
LF Plus Plug-In
LF Advanced Audit-Trail Module
WebLink Additional Database
Quantity
1
2
1
2
Laserfiche Full User
LF E-mail Plug-In per User
LF Snapshot per User
Laserfiche Read-only User
Laserfiche Standard Server
18
34
18
93
1
3545 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90807
tel: 562-988-1688 fax: 562-988-1886
www.laserfiche.com
Laserfiche Software Assurance Plan
The Laserfiche Software Assurance Plan (LSAP) provides the coverage necessary to
maintain your Laserfiche solution in the face of the technological changes that are
an inevitable part of doing business.
100% Credit for Software Upgrades
Laserfiche systems undergo continual customer-driven enhancements, and
Laserfiche engineers leverage advancements in hardware and software to
best serve customer needs. Periodic new releases and updates are
necessary to deliver these improvements to customers. LSAP helps
subscribers preserve existing investments by providing 100% credit for
software upgrades.
LSAP subscribers also receive free 24-hour FTP access to new Laserfiche
releases as well as updated drivers. Laserfiche routinely issues two to four
new releases and updates per year. Running the most current version of
Laserfiche guarantees the best possible system performance.
Information Direct from the Manufacturer
Reliable, factory-direct information is the best way to stay informed of
developments that affect your document imaging and management
solution. LSAP subscribers receive regular newsletters and technical
bulletins to keep users and administrators informed, including technical tips
and stories about how others get the most out of their systems.
The Laserfiche User and Support sites, available exclusively to LSAP
subscribers, also contain advanced technical information, training videos
and a user community forum where users share ideas with thousands of
other Laserfiche customers around the world.
3515 Long Beach Blvd., Long Beach, CA 90807
tel: 562-988-1688 fax: 562-988-1886
www.laserfiche.com
VIP Services
To create the least amount of burden on IT staff, and optimize the benefits of your
Laserfiche software we recommend our VIP support package. Our VIP Services
program offers a dedicated support engineer, and remote access support among
other services. The Laserfiche Professional Services Group maintains a select group
of direct customers in order to keep close ties with users in various industries
through whom we solicit feedback that is incorporated in the Laserfiche
development roadmap. Additionally, LSG provides the following services as part of
our VIP program:
Dedicated Support Engineer -A LSG Support Engineer will serve as your
primary contact for Laserfiche support through a direct telephone line.
Remote Access Support -Your dedicated LSG Support Engineer can dial
into your Laserfiche server remotely to start the troubleshooting
process in advance of any on-site work needed. Support hours can be
used for upgrade installation, problem solving, and consulting.
Preventative Maintenance -to optimize system functions. As part of
these "checkups", LSG can install new releases (with current LSAP) and
new equipment; provide training on new features, fix operator errors
and make recommendations on system upgrades.
Discounted Services - Receive discounts on LSG Services such as
integration with existing systems, workflow management consulting or
converting from other imaging systems.
Discounted Back-file Conversion - Receive discounts on back-file
conversion from microfiche, microfilm, and paper documents ranging in
size from business cards to E-size drawings.
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title: ~ ---.
1 ARESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORID4 I
WANING, BY 517th~ VOTE, THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENT, FINDING SUCH WANER
TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE cm, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
PURCHASE OF TEN (10) APPLE iPADs (INCLUDING ASECURITY SERVER) FOR THE INDIVIDUAL
CITY COMMISSIONERS, CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK, AND CITY ATTORNEY, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$16,000, THAT WILL ALLOW THE CITY COMMISSIONERS TO VIEW AND ANNOTATE THE CITY
COMMISSION AGENDA
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Improve process through Information Technology. I
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
Issue: I Shall the Mayor and the City Commission Accept The Resolution? I
ltem SummarylRecommendation:
I I
In an effort to enhance operational efficiencies while maintaining focus on green initiatives, the City of
Miami Beach Commission has been testing the use of iPad, the electronic tablet created by Apple to
electronically review meeting agenda packets from any location without the need for a hardcopy. The
November 17, 2010 Commission Agenda, ltem R9D referred this item to the Finance and Citywide
Project Committee.
At the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee Meeting of Thursday, January 27, 201 1 a discussion
took place regarding The Shift To iPad From Printed Agenda. The Committee agreed to have
Commissioners test the iPad during the next 30 days and bring back to City Commission if testing was
successful. Commissioners Jorge Exposito, Deede Weithorn, Ed Tobin and Jerry Libbin have
successfully tested the use of the lPad to replace large binders filled with hundreds of pages of
supporting materials which are necessary for city commission agenda items.
The lPad was discussed at the May 20th, 2011, Commission Retreat and the Administration was
instructed to move forward with the purchase. The utilization of the iPad significantly reduces the amount
of paper used at City Hall while simultaneously saving tax dollars. An application designed for City
Commission agendas allows users to download bookmark agenda and highlight and write notes on
individual documents. Also, they will have access to their email and calendars as well.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I I
Financial Information:
Source of Funds: Amount Account Approved
I $16,000 Information Technology Fund
552 Contingency account
I I I
OBPl I Total I $16,000 I I
1 Financial Impact ~udmary:
I I I I - N
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
I
AGENDA ITEM c 7F
6-/-I/
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June 1,201 1
SUBJECT A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, WAIVING, BY 517th~ VOTE, THE
COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENT, FINDING SUCH WAIVER TO BE
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY, AND APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TEN (10) APPLE iPADs (INCLUDING
A SECURITY SERVER) FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ClTY COMMISSIONERS,
ClTY MANAGER, ClTY CLERK, AND ClTY ATTORNEY, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $16,000, THAT WILL ALLOW THE ClTY COMMISSIONERS TO VIEW
AND ANNOTATE THE ClTY COMMISSION AGENDA.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
FUNDING
Information Technology Fund 552 Contingency account: $16,000.00
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Improve process through Information Technology.
ANALYSIS
In an effort to enhance operational efficiencies while maintaining focus on green initiatives, the
City of Miami Beach Commission has been testing the use of IPad, the electronic tablet
created by Apple to electronically review meeting agenda packets from any location without
the need for a hardcopy. The November 17, 2010 Commission Agenda, Item R9D referred
this item to the Finance and Citywide Project Committee.
At the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee Meeting of Thursday, January 27, 2011 a
discussion took place regarding "The Shift to lPad from Printed Agenda". The Committee
agreed to have Commissioners test the lPad during the next 30 days and come back to City
Commission if testing was successful. Commissioners Jorge Exposito, Deede Weithom, Ed
Tobin and Jerry Libbin have successfully tested the use of the lPad to replace large binders
filled with hundreds of pages of supporting materials which are necessary for city commission
Commission Memorandum - Purchase of Apple lPads
February 9, 201 1
Page 2
agenda items.
The lPad was discussed at the May 20th, 201 1, Commission Retreat and the Administration
was instructed to move forward with the purchase. The utilization of the lPad significantly
reduces the amount of paper used at City Hall while simultaneously saving tax dollars. An
application designed for City Commission agendas allows users to download a bookmarked
agenda and highlight and write notes on individual documents. Additionally, they will have
access to their email and calendars as well.
The initial investment for the lPad and Security Server is $16,000 (see breakdown below).
When compared to the total estimated annual cost of printed agenda packages of
approximately $4,980, switching to the lPad device has a 3.2 year payback period of the
Capital investment.
Pad + Applications $988 (6468)
+Accessories
t 0 Pads (Commission,
Legal, City Clerk, CWf)
TOTAL $9,880
Security Server far !pad $6, I 20
(25 Users Starter Pack)
ToPaB Cosls (GMB IPad $3 6,000
The annual operational costs (see breakdown below) of the digital alternative has a savings of
$306 compared to the estimated annual costs of printed agenda packets totaling $4,980.
?;:< y.w. .:/<:..:>>.. ..-.-. >-. ..". :.:.:<.:.:.:. ::.:.>:.:.:.:. ,......,......,.: .:<.~.:,:.:.>:.:> , , ,>.
<.:.;*: y, ?+ ;;$;~@&,~5;(~~yf+~$<j;$c3,c~gj#$g@~@,gj;~~gq@gygp
Eg..<:?2::,< .,.<< ;..*,: ..,......, :.~.;!?>....?x*>>?.... ..... <.<:4,><.:.2..".:" .".....<. +..* ,, ,<, .,z:<.. " ..:, , .. .. . c.'? %+..<L94,, 4?
ATT 3G Data Pfans $360
-I0 IPads $3,599
Server Software $3,075
Maintennace
Total Yr CosIlS W,874
One of the City Commission's top priorities is environmental sustainability. In addition to
providing convenience and efficiency, the benefits of electronic agendas on lPad are as
follows:
1. Eliminate paper, printing, and printer maintenance costs associated with printed
agenda packets.
2. Be GREEN by reducing paper usage and environmental impact.
3. Dramatically reduce staff time required to organize and bind printed packets by
creating PDF packets.
4. Eliminate time and costs to physically distribute packets.
5. Instant, remote access to agendas via downloadable PDF.
6. Mark-up, search, and navigate agendas quickly and easily.
7. Access to previous agenda packets to compare notes.
Commission Memorandum - Purchase of Apple lPads
February 9, 201 1
Page 3
8. New tablet technology costs less, weighs less, and battery lasts up to 5 times longer
than a laptop PC.
9. Commissioners lPads can access email, calendar, contacts, and web browsing
functionality.
Other governmental entities throughout Florida have implemented the new technology
including Orrnand Beach, Palm Coast and Sarasota County.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida herby waives, by 517th~ vote, the competitive bidding requirement, finding
such waiver to be in the best interest of the City, and approves and authorizes the purchase of
ten (10) Apple iPads including security server for the individual City Commissioners, the City
Manger, City Clerk, and City Attorney, in the amount of $16,000, that will allow the City
Commissioners,i,o view and annotate the City Commission agenda.
JMGIPWIGG
for Cornrn Agenda rnem rev2.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE
ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, WAIVING, BY 517th~ VOTE, THE
COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENT, FINDING SUCH WAIVER TO
BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY, AND APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TEN (10) APPLE iPADs
(INCLUDING A SECURITY SERVER) FOR THE INDIVIDUAL ClTY
COMMISSIONERS, CITY MANAGER, CITY CLERK, AND ClTY
ATTORNEY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,000, THAT WILL ALLOW THE
CITY COMMISSIONERS TO VIEW AND ANNOTATE THE ClTY
COMMISSION AGENDA.
WHEREAS, in an effort to enhance operational efficiencies while maintaining focus
on green initiatives, the City has been testing the use of the iPad, the electronic tablet
created by Apple, to electronically review City Commission Meeting agenda packets from
any location, without the need for a hard copy; and
WHEREAS, at the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee Meeting of January
27, 201 1, a discussion took place regarding the shift to iPad from printed agenda; and
WHEREAS, the Committee recommended that the individual City Commissioners
test the iPad during the next thirty (30) days, and bring back the item to the City
Commission, if testing was successful; and
WHEREAS, the lPad was discussed at the May 20th, 201 1, Commission Retreat
and the Administration was instructed to move forward with the purchase; and
WHEREAS, the utilization of the iPad significantly reduces the amount of paper
used at City Hall.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission herby waive, by 517th~ vote, the competitive bidding requirement, finding such
waiver to be in the best interest of the City, and approve and authorize the purchase of ten
(10) Apple iPads (including security server) for the individual City Commissioners, the City
Manger, City Clerk, and City Attorney, in the amount of $16,000, that will allow the City
Commissioners to view and annotate the City Commission agenda.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK MAYOR
T:\AGENDA\2011\2-09-1 I\RFP 13-09-10 -Enterprise System - RESO.doc
WPRovEDAStO
FORM 8r LANGUAGE
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution retroactively approving and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement
with ePark Systems, Inc., the sole source distributor of the In Vehicle Parking Meter (IVPM) or iPark, in an
amount not to exceed $200,000, annually, (of which the actual cost to the City is less than $25,000, with
the remaining balance reimbursed to the City).
Key Intended Outcome Supported: I Improve processes through information technology. I
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
77% of residents rated availability of parking across Miami Beach as too little or much too little.
Issue:
Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the Resolution?
On September 9,2008, the City entered into an agreement with ePark Systems, Inc. for the purchase of
IVPM's, or the iPark device, and prepaid parking reloads, in an amount not to exceed $25,000.
The September 9,2008 agreement was for a term of two (2) years, and expired on September 8,2010.
The Administration is requesting retroactive approval of a new Agreement, with a commencement date of
September 9,201 0, an initial term of two (2) years, and a two (2) year renewal option at the City's sole and
absolute discretion.
All iPark expenses, including the units and their reloads, are pass-through expenses to the customer, with
the exception of the convenience fee (or client fees) for the online and IVR transactions, which are borne
by the City and are under $25,000.
However, since the City is technically purchasing these items, although these are pass-through expenses,
a Purchase Order (PO) for the total amount paid to the vendor (whether reimbursed to the City or not)
must be issued and requires an approval of the Mayor and Commission.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
N/A
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Financial Information:
I Saul Frances, Parking Department
Source of
Funds:
C? OBPl
AGENDA ITEM
DATE 6-/-I/
Financial Impact Summary:
I
Total :
Amount
200,000.00
200,000.00
Account
Parking Operations Fund 480
MlAMl BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and M
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June I, 20 1 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, RETROACTIVELY APPROVING
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT WITH ePARK SYSTEMS, INC., THE SOLE SOURCE
DISTRIBUTOR OF THE IN-VEHICLE PARKING METERS (IVPMs) or
IPARK DEVICES, FOR THE PURCHASE OF IVPMs AND PREPAID
PARKING RELOADS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000
ANNUALLY (OF WHICH THE ACTUAL COST TO THE CITY IS LESS
THAN $25,000, WITH THE REMAINING BALANCE REIMBURSED TO
THE CITY).
Adopt the Resolution.
The in-vehicle parking meter (IVPM) is a lightweight, credit card sized personal
parking meter that can be used for the payment of parking fees in areas with
existing parking meters or pay and display machines. This device allows the user to
initially purchase and subsequently reload a value of pre-paid parking time either via
telephone or online with a credit card or at the City's Parking Department.
On September 9, 2008, the City entered into an agreement with ePark Systems,
Inc. for the purchase of IVPM's, or the iPark device, and prepaid parking reloads, in
an amount not to exceed $25,000.
On September 17, 2008, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2008-3616, the Mayor and
Commission approved an amendment to the City's Parking Rate Ordinance which
adjusted several rates, including parking meter rates, in the South Beach Parking
Zone from $1.00 per hour, to $1.25 per hour. The implementation of the new
parking meter rate was conditioned upon the implementation of an in-car meter
June I, 201 I
Commission Memorandum - ePark Systems
Page 2 of 3
program, which would allow residents to receive a 20% discount for metered parking
in this Zone; therefore, instead of the rate at the time of $1.25 per hour, residents
could continue to pay the $1 .OO per hour rate.
On January 28,2009, pursuant to Resolution No. 2009-26983, the City Commission
approved the sole source purchase of IVPM's and prepaid parking reloads, in an
amount not to exceed $100,000, under the September 9,2008 agreement.
ANALYSIS
Each iPark cost $20 and this cost is passed on to the user with no up charge from
the City. Reloads for prepaid parking are available in $25 and $50 values.
The September 9,2008 agreement was for a term of two (2) years, and expired on
September 8,2010. The Administration is requesting retroactive approval of a new
Agreement, with a commencement date of September 9,2010; an initial term of two
(2) years, and a two (2) year renewal option, at the City's sole and absolute
discretion.
Since its inception various upgrades have been made to the iPark program
including the ability to purchase prepaid parking via the web and over the phone via
an IVR system. Additionally, IVPMs are available at Publix supermarkets and select
Walgreens.
The new agreement (like the prior agreement) allows for the introduction of the new
iPark device (EOS), at a cost of $25, and will allow current users to upgrade their
device and receive a credit of the full amount paid for the I .O ($20.00) towards the
purchase of the new device.
All other terms of the new agreement remain the same, with the exception of an
increase in the cost of the $50 reload fee from $3.25, to $3.50 per reload, and an
increase in the convenience fee from 5% to 6%.
Value Load Amount Transaction Fee Convenience Fee 6%
$25.00 $2.00 $1.50
All iPark expenses, including the units and their reloads, are pass-through expenses
to the customer, with the exception of the convenience fee (or client fees) for the
online and IVR transactions, which are borne by the City and are under $25,000.
However, since the City is technically purchasing these items, although these are
pass-through expenses, a Purchase Order (PO) for the total amount paid to the
vendor (whether reimbursed to the City or not) must be issued and requires an
approval of the Mayor and Commission.
June I, 201 1
Commission Memorandum - ePark Systems
Page 3 of 3
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of
Miami Beach, Florida, retroactively approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute an Agreement with ePark Systems, Inc., the sole source distributor of the
In-Vehicle Parking Meters (IVPMs) or iPark devices, for the purchase of IVPMs and
prepaid parking reloads, in an amount not to exceed $200,000 annually (of which
the actual cost to the city is less than $25,000, with the remaining balance
reimbursed to the city).
a
SYSTEMS
3417 NW Bridge Road - Woodland, WA - 98674-3003
360-841-8439
Dear Mr. Saul Frances,
ePark Systems, Inc. is the sole designer, developer, manufacturer, and seller of the iPark Device.
Currently there are three versions of the device - the 1.0 device currently in use in the City of
Miami Beach, the 2.0 device available in other cities, and the soon to be introduced product
currently referred to as EOS. ePark Systems, Inc. is also the sole provider of all services related
to the iPark Device via our proprietary Parknet+ System.
Sincerely,
Jesse W lvers
CFO ePark Systems
eMail: jesse@eParkSystems.com
Phone: 760-271-9755
www.eparksystems.com
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
RETROACTIVELY APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
WlTH ePARK SYSTEMS, INC., THE SOLE SOURCE
DISTRIBUTOR OF THE IN-VEHICLE PARKING METERS
(IVPMs) or IPARK DEVICES, FOR THE PURCHASE OF
IVPMs AND PREPAID PARKING RELOADS, IN AN AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $200,000 ANNUALLY (OF WHICH THE
ACTUAL COST TO THE CITY IS LESS THAN $25,000, WlTH
THE REMAINING BALANCE REIMBURSED TO THE CITY).
WHEREAS, the in-vehicle parking meter (IVPM) is a lightweight, credit card sized
personal parking meter that can be used for the payment of parking fees in areas with
existing parking meters or pay and display machines; and
WHEREAS, on September 9,2008, the City entered into an agreement with ePark
Systems, Inc. for the purchase of IVPM1s1 or the iPark device, and prepaid parking reloads,
in an amount not to exceed $25,000; and
WHEREAS, on September 17, 2008, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2008-3616, the
Mayor and Commission approved an amendment to the City's Parking Rate Ordinance
which adjusted several rates, including parking meter rates, in the South Beach Parking
Zone from $1 .OO per hour, to $1.25 per hour; and
WHEREAS, the implementation of the new parking meter rate was conditioned
upon the implementation of an in-car meter program, which would allow residents to
receive a 20% discount for metered parking in this Zone; therefore, instead of the rate at
the time of $1.25 per hour, residents could continue to pay the $1 .OO per hour rate; and
WHEREAS, on January 28,2009, pursuant to Resolution No. 2009-26983, the City
Commission approved the sole source purchase of IVPM's and prepaid parking reloads, in
an amount not to exceed $1 00,000, under the September 9,2008 agreement; and
WHEREAS, the September 9,2008 agreement was for a term of two (2) years, and
expired on September 8, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Administration is requesting retroactive approval of a new
Agreement, with a commencement date of September 9, 2010; an initial term of two (2)
years, and a two (2) year renewal option, at the City's sole and absolute discretion; and
WHEREAS, the new agreement (like the prior agreement) allows for the introduction
of the new iPark device (EOS), at a cost of $25, and will allow current users to upgrade
their device and receive a credit of the full amount paid for the 1.0 ($20.00) towards the
purchase of the new device; and
WHEREAS, all other terms of the new agreement remain the same, with the
exception of an increase in the cost of the $50 reload fee from $3.25, to $3.50 per reload,
and an increase in the convenience fee from 5% to 6%; and
WHEREAS, all iPark expenses, including the units and their reloads, are pass-
through expenses to the customer, with the exception of the convenience fee (or client
fees) for the online and IVR transactions, which are borne by the City and are under
$25,000.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY
COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby retroactively approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute an Agreement with ePark Systems, Inc., the sole source distributor of the IVPM or
iPark, for the purchase of the IVPM devices and prepaid parking reloads, in an amount not
to exceed $200,000 annually (of which the actual cost to the City is less than $25,000, with
the remaining balance reimbursed to the City).
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 201 1
MAYOR
Matti Herrera Bower
ATTEST:
ClTY CLERK
Robert Parcher
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& Fat? EXECUTION
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH AND ePARK SYSTEMS, INC.
FOR THE PURCHASE OF IN-VEHICLE PARKING METERS (IVPM'S) FOR THE
ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH PARKING SYSTEM
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 201 1, by and between the
City of Miami Beach, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of Florida,
hereinafter referred to as the "City," and ePark Systems, Inc., a Delaware Corporation duly
authorized to do business in the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor" or
WHERAS, the Contractor has developed certain proprietary technology identified as "in-
vehicle parking meters devices" (IVPM) that will enable the City, through its Parking
Department, to sell the Contractor's IVPM (also referenced to herein as "iPark devices) that
can be used at City single and/or multi-space parking sites to pay for actual parking time (for a
pre-paid amount of parking hours), without the necessity or inconvenience of stepping out of
one's vehicle or looking for change/cash/credit card for said parking meters; and
WHEREAS, Contractor and City have negotiated the following agreement for the City's
purchase of IVPM's and other related goods and services for implementation within the Citys'
identified parking facilities
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
SCOPEIPRICINGIFEES
A. The City shall purchase, and Contractor agrees to sell to City, the IVPM's, and
such ancillary equipment and related support services, as required, all as further
set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto.
B. At a minimum, the IVPM shall have the following capabilities/specifications:
a) A self contained unit with dimensions consistent for display purposes from a
vehicle's rearview mirror or comparable location.
b) A digital display that clearly displays the countdown of time and is clearly
visible day or night from within reasonable proximity of a vehicle.
c) Capability to be programmed to allow for multiple zones (time limits) and
multiple rates (fees).
C. Upon the receipt of a purchase order from the City ("Purchase Order") for the
goods and services, or any portion thereof, to be provided herein, the Contractor
shall provide and/or perform said goods/services as identified in this Agreement
and exhibits hereto, and in accordance with such other terms and conditions as
may be set forth in the Purchase Order. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for furnishing all materials, tools, equipment, manpower, and any
and all other deliverables, as required, to effectuate the purpose(s) of this
Agreement (including, without limitation, Contractor's compliance with any and
all additional terms and conditions as may be set forth in the Purchase Order).
D. The terms of payment and delivery shall be as specified in Article II and Exhibit
"A hereto. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement and/or the Purchase
Order, the total amount of goods and/or services to be purchased and/or
performed for any contract year during the Term (a "contract year" is hereinafter
defined as the twelve month period from September gth to September 8'"), shall
not exceed the total sum of $200,000.
TERMIPRIGING
The initial term of this Agreement shall be for a period of two (2) years, and shall be
deemed to have commenced retroactively to September 9, 2010 (the Commencement
Date), and shall terminate on September 8, 2012.
At the City's sole discretion, and provided Contractor is in good standing and not in
default pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the City may renew the Agreement for
an additional two (2) renewal term, upon the same terms and conditions set forth
herein, by providing written notice to Contractor no later than thirty (30) days before the
expiration of the initial term.
Contractor shall guarantee the prices in Exhibit "A throughout the entire Term of this
Agreement. The Contractor agrees to provide the goods and/or services to the City at
the prices specified in Exhibit "A". Any prices specified in Exhibit "A" will remain firm for
the Term of this Agreement.
Ill. PAYMENT
The Contractor, upon delivery of the goods, materials, equipment, and/or services, on
any portion thereof, set forth in this Agreement, or in a Purchase Order, shall issue an
invoice to the City for said deliverables, at the prices specified herein. All invoices
received by the City are payable within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt, provided
they have first been approved by the City, and the City has accepted delivery of the
particular goods and/or service(s) being invoiced.
The City reserves the right (including, without limitation, for all and/or any portion of
goods, materials, equipment, and/or services, not acceptable and/or not satisfactorily
performed), to refuse payment andlor partially pay, at the City's discretion, any invoice
submitted by the Contractor. All invoices shall be directed to the City of Miami Beach,
Parking Department, 1755 Meridian Avenue, Suite 200, Miami Beach, Florida, 33139,
Attn: Rocio Alba, Financial Analyst Ill.
IV. CANCELLATION DUE TO UNAVAILABILITY OF FUNDS
In the event that funds are not appropriated or otherwise made available to support
continuation of the purchase of the goods and/or services contemplated herein, the
Agreement may be canceled by the City, through its City Manager, in hislher sole
discretion, without penalty, upon ten (10) calendar days written notice to Contractor.
The Contractor shall be entitled to be paid for any goods and/or services approved and
accepted by the City up to the date of termination specified in the notice, and for all
portions of materials, supplies, services, and facility orders which cannot be cancelled
and were placed prior to the effective date of termination. Thereafter, the City shall
have no further obligation and/or liability to Contractor under this Agreement.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
A. Patents and Copvri~hts
The Contractor shall pay all royalties and assume all costs arising from the use
of any invention, design, process, materials, equipment, product or device, which
is the subject of patent rights or copyrights. Contractor shall, at its own expense,
hold harmless and defend the City against any claim, suit or proceeding brought
against the City which is based upon a claim, whether rightful or otherwise, that
any part thereof, furnished under this Agreement, constitutes an infringement of
any patent or copyright of the United States. The Contractor shall pay all
damages and costs awarded against the City.
B. Termination for Default
1. This Agreement may be terminated by the City, through its City Manager,
for cause, in whole or in part, upon fifteen (15) calendar days written
notice to Contractor, whenever the City Manager, in hislher sole and
reasonable judgment and discretion, shall determine that the Contractor
has failed to perform under this Agreement.
The City (through its City Manager) also has the right to terminate this
Agreement for cause, upon fifteen (15) calendar days written notice to
Contractor, for default if the Contractor fails to make delivery of; or if the
Contractor fails to perform, the Work within the time specified in the
Agreement or if the Contractor fails to perform any other provisions of the
Agreement.
Failure of Contractor to deliver or perform within the time specified, or, if
no time is specified, within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of
written notice from the City, or failure to make replacements of rejected
articles when so requested, shall constitute authority for the City to
purchase in the open market articles/services of comparable grade to
replace the articleslservices rejected, not delivered, or not completed. On
all such purchases, the Contractor shall reimburse the City, within a
reasonable time specified by the City, for any expense incurred in excess
of the Agreement prices. Such purchases shall be deducted from
Agreement quantities.
Should public necessity demand it, the City reserves the right to utilize
services or use and/or consume articles delivered which are substandard
in quality, subject to an adjustment in price to be determined by the City,
in its sole and reasonable discretion. Notwithstanding the preceding, the
Contractor shall not be liable for any excess costs if acceptable evidence
has been submitted to the City that failure to perform was due to causes
beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor.
C. Termination for Convenience
The City, through its City Manager, may terminate this Agreement for its
convenience and without penalty upon thirty (30) calendar days written notice to
the Contractor. In the event of such a termination by the City, the City shall be
liable for the payment of all goods, equipment, and materials delivered and
accepted by the City prior to the effective date of termination and for all portions
of materials, supplies, services, and facility orders which cannot be cancelled
and were placed prior to the effective date of termination. Thereafter, the City
shall have no further obligation and/or liability to Contractor under this
Agreement.
Warrantv
The Contractor warrants to City that all goods, equipment and materials provided
herein shall conform to professional standards of care and practice in effect at
the time; be of the highest quality; and be free from all faults, defects or errors.
The Contractor warrants to City that all goods, equipment and materials provided
shall be new. If the Contractor is notified in writing of a fault, deficiency or error
in any goods, equipment andlor materials, or any portion thereof, the Contractor
shall promptly repair or replace all (or such portions) to correct such fault, defect
or error, at no additional cost to the City.
E. Force Maieure
The Contractor or City, respectively, shall not be liable for any loss or damage,
resulting from any delay or failure to perform its contractual obligations within the
time specified, due to acts of God, actions or regulations by any governmental
entity or representative, strikes, or other labor trouble, fire, embargoes, or other
transportation delays, damage to or destruction in whole or in part, of equipment
or manufacturing plant, lack of or ability to obtain raw materials, labor, fuel or
supplies for any reason including default of suppliers, or any other causes,
contingencies or circumstances not subject to the Contractor's or City's control,
respectively, whether of a similar or dissimilar nature, which prevent or hinder the
performance of the Contractor's or City's contractual obligations, respectively.
However, under such circumstances as described herein, the City may in its sole
discretion, cancel this Agreement for the convenience of the City, as provided in
Section C. hereof.
F. lndemnification and Insurance
I Indemnitv
The Contractor hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents, and employees, from and against any and all liability,
claims, damages, demands, expenses, fees, fines, penalties, suits,
proceedings, actions, and costs of actions, including attorneys' fees for
trial and on appeal (and for the preparation of same), arising out of the
Contractor's, its officers', agents', and employees' acts, or omissions
associated with the Agreement. Notwithstanding the preceding, nothing
herein shall be deemed to require the Contractor to indemnify or hold
harmless the City for any acts or omissions resulting from the gross
negligence or willful misconduct of the City's officers, agents or
employees.
Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Section F.I., such
indemnity clause shall not render the Contractor liable to the City for
claims of the City for loss of revenue or for claims of the City for indirect,
incidental or consequential damages arising out of or related to the City's
operation or use of equipment and materials supplied by Contractor.
This lndemnification shall survive termination of this Agreement.
lnsurance
The Contractor, at its own expense, shall keep in force and at all times
maintain during the term of this Agreement:
(a,) Commercial General Liabilitv Insurance:
Commercial General Liability Insurance, issued by responsible
insurance companies and in a form acceptable to the City's Risk
Manager, protecting and insuring against all the foregoing with
coverage limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000)
per occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage.
(b.) Workers' Compensation Coverage:
Full and complete Workers' Compensation Coverage, as required
by State of Florida law, shall be provided, if any work is to be
performed by the Contractor at the City's site(s) of business.
lnsurance Certificates:
The Contractor shall provide the City with Certificate(s) of
lnsurance on all the policies of insurance and renewals thereof, in
a form(s) acceptable to the City's Risk Manager. Said Commercial
General Liability policy shall provide that the City of Miami Beach,
Florida, shall be named as an additional insured. The City shall be
notified in writing of any reduction, cancellation or substantial
change of policy or policies at least thirty (30) calendar days prior
to the effective date of said action. All insurance policies shall be
issued by responsible companies who are acceptable to the City
and licensed and authorized to do business under the laws of the
State of Florida.
G. Acceptance
Any goods, equipment andlor materials (or any portion thereof) provided under
this Agreement shall be deemed accepted, if not rejected by the City by written
notice mailed, delivered or faxed to Contractor at any business office of
Contractor or an affiliate of Contractor on or before ten (10) business days after
such goods, equipment, and/or materials (or portions thereof) are received by
City. Any goods, equipment and/or materials, or portions thereof, under this
Agreement, shall remain the property of the Contractor until accepted by the City
(or if deemed accepted). In the event any goods, materials and/or equipment
furnished under this Agreement are found to be defective or do not conform to
the specifications, the City reserves the right to cancel the Agreement upon
written notice to the Contractor, but only after the Contractor has been given
written notice of the proposed rejection by the City, and has failed to adequately
repair or replace the unacceptable portion(s) within fifteen (15) calendar days of
receipt of such notice.
H. Right to Audit Records
The City shall be entitled at any time during the Term, and at the City's sole cost
and expense, to audit the books and records of the Contractor or any
sub-contractor to the extent that such books and records relate to the
performance of this Agreement or any sub-contract to this Agreement. Such
books and records shall be maintained by the Contractor for a period of three (3)
years from the date of expiration (or earlier termination) of this Agreement, and
by the sub-contractor for a period of three (3) years from the date of final
payment under the sub-contract.
Time is of the Essence
The parties agree that time is of the essence in the performance of Contractor's
duties and other obligations under this Agreement.
J. All information, data, designs, plans, drawings, and specifications developed
solely for the City by the Contractor or its subcontractors pursuant to this
Agreement, shall be the sole property of the City and all rights therein are
reserved by the City, except that the Contractor may disclose any such
information to its corporate affiliates and their agents. The City and the
Contractor agree that the IVPM or iPark devices and their included software are
generic in nature and that these devices have not been developed solely for the
City from any of the City's information, data, designs, plans, drawings or
specifications.
K. Amendments to Agreement
The City, without invalidating this Agreement, may order changes within the
general scope of this Agreement consisting of additions or deletions, the
Agreement price and time being adjusted accordingly, provided that there are no
changes in the specifications of any of the articles comprising the goods,
equipment, and materials to be provided herein.
Any such changes shall be authorized by a written amendment to this
Agreement, and shall only be effective if approved and executed by the parties
hereto.
L. Familiaritv With The WorWProduct
The Contractor by executing this Agreement acknowledges full understanding of
the extent and character of the goods and/or services required hereunder and
the conditions surrounding the performance thereof.
The City will not be responsible for any alleged misunderstanding of the goods
and/or services to be furnished or completed, or any misunderstanding of
conditions surrounding the performance thereof. It is understood that the
execution of this Agreement by the Contractor serves as its stated commitment
to fulfill all the conditions referred to in this Agreement.
M. Title and Risk of Loss
The title and risk of loss to any goods, equipment and materials provided
pursuant to this Agreement shall only pass from the Contractor to the City upon
City's acceptance of same.
N. Miscellaneous Provisions
1. Assignment of this Agreement shall not be made without the prior written
consent of the City.
The Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, State and local
laws, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the performance of
Work under this Agreement
No waiver, alterations, consent, amendments or modification of any of the
provisions of this Agreement shall be binding unless in writing and signed
by the parties.
The Contractor is solely responsible for obtaining all permits, licenses,
and certificates, or any such approvals of plans or specifications as may
be required by federal, State and local laws, ordinances, rules, and
regulations, for the proper execution and completion of all work
contemplated under this Agreement, including all costs therefore.
The Contractor is responsible for all damage or loss by fire, theft or
otherwise, to the Contractor's materials, tools, equipment, and
consumables, left on City property by the Contractor.
This Agreement is considered a non-exclusive Agreement between the
parties.
This Agreement is deemed to be under and shall be governed by, and
construed according to, the laws of the State of Florida.
Any litigation arising out of this Agreement shall be had in the courts of
Miami-Dade County, Florida. BY ENTERING INTO THlS AGREEMENT,
CITY AND CONTRACTOR EXPRESSLY WAIVE ANY RIGHTS EITHER
PARTY MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY OF ANY CIVIL LITIGATION
RELATED TO, OR ARISING OUT OF, THlS AGREEMENT.
Contractor warrants and certifies that it is authorized to enter into this
Agreement and the undersigned is authorized to execute same on behalf
of Contractor as the act of the said Contractor.
This Agreement, including any Exhibits hereto, contains all the terms and
conditions agreed upon by the Parties. No other agreements, oral or
otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be
deemed to exist or to bind either party hereto. If any provision of this
Agreement is held to be unenforceable, this Agreement shall be
construed without such provision.
All payments by City to Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall be in
United States Dollars.
Payment of any Florida sales and use taxes, levied upon or as a result of
this Agreement, if any, shall be the obligation of the City.
Contractor shall be deemed at all times to be an independent contractor
and is wholly responsible for the manner in which it performs the Work
under this Agreement. Contractor is liable for the acts and omissions of
itself, its employees and its agents. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed as creating an employment or agency relationship between City
and Contractor.
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute
but one agreement.
Intellectual Property
The parties agree and acknowledge that the Contractor will have sole
ownership of intellectual property relating to the iPark device, and any ideas,
inventions, discoveries, techniques, characterizations or other developments
related thereto that are developed by Contractor, in performance of its
obligations hereunder shall be the sole property of the Contractor.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties agree and acknowledge that the City
may analyze information provided by the Contractor relating to the City use of
the iPark, including the City feedback and historical usage information (but
specifically not including any information regarding the specifications or
functionality of the Contractor hardware (including the iPark device, software or
other technology), solely for the purposes of assessing the effectiveness of the
iPark program within City facilities and the efficiency of parking resources on City
property, and any results of such analysis by the City shall be the property of the
City provided that (i) in no event shall the City attempt to reverse engineer any
Contractor technology, nor shall anything herein be construed as granting the
City any right, title or interest in or to any the Contractor technology;(ii) no results
of such analysis may be sold or otherwise provided to any direct or indirect
competitor of the Contractor;, and (iii) any use or disclosure of City information
shall at all times remain subject to the Contractor's privacy policy and any laws
and regulations relating to data security to which the Contractor andlor the City
may be subject. (See Exhibit "B" for the Contractor Systems Privacy Policy
Statement).
P. CONFIDENTIALITY AND SOLICITATION
Each party understands that the other party has disclosed or intends to
disclose Confidential lnformation pursuant to this Agreement. The
receiving party agrees that it will not use Confidential lnformation received
from the disclosing party, or any other party, for any purpose other than to
provide the services contemplated by this Agreement and to evaluate the
performance of the other party's obligations hereunder. The City
specifically agrees that it will not directly or indirectly, test, modify,
manipulate research, reverse engineer, replicate the iPark device or other
Confidential lnformation of the Contractor, or otherwise work with or
manipulate the Confidential lnformation of the Contractor in an effort to
understand the proprietary technology or learn information not explicitly
stated in the Confidential Information. Each party will be responsible for
ensuring that all of its agents and employees that receive Confidential
lnformation agree to abide by the provisions of this Section P.
The parties agree that money damages will not be a sufficient remedy for
any breach of this Section P by it or their representatives, and the
disclosing party shall be entitled, in addition to money damages, to
specific performance and injunctive relief and any other appropriate
equitable remedies for any such breach. Such remedies shall not be
deemed to be the exclusive remedies for a breach of this Section but shall
be in addition to all other remedies available at law or in equity. The
parties acknowledge that the Confidential lnformation is valuable and
unique and that disclosure in breach of this Confidentiality Agreement will
result in irreparable injury to the disclosing party.
For purposes of this Section VIII, "Confidential Information" shall mean
any information that is owned or controlled by the disclosing party. It also
includes information of third parties in possession of the disclosing party
that the disclosing party is obligated to maintain in confidence.
Confidential Information subject to this Agreement may be in intangible
form, such as unrecorded knowledge, ideas or conceptions or information
communicated orally or by visual observation, or may be embodied in
tangible form, such as a document or device. The term "document"
includes written memoranda, drawings, training materials, specifications,
notebook entries, photographs, graphic representations, firmware,
computer information or software, information communicated by other
electronic or magnetic media, or models. "Confidential Information" shall
not include information that: (a) is already known to the receiving party
and was properly obtained by the receiving party prior to the effective date
of this Agreement as evidenced by the receiving party's written records;
(b) is already in the public domain or becomes available to the public
other than through a negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of the
receiving party; (c) is acquired in good faith from a third party and at the
time of acquisition the receiving party has no knowledge or reason to
believe that such information was wrongfully obtained or disclosed by the
third party; (d) is independently developed by the receiving party from
information not defined as "Confidential Information" in this Agreement, as
evidenced by the receiving party's written records; (e) is disclosed to the
receiving party by the disclosing party and, at the time of such disclosure
(or thereafter), the disclosing party states in writing that it is not
"Confidential Information"; (f) is otherwise subject to disclosure, inspection
and copying pursuant to Florida Public Records Law (including, without
limitation, Chapter 11 9, Florida Statutes), as same may be amended from
time to time; or (g) is required to be disclosed pursuant to a court order
and/or order of any administrative body having jurisdiction over the
subject matter under this Agreement. Any "Confidential Information" shall
be clearly designated as such by the disclosing party. Recognizing that
the City is subject to broad right-to-know laws and that the maintenance of
document confidentiality is an administrative burden, the Contractor will
limit the dissemination of information to the City that the Contractor
considers confidential.
The Contractor will refrain from engaging in any direct solicitation of
potential customers in the City's area without the prior written consent of
the City Manager. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Section P
shall be deemed to restrict the Contractor from communicating directly
with existing customers in the normal course of business, or from
conducting general marketing and advertising activities relating to the
iPark device that do not constitute in-person solicitation of potential City
customers.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals
on the date first written above.
FOR CITY:
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
FOR CONTRACTOR:
ATTEST:
Secretary
Print Name
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
By:
Mayor
E-PARK SYSTEMS, INC.
President
Print Name
APPROVE0 AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A resolution accepting the recommendation of the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee regarding the
placement of a commemorative plaque honoring Luis Hernandez to be installed on the base of the Jose Marti
Monument and setting a public hearing for the final placement of the plaque in accordance with Section 82-504 of the
City Code at the July 13, 201 1, Commission meeting.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Increase community satisfaction with City government
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): Miami Beach Customer Survey indicates 75% of residents
and 68% of businesses rated Miami Beach city government as excellent or good in meeting their needs and
Issue: 1 Shall the Mayor and City Commission adopt the resolution? 1
Item SummarylRecommendation:
1 A request from the communitv was made to honor Luis Hernandez with a commemorative plaque in Collins Park. The I I item was referred to the ~ei~hborhoodsl~ommunit~ Affairs Committee at the July 14, 2010 dommission meeting. I
The Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee discussed the matter at their August 31, 2010. The Committee
recommended the matter proceed and referred it to Arts in Public Places Committee. The issue was discussed at the
Arts in Public Places Committee meeting held on March 15,201 I. The matter was continued until the April meeting to
provide Mr. Argote's committee the opportunity to revise the proposal based on standards and conditions provided by
the Committee. The request was returned to the Ail?.P'Gommjftee on April 12,201 1. The plaque location was agreed
upon and the committee unanimously approved the request.
A follow-up discussion was held at the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee meeting on May 5,201 1 where
the members gave their unanimous approval for this request to proceed. Pursuant to Section 82-504 of the City's Code
upon approval and recommendation by the NeighborhoodlCommunity Affairs Committee the City Commission a public
hearing should be called before the Mayor and Commission on Wednesday, July 13,201 1 and the City Clerk should
publish the appropriate Public Notice at least 10 days prior to said Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation
in the City of Miami Beach at which time and place all interested parties will be heard.
I The Administration recommends the Commission adopt the attached resolution.
Advisory Board Recommendation: I Arts in Public Places Committee 4-12-1 1
OBPl I Total I
Financial Impact Summary: All expense to be paid-frjl withlprivate funds. There are no funds identified for this
Financial Information:
I plaque or additional plaques and memorials sho,uld thkvbe requested. I
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Kevin Smith, Parks & Recreation Director
Source of
Funds:
'd
T:\AGENDA\2011\6-01-1 l\Setting of Public Hearing - Luis Hernadez Plaque - Approval Summary 61-1 I .doc
la MIAMIBEACH 167
I
DATE &-/-I/
Amount
No expense
to the City
Account
Mr. Argote has stated his committee will assume all cost for this
project.
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami bch, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City ommission 2
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June 1,201 1
suwT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR~ND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SElTlNG A PUBLIC HEARING, AS REQUIRED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 82-504 OF THE ClTY CODE, TO ACCEPT THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS/COMMUNlTY AFFAIRS
COMMllTEE AND APPROVING THE PLACEMENT OF A COMMEMORATIVE
PLAQUE HONORING LUIS HERNANDEZ, TO BE INSTALLED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF THE JOSE MARTI MONUMENT LOCATED IN COLLINS PARK
(ATTACHED TO THE MONUMENT'S FOUNDATION) WITH SAID PUBLIC
HEARING TO BE SCHEDULED FOR THE ClTY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY
13,2011.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Increase community satisfaction with City government.
BACKGROUND
As delineated in the attached correspondence from Mr. Jose Argote, Chairman of the
Committee for Public Recognition to Mr. Luis Hernandez, dated April 30, 2010, the committee
was seeking approval to either have a plaque honoring Mr. Hernandez placed on a small
pedestal in a public park, such as Collins Park, or have a reproduction of the Certificate of
Recognition presented by the City to Mr. Hernandez on March 10, 2010, affixed to the side of
the Jose Marti bust pedestal which is also located in Collins Park. (Please see Attachment A,
copy of the April 30, 2010 request). The item was subsequently referred by Commissioner
Jonah Wolfson to the Neighborhoods1 Community Affairs Committee at the July 14, 2010
Commission meeting.
ANALYSIS
As required by City Code, the placement of the commemorative plaque honoring Luis
Hernandez to be placed on the Jose Marti bust was first discussed at the
NeighborhoodslCommunity Affairs Committee meeting held the August 31, 2010.
At that meeting Mr. Argote presented the plaque request, expounded on Mr. Hernandez's
accomplishments and contributions to the Miami Beach community, stated he and his
committee would assume all related expenses for the plaque and requested the Committee,
Commission and Administration support their request.
Commission Memorandum
June 1,201 1
Setting of Public Hearing for Luis Hernandez Commemorative Plaque
Page 2 of 5
Following a brief discussion, the Committee members recommended the matter proceed and
referred it to Arts in Public Places Committee, as required by City Code Section 82-504. The
recommendation was also reported to the full Commission at the October 27, 201 1 meeting.
This matter was first discussed at the Arts in Public Places Committee meeting on March 15,
201 1. The members of the AiPP Committee recommended that the matter be continued until the
April meeting to provide Mr. Argote and his committee the opportunity to revise the proposal
based on the following conditions;
1. The plaque should be 12 x 12 x 311 6" deep;
2. Material: 114 inch thick 31 6 gauge marine grade stainless steel;
3. Font: Futura Standard;
4. Copy (verbiage): Black etched copy with a protective clear coat finish;
5. Beveled edges at a 45 degree angle;
6. Blind installation onto surface with studs and adhesive;
7. The following specifications shall also be applied:
First Line: 48 Points
Second Line: 60 Points BOLD
Third & Fourth Line: 48 Points
Middle Sentence: 36 Points
Final Sentence: 42 Points
The Arts in Public Places Committee also requested that Mr. Argote review the proposed plaque
wording with his committee and provide a revised draft to staff so the AiPP Committee members
could review and comment on it prior to the April 12'~ meeting. The plaque request was returned
to the AiPP Committee for review and discussion at their meeting held on April 12, 201 1. At that
meeting it was agreed that the recommended plaque installation location would be on the north
side of the Marti monument, attached to the foundation of the monument, centered on the base
and 2" from the south and north edges of the base (Please see Attachment B for additional
details). Following a brief discussion, the Committee members unanimously recommended the
request. The wording was then reviewed and refined by the Administration and accepted by Mr.
Argote. Please see Attachment C for the proposed plaque wording.
A follow-up discussion was held at the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee meeting
on May 5, 201 1, where the members gave their unanimous approval for this request to proceed.
Pursuant to Section 82-504 of the City's Code, upon approval and recommendation by the
NeighborhoodICommunity Affairs Committee the City Commission shall call for a public hearing
regarding the placement of the memorial, and at the close of the hearing, the City Commission
may approve the proposed memorial.
CONCLUSION
Should the City Commission wish to proceed with the placement of this memorial plaque, a
public hearing should be called before the Mayor and Commission on Wednesday, July 13,
201 1, and the City Clerk should publish the appropriate Public Notice at least 18 days prior to
said Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Miami Beach at which
time and place all interested parties will be heard.
JMGI HMFIKS
T:\AGENDA\2011\6-01-1 l\Setting of Public Hearing - Luis Hernandez Plaque - Comm. Memo 6-1-1 1 .doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING, AS
REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 82-504 OF THE CITY CODE, TO
ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
NElGHBORHOODlCOMMUNlTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND APPROVING
THE PLACEMENT OF A COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUE HONORING LUIS
HERNANDEZ, TO BE INSTALLED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE JOSE
MARTI MONUMENT LOCATED IN COLLINS PARK (ATTACHED TO THE
MONUMENT'S FOUNDATION) WITH SAID PUBLIC HEARING TO BE
SCHEDULED FOR THE ClTY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 13,2011.
WHEREAS, in a correspondence, sent to the attention of the City Commission dated
April 30, 201 1, Mr. Jose Argote, Chairman of the Committee for Public Recognition to Mr. Luis
Hernandez, indicated his committee was seeking approval to have a commemorative plaque
honoring Mr. Hernandez on a small pedestal in a public park, such as Collins Park; and
WHEREAS, the item was subsequently referred by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson and
the City Commission to the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee at the July 14, 2010
City Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, as required by City Code, the placement of the plaque honoring Mr.
Hernandez was first discussed at the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee and
approved on August 31,201 0; and
WHEREAS, also as required by the City Code, the matter was referred to the Art in
Public Places Committee (AiPP) on March 15, 2011, where the members of the AiPP
Committee recommended that the matter be continued until the April meeting, to provide Mr.
Argote and his committee the opportunity to revise the proposal concepts, based on standards
and conditions provided by the Committee; and
WHEREAS, the plaque request was returned to the AiPP Committee for review and
discussion at its meeting held on April 12, 2011, and at that meeting it was agreed that the
recommended plaque installation location would be on the north side of the Marti monument,
attached to the foundation of the monument, centered on the base and 2 from the south and
north edges of the base; and
WHEREAS, following a brief discussion the AiPP Committee members unanimously
recommended the request for a commemorative plaque honoring Luis Hernandez be installed at
in the foundation of the Jose Marti monument located in Collins Park: and
WHEREAS, a follow-up discussion was held at the NeighborhoodslCommunity Affairs
Committee meeting on May 5, 201 1, and the members gave their unanimous approval for this
request to proceed; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 82-504 of the City Code, upon approval and
recommendation by the Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee, the City Commission
shall call for a public hearing regarding the placement of the memorial and, at the close of the
hearing may approve the proposed commemorative plaque.
WHEREAS, the Administration recommends that a public hearing be called on
Wednesday, July 13, 2011, and the City Clerk should publish the appropriate Public Notice at
least ten (10) days prior to said Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City
of Miami Beach, at which time and place all interested parties will be heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND ClTY
COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission, hereby set a public hearing, as required pursuant to Section 82-504 of the City
Code, to accept the recommendation of the Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee and
approve the placement of a commemorative plaque honoring Luis Hernandez, to be installed on
the north side of the Jose Marti Monument, located in Collins Park (attached to the monument's
foundation). With said public hearing to be scheduled for the City Commission meeting of July
13, 2011.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 201 1.
ATTEST:
MATTI HERRERA BOWER
MAYOR
ROBERT PARCHER, ClTY CLERK
T:\AGENDAEOI 1\6-01-1 l\Setting of Public Hearing - Luis Hernandez Plaque - Resolution 6-1-1 1 .doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOH EXECUTION
Commission Memorandum
June 1,201 1
Setting of Public Hearing for Luis Hernandez Commemorative Plaque
Page 3 of 5
ATTACHMENT - A
Committee . - for %6& @copition to Mr. ~uis X'h. -. .- . .
1623 S. 'Gti 10$jven&
- - --
Cornrnittee for I Miami Beach, April 30m;2010.
Public Recognition
to Mr. Luis .
Hernandez:
Jose M. Argote,
Chairman of the
Cob-
Jimmy Resnik, Real
Estate Business
Person, Miami
Beach.
City of Miami Beach Commission.
Gentlemen:
The undersigned, Jose M. Argote, in behalf of the Committee for Public Recognition
to Mr. Luis Hernandez, hereby petition the City of Miami Beach Commission to place
a plaque with a commemorative insoription recognizing Mr. Luis Hernandez for his
80hbi date, which will be on July 301h, 2010,'and his retirement as President of the
Miami Beach Latin Chamber of Commerce, founded by him. Mr. Hernandez was
appointed President Emeritus by said institution.
The City has several choicas to place said plaque, that basically could be a
reproducing or very similar to the Certificate of Appreciation recently issued to Mr.
Hernandez, 1 Said plaque could be affixed to a public building- in any
Julia Davila Sargen, public park, such as Collins Park, near other busts located at the corner of Jose Marti
Nelson Alvarifio,
Architect, Miami
Beach.
ComwA&vist,
Miami Beach.
Another choice could be to reprodnce by wlor photocopy the CertiRrate of
Recogntlion recently issued by the City of Miami Beach to Mr. Hernandezand
keet (2lst Street) at Collins ~vcnue. The plaque could be signed by the Committee
for Public Recognition to Mr. Luis Hernandez
PORCELA~~~D~ ~hea the plaque could be af~xed on the &st side of the pedestal
already ilnstailed on Collins Park, supporting the bust to Cuban Patriot Jose Marti.
Said pedestal and bust faceSon&, and were placed by initiative and paid by ME
Hernandezand his family.
I On any other alternative that the City consider appropriate,
Any expense related to said will be paid by this ~omm&e for Public
Recognition to Mr. Luis Hernandez, by private donations; at no cost to the City of
Miami Beach. The Committee will prepaid or reimburse all expenses to the City, at the
City's discretion. I
I . Mr. Hernandez's merits as a precursor and community activist for the past fifty years
are described in the narrative attached to this petition.
Your attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Commission Memorandum
June 1,201 1
Setting of Public Hearing for Luis Hernandez Commemorative Plaque
Page -. 4 of 5
Commission Memorandum
June 1,201 1
Setting of Public Hearing for Luis Hernandez Commemorative Plaque
Page 5 of 5
-&. '
r
ATTACHMENT - C
IN RECOGNITION OF
LUIS C. HERNANDEZ
A PIONEER IN HISPANIC ACTIVISM
IN MIAMI BEACH
Founder of
"Tiempo Nuevo" newspaper,
the Miami Beach Latin Chamber of Commerce and
the Jose Marti Benevolent Association,
and a leader in the campaign
to name a portion of 2 1 " Street
in memory of Cuban patriot Jose Marti.
A community activist
always working towards a
better Miami Beach.
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
1 A Resolution a~~rovina Amendment Four to the Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) with the Florida 1
Department of iransp&ation (FDOT) for the milling and resu;facing improvements along lndian Creek
Drive (SR AIA) between 26th and 4IS Streets.
4ey Intended Outcome Supported:
Improve or maintain traffic flow.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): According to the 2009 Customer Satisfaction
Survey, 18.6% of respondents said less traffic congestion is one of the two or three things that would
made Miami Beach a better place to live, work, play or visit.
Issue:
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt this resolution to provide an additional
three months to complete the project and utilize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify
system to confirm employment eligibility.
Item SummarylRecommendation:
1 lndian Creek Drive (SR AIA) is a Federal Classified Principal Urban Arterial which falls under the ]
jurisdiction of Florida ~epartment of Transportation (FDOT). FDOT has a project to rehabilitate the
roadway. At the same time, the City needed to upgrade the water and sewer mains beneath the roadway.
The City and FDOT decided that it was mutually beneficial to enter into a Joint Participation Agreement
(JPA) so that both projects would be constructed and completed simultaneously.
The City and FDOT previously have approved Amendments 1 and 2 to the scoge of services for the
application of a high friction surface treatment to the curve at lndian Creek Dr / 26 Street and to extend
the contract term to January 31, 201 1, respectively, under resolution No 2010-27319 on February 3 of
2010. On January 19,201 1, under resolution No 201 1-27581, the City approved Amendment 3 to extend
the contract term to June 30, 201 1 to provide time to complete the construction process due to the
unforeseen need to abandon an existing water main and transfer its services and fire lines to the new
water main.
Amendment 4 extends the completion time of the contract by another three months due to the issues with
clearing the new water main for service. Colloids were observed during flushing of the new water main,
and their source needed to be determined before the main could be placed into service. As a result, the
contractor was unable to re-surface the road. FDOT is also requiring the City to utilize the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security's E-Verify system to confirm the employment eligibility of all persons employed by
the City during the term of this Agreement to perform employment duties within Florida and all persons,
including subcontractors, assigned by the City to perform work pursuant to this Agreement with the FDOT
THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS ADOPTING THE RESOLUTION.
Advisory Board Recommendation: I N/A
1 Financial Impact Summary: NIA I
Financial Information:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Richard Saltrick, Acting City Engineer, ext.6565
Source of
Funds:
1
OBPl
3
Total
Amount
$
Account
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.rniamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June1,2011
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR MMlSSlON OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND ClTY CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE
JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (JPA) BEWEEN THE ClTY AND
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT), DATED
OCTOBER 31, 2007, FOR THE MILLING AND RESURFACING
IMPROVEMENTS ALONG INDIAN CREEK DRIVE (SR AIA) BETWEEN 26
AND 41 STREETS; SAID AMENDMENT EXTENDING THE CONTRACT FOR
AN ADDITIONAL THREE (3) MONTHS, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2011;
EXTENDING THE FINAL INVOICE SUBMITTAL DATE TO JANUARY 28,
2012; AND UTILIZING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY'S E-VERIFY SYSTEM TO CONFIRM EMPLOYMENT
ELIGIBILITY OF ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED BY THE ClTY DURING THE
TERM OF THE JPA.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt this resolution to provide an
additional three months to complete the project and utilize the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security's E-Verify system to confirm employment eligibility.
ANALYSIS
Indian Creek Drive (SR AIA) is a Federal Classified Principal Urban Arterial which falls under
the jurisdiction of Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). FDOT had a project to
rehabilitate the roadway. At the same time, the City needed to upgrade the water and sewer
mains beneath the roadway. The City and FDOT decided that it was mutually beneficial to enter
into a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) so that both projects would be constructed and
completed simultaneously (Attachment A). This collaborative effort between the City and FDOT
includes three components: upgrading the water supply system along SR AIA in order to
maintain adequate pressures and flows, upgrading the sanitary sewer system to meet the level
of service requirements as dictated in the City's Comprehensive Plan and constructing roadway
enhancements pursuant to FDOT's milling and resurfacing plans. Once the project is
completed, FDOT would own and maintain the above ground improvements.
The City and FDOT previously have approved Amendments 1 and 2 to the scope of services for
the application of a high friction surface treatment to the curve at Indian Creek Dr / 26th Street
and to extend the contract term to January 31, 201 1, respectively, under resolution No 2010-
2731 9 on February 3 of 201 0. On January 19, 201 1, under resolution No 201 1-27581, the City
approved Amendment 3 to extend the contract term to June 30, 2011 to provide the City an
additional five months to complete the construction process due to an unforeseen need to
City Commission- JPA extension with FDOT for Indian Creek Drive
June 1,201 1
Page 2 of 2
abandon an existing water main and transfer its services and fire lines to the new water main.
Amendment 4 extends the completion time of the contract by another three months due to the
issues with clearing the new water main for service. Colloids were observed during flushing of
the new water main, and their source needed to be determined before the main could be placed
into service. As a result, the contractor was unable to re-surface the road.
As part of this amendment, FDOT is also requiring the City to utilize the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security's E-Verify system to confirm the employment eligibility of all persons
employed by the City during the term of this Agreement to perform employment duties within
Florida and all persons, including subcontractors, assigned by the City to perform work pursuant
to this Agreement with the FDOT (Attachment B).
Except as hereby modified, amended, or changed, all of the terms and conditions of said
original agreement and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt this resolution to provide an
additional three months to complete the project and to utilize the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security's E-Verify system to confirm employment eligibility.
Attachments:
A. Joint Participation Agreement
B. Amendment Four to Joint Participation Agreement
T:\AGENDA\2011\6-01-1 l\lndian Creek JPA amendment #4 memo.doc
Attachment A
/ -
Contract Number: ,#-~Yqx '
CSFA Number: 55.023
JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT O@ TRANSPORTATION
AND
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
st THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 3 1 day of 4 cfober ,
20s between the State of Florida Department of Transportation, a component agency of the
State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the 'DEPARTMENT', and the City of Miami Beach, a
municipal corporation of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as the 'CITY'.
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT has jurisdiction over and maintains the State Road
(SR) AlA corridor (Indian Creek Drive) in the City of Miami Beach; and
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT has drafted design plans for the construction of
roadway improvements on SR AIA southbound from 41" Street to 26 Street, hereinafter
referred to as the 'PROJECT', the individual elements of which are outlined in the attached
Exhibit "A", 'Scope of Services', which is herein incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT has programmed funding for the PROJECT under
Financial Project Numbers 414641-1 -58-01 and 414641-1-68-01, and has agreed to reimburse
the CITY for eligible PROJECT costs up to a maximum limiting amount; as outlined in the
attached Exhibit "B", 'Financial Summary', which is herein incorporated by reference; and
WHEREAS, the CITY has agreed to supervise and inspect all aspects of PROJECT
construction and administration; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto mutually recognize the need for entering into an
Agreement designating and setting forth the responsibilities of each party; and
WHEREAS, the parties are authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to Section
339.08(e) and 339.12, Florida Statutes;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual covenants and other
valuable considerations contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
Page 1 of 13
Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and the City of Miami Beach,
Financial Project Numbers # 414641-1-58-01. and 414641-1-68-01
INCORPORATION OF RECITALS
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into the body of
this Agreement, as if hlly set forth herein.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
a. The CITY shall submit this Agreement to its City Commission for ratification
or approval by resolution. A copy of said resolution is attached hereto as
Exhibit "C", 'Resolution', and is herein incorporated by reference.
b. The CITY shall obtain all necessary permits from the DEPARTMENT, and
other concerned agencies, as needed, prior ta commencing PROJECT
construction on DEPARTMENT right-of-way.
c. The CITY shall advertise for bid, let the consultant and construction contracts,
administer, supervise and inspect all aspects of PROJECT construction until
completion, and, as hrther defined in Exhibit "A", 'Scope of Services'. The
CITY shall complete the PROJECT on or before June 30,2010. All aspects of
PROJECT construction and administration are subject to DEPARTMENT
standards and specifications and must be in compliance with all governing
laws and ordinances.
d. The CITY shall not execute any contract or obligate itself in any manner
requiring the disbursement of DEPARTMENT funds, including consulting or
construction contracts or amendments thereto, with any third party with
respect to the PROJECT without the prior written approval of the
DEPARTMENT. The DEPARTMENT specifically reserves the right to
review qualifications of any consultant or contractor and to approve of
disapprove CITY employment of same.
e. The DEPARTMENT shall reimburse the CITY for eligible PROJECT costs as
defined in Exhibit "B", 'Financial Summary', and in accordance with the
financial provisions in Section 3 of this Agreement.
3. FINANCIAL, PROVISIONS
a. Eligible PROJECT costs may not exceed ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED
ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,501,000.00), as outlined in Exhibit 'W',
'Financial Summary'. If additional funding is required, contingent upon
DEPARTMENT approval, a supplemental agreement between the
DEPARTMENT and the CITY authorizing the additional finding shall be
executed prior to such costs being incurred.
Page 2 of 13
Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and rhe City of Miami Beach,
Financial Project Numbers # 414641-1-58-01, and 414641-1-68-01
b. The DEPARTMENT agrees to pay the CITY for the herein described services
at a compensiition as detailed in this Agreement.
c. Payment shall be made only after receipt and approval of goods and services
unless advance payments are authorized by the Department's Comptroller
under Section 334.044(29), Florida Statutes, or by the Department of
Financial Services under Section 215.422(14), Florida Statutes.
d. Bills for fees or other compensation for services or expenses shall be
submitted in detail sufficient for a proper preaudit and postaudit thereof.
e. Travel costs will not be reimbursed.
Records of costs incurred under the terms of this Agreement shall be
maintained and made available upon request to the DEPARTMENT at all
times during the period of this Agreement and for five years after final
payment is made. Copies of these documents and records shall be furnished to
the DEPARTMENT upon request. Records of costs incurred include the
CITY'S general accounting records and the project records, together with
supporting documents and records, of the contractor and all subcontractors
performing work on the project, and all other records of the contractor and
subcontractors considered necessary by the DEPARTMENT for a proper audit
of costs.
g. In the event this contract is for services in excess of $25,000.00 and a term for
a period of more than 1 year, the provisions of Section 339.135(6)(a), Florida
Statutes, are hereby incorporated:
The DEPARTMENT, during any fiscal year, shall not expend money,
incur any liability, or enter into any contract which, by its terms, involves the
expenditure of money in excess of the amounts budgeted as available for
expenditure during such fiscal year. Any contract, verbal or written, made in
violation of this subsection is null and void, and no money may be paid on
such contract. The DEPARTMENT shall require a statement from the
Comptroller of the DEPARTMENT that such fhds are available prior to
entering into any such contract or other binding commitment of funds.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the making of contracts for periods
exceeding 1 year, but any contract so made shall be executory only for the
value of the services to be rendered or agreed to be paid for in succeeding
fiscal years; and this paragraph shall be incorporated verbatim in all contracts
of the DEPARTMENT which are for an amount in excess of TWENTY FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($25,000.00) and which have a term for a period of
more than 1 year.
h. The DEPARTMENT'S obligation to pay is contingent upon an annual
appropriation by the Florida Legislature.
Page 3 of 13
Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and the City of Miami Beach,
Financial Project Numbers # 4I4641-1-58-OI, and 414641-1-68-01
4. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted
indemnify each other
wrongdoing of a party
parties agree to defend
by Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, the parties agree to
for liability due to any act or omission, neglect or
or any of its officers, agents or employees. Further, the
each other against any and all such claims or demands
which may be claimed and have arisen as a result of or in connection with the
parties' participation in this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall be
construed to contradict the provisions of Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, nor
shall this Section be construed to require either party to indemnify the other for
the negligent acts of the other.
5. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Florida.
6. AMENDMENT
This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the DEPARTMENT
and the CITY expressed in writing, executed and delivered by each party.
7. INVALIDITY
If any part of this Agreement shall be determined to be invalid or unenforceable,
the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, if such remainder
continues to conform to the terms and requirements of applicable law.
8. COMMUNICATIONS
a. All notices, requests, demands, consents, approvals and other communications
which are required to be served or given hereunder, shall be in writing and
hand-delivered or sent by either registered or certified U.S. mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, addressed to the party to receive such notices as
follows:
To DEPARTMENT: Florida Department of Transportation
1000 Northwest 1 1 1 Avenue, Room 6 137
Miami, Florida 33 172-5800
Attn: Kenneth Robertson, JPA Coordinator
Ph: (305) 470-5452; Fax: (305) 470-5552
Page 4 of 13
Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and the City ofMiami Beach.
Financial Project Numbers # 414641-1-58-01. and 414641-1-68-01
To CITY: City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33 139
Attn: Fernanda Vazquez, City Engineer
Ph: (305) 673-7080; Fax: (305) 673-7028
b. Either party may, by notice given as aforesaid, change its address for all
subsequent notices. Notices given in compliance with this section shall be
deemed given when placed in the mail.
9. EXPIRATION OF AGREEMENT
The CITY agrees to complete the PROJECT on or before June 30, 2010. If the
CITY does not complete the PROJECT within this time period, this Agreement
will expire unless an extension of the time period is requested by the CITY and
granted in writing by the DEPARTMENT'S District Six Secretary or Designee.
Expiration of this Agreement will be considered termination of the PROJECT.
10. FINAL INVOICE
The CITY must submit the final invoice on this PROJECT to the DEPARTMENT
within 120 days after the expiration of this Agreement. Invoices submitted after
October 28,2010, will not be paid.
1 1. AUDITS
State of Florida Single Audit Act requirements as outlined in the attached Exhibit
"D, 'Audit Reports', are incorporated herein by reference.
12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Joint Participation Agreement is the entire Agreement between the parties
hereto, and it may be modified or amended only by mutual consent of the parties
in writing.
-- REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK --
Page 5 of 13
Joint Partic9ation Agreement beiween the Florida Department of Transpoflation and the Ciry of Miami Beach,
Financial Project Numbers # 414641-1-58-01, and 414641-1-68-01
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, on the day
and year above written.
9
ATTEST:
(SEAL) CITY CLERK
ROBERT PARCHER
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION:
BY:
&PISTRICT SECRETARY
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
LEGAL REVIEW:
\
CITY ATTORN
Page 6 of 13
Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and the City of Miami Beach,
Financial Project Numbers # 414641-1-58-01, and 414641-1-68-01
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
To consbxct roadway improvements in accordance with and as detailed in the attached
PROJECT plans along the SR A1A southbound corridor within the below-identified PROJECT
Limits. The DEPARTMENT will provide the CITY with the signed and sealed construction
plans. The CITY will let, supervise and inspect all aspects of PROJECT construction and
administration.
PROJECT Limits: SR A1 AlIndian Creek Drive, southbound, fiom 4 1 Street to 26th Street
FDOT Pinancial Project Numbers: 414641-1-58-01 and 414641 -1-68-01
County: Miami-Dade
FDOT Project Manager: Ana Arvelo, P.E.
CITY Project Manager: Fernando Vazquez, P.E.
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The CITY agrees to construct the PROJECT using a competitively-bid contractor in accordance
with the signed and sealed plans and specifications, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
Please see attached plans prepared by: - Corradino Grour,
Dated:
Page 7 of 13
Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and the CiW of Miami Beach,
Financial Project Numbers # 414641-1-58-01, and 414641-1-68-01
EXHIBIT "B"
FINANCIAL SIJMMARY
Estimated PROJECT costs for reimbursement are below-listed, separated by phase of work:
Financial Project Number 4 14641 - 1-58-01
PROJECT Construction:
Financial Project Number 414641- 1-68-01
PROJECT Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) services:
Total PROJECT Cost Estimate:
Page 8 of 13
Joint Participation Agreement between the Florido Department of Transportation and the City ofMiami Beach,
Financial Project Numbers # 414641-1-58-01, and 414641-1-68-01
EXHIBIT "C"
RESOLUTION
To be herein incorporated once approved by the CRY Commission.
Page 9 of 13
Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and the Cily of Miami Beach,
Financial Project Numbers # 414641-1-58-01, and 414641-1-68-01
EXHIBIT "Dn
AUDIT REPORTS
The administration of resources awarded by the Department to the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH may be subject to audits
anaor monitoring by the Department, as described in this section. For further guidance, see the Executive Office of
the Governor website, which can be found at: www.fssa.state.fl.us .
MONITORING
In addition to reviews of audits conducted in accordance with OMB Circular A-133 and Section 215.97, F.S., as
revised (see "AUDITS" below), monitoring procedures may include, but not be limited to, on-site visits by
Department staff, limited scope audits as defined by OMB Circular A-133, as revised, andlor other procedures. By
entering into this agreement, the recipient agrees to comply and cooperate hlly with any monitoring
procedures/processes deemed appropriate by the Department. In the event the Department determines that a limited
scope audit of the recipient is appropriate, the recipient agrees to comply with any additional instructions provided by
the Department staff to the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH regarding such audit. The CITY OF MIAMI BEACH further
agrees to comply and cooperate with any inspections, reviews, investigations, or audits deemed necessary by the Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) or Auditor General.
AUDITS
PART I: FEDERALLY FUNDED
Recipients of federal bds (i.e. state, local government, or non-profit organizations as defined in OMB Circular A-
133, as revised) are to have audits done annually using the following criteria:
1. In the event that the recipient expends $300,000 ($500,000 for fiscal years ending after December 31,2003)
or more in Federal awards in its fiscal year, the recipient must have a single or program-specific audit
conducted in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133, as revised. EXHIBIT 1 to this
agreement indicates Federal resources awarded through the Department by this agreement. In determining
the Federal awards expended in its fiscal year, the recipient shall consider all sources of Federal awards,
including Federal resources received from the Department. The determination of amounts of Federal awards
expended should be in accordance with the guidelines established by OMB Circular A-133, as revised. An
audit of the recipient conducted by the Auditor General in accordance with the provisions OMB Circular A-
133, as revised, will meet the requirements of this part.
In connection with the audit requirements addressed in Part I, paragraph I., the recipient shall fulfill the
requirements relative to auditee responsibilities as provided in Subpart C of OMB Circular A-1 33, as revised.
If the recipient expends less than $300,000 ($500,000 for fiscal years ending after December 31, 2003) in
Federal awards in its fiscal year, an audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-
133, as revised, is not required. In the event that the recipient expends less than $300,000 ($500,000 for fiscal
years ending after December 31, 2003) in Federal awards in its fiscal year and elects to have an audit
conducted in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133, as revised, the cost of the audit must be
paid from non-Federal resources (i.e., the cost of such an audit must be paid fiom recipient resources obtained
from other than Federal entities).
Federal awards are to be identified using the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) title and
number, award number and year, and name of the awarding federal agency.
Page 10 of 13
Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and the City ofMiami Beach.
Financial Project Numbers # 414641-1-58-01, and 414641-1-68-01
PART 11: STATE FUNDED
Recipients of state funds (i.e. a nonstate entity as defined by Section 215.97(2)(1), Florida Statutes) are to have audits
done annually using the following criteria:
1. In the event that the recipient expends a total amount of state financial assistance equal to or in excess of
$300,000 ($500,000 for fiscal years ending on September 30, 2004, and thereafter) in any fiscal year of such
recipient, the recipient must have a State single or project-specific audit for such fiscal year in accordance with
Section 215.97, Florida Statutes; applicable rules of the Executive Office of the Governor and the CFO; and
Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and for-profit organizations), Rules of the
Auditor General. EXHIBIT 1 to this agreement indicates state financial assistance awarded through the
Department by this agreement. In determining the state financial assistance expended in its fiscal year, the
recipient shall consider all sources of state financial assistance, including state financial assistance received
from the Department, other state agencies, and other nonstate entities. State fmncial assistance does not
include Federal direct or pass-through awards and resources received by a nonstate entity for Federal program
matching requirements.
2. In connection with the audit requirements addressed in Part 11, paragraph 1, the recipient shall ensure that the
audit complies with the requirements of Section 215.97(7), Florida Statutes. This includes submission of a
financial reporting package as defined by Section 215,97(2)(d), Florida Statutes, and Chapters 10.550 (local
governmental entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and for-profit organizations), Rules of the Auditor General.
3. If the recipient expends less than $300,000 in state financial assistance in its fiscal year ($500,000 for fiscal
years ending on September 30, 2004, and thereafter), an audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of
Section 215.97, Florida Statutes, is not required. In the event that the recipient expends less than $300,000
($500,000) in state financial assistance in its fiscal year and elects to have an audit conducted in accordance
with the provisions of Section 215.97, Florida Statutes, the cost of the audit must be paid from the nonstate
entity's resources (i.e., the cost of such an audit must be paid from the recipient's resources obtained from other
than State entities).
4. State awards are to be identified using the Catalog of State Financial Assistance (CSFA) title and number,
award number and year, and name of the state agency awarding it.
PART 111: OTHER AUDIT REQUIREMENTS
The recipient shall follow up and take corrective action on audit findings. Preparation of a summary schedule
of prior year audit fmdings, including corrective action and current status of the audit findings is required.
Current year audit findings require corrective action and status of findings.
Records related to unresolved audit fmdings, appeals, or litigation shall be retained until the action is completed
or the dispute is resolved. Access to project records and audit work papers shall be given to the FDOT, the
Comptroller, and the Auditor General. This section does not limit the authority of the Department to conduct or
arrange for the conduct of additional audits or evaluations of state -cia1 assistance or limit the authority of
any other state official.
Page 1 1 of 13
Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and the Cig of Miami Beach,
Financial Project Numbers # 414641-1-58-01, and 414641-1-68-01
PART IV: REPORT SUBMISSION
1. Copies of reporting packages for audits conducted in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, as revised, and
required by PART I of this agreement shall be submitted, when required by Section -320 (d), OMB Circular A-
133, as revised, by or on behalf of the recipient directly to each of the following:
The Department at each of the following addresses:
Florida Department of Transportation
1000 Northwest 1 1 1 Avenue
Miami, Florida 33 172
The Federal Audit Clearinghouse designated in OMB Circular A-133, as revised (the number of copies
required by Sections .320 (d)(l) and (2), OMB Circular A-133, as revised, should be submitted to the
Federal Audit Clearinghouse), at the following address:
Federal Audit Clearinghouse
Bureau of the Census
1201 East 10& Street
Jeffersonville, IN 47 132
Other Federal agencies and pass-through entities in accordance with Sections .320 (e) and (9, OMB
Circular A-133, as revised.
In the event that a copy of the reporting package for an audit required by PART I of this agreement and
conducted in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, as revised, is not required to be submitted to the
Department for reasons pursuant to section .320 (e)(2), OMB Circular A-133, as revised, the recipient shall
submit the required written notification pursuant to Section .320 (e)(2) and a copy of the recipient's audited
schedule of expenditures of Federal awards directlv to each of the following:
Florida Department of Transportation
1000 Northwest 1 1 1 Avenue
Miami, Florida 33 172
In addition, pursuant to Section .320 (0, OMB Circular A-133, as revised, the recipient shall submit a copy of
the reporting package described in Section .320 (c), OMB Circular A-133, as revised, and any management
letters issued by the auditor, to the Department at each of the following addresses:
Florida Department of Transportation
1000 Northwest 1 1 1 Avenue
Miami, Florida 33 172
Copies of financial reporting packages required by PART I1 of this agreement shall be submitted by or on
behalf of the recipient directlv to each of the following:
A. The Department at each of the following addresses:
Florida Department of Transportation
1000 Northwest 1 1 1 Avenue
Miami, Florida 33 172
B. The Auditor General's Office at the following address:
Page 12 of 13
Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and the City of Miamf Beach,
Financial Project Numbers # 414641-1-58-01, and 414641-1-68-01
Auditor General's Office
Room 401, Pepper Building
11 1 West Madison Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1450
Copies of reports or the management letter required by PART HI of this agreement shall be submitted by or on
behalf of the recipient directly to:
A. The Department at each of the following addresses:
Florida Department of Transportation
1000 Northwest 1 1 1 Avenue
Miami, Florida 33 172
Any reports, management letter, or other information required to be submitted to the Department pursuant to
this agreement shall be submitted timely in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, Florida Statutes, and
Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and for-profit organizations), Rules of the
Auditor General, as applicable.
Recipients, when submitting financial reporting packages to the Department for audits done in accordance with
OMB Circular A-133 or Chapters 10.550 (local governmental entities) or 10.650 (nonprofit and for-profit
organizations), Rules of the Auditor General, should indicate the date that the reporting package was delivered
to the recipient in correspondence accompanying the reporting package.
PART V: RECORD RETENTION
The recipient shall retain sufficient records demonstrating its compliance with the terms of this agreement for a
period of at least five years from the date the audit report is issued, and shall allow the Department, or its
designee, the state CFO or Auditor General access to such records upon request. The recipient shall ensure that
the independent audit working papers are made available to the Department, or its designee, the state CFO, or
Auditor General upon request for a period of at least five years from the date the audit report is issued, unless
extended in writing by the Department.
Page 13 of 13
Joint Participation Agreement between the Florida Department of Transportation and the City oJMiami Beach,
Financial Project Numbers # 414641-1-58-01, and 414641-1-68-01
Attachment B
AMENDMENT FOUR TO JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH
This Amendment Four to that certain Joint Participation Agreement #AOY48, executed on October 31, 2007 (the
"Contract"), incorporated herein by reference, between the City of Miami Beach, a municipal corporation of the State of
Florida ("CITY"), and the State of Florida Department of Transportation, a component agency of the State of Florida
("DEPARTMENT), for the roadway improvements on State Road (S.R.) AIA southbound from 41'' Street to 26th Street,
programmed under Financial Project Numbers 414641-1-58-01 and 414641-1-68-01 ("PROJECT), is entered into this
day of ,20-.
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Contract was entered into by both parties pursuant to the approval of the DEPARTMENT and of
the ClTY Commission by Resolution No. 2007-26694, adopted on October 17, 2007, in the total amount of One Million
Five Hundred One Thousand Dollars ($1,501,000.00) for PROJECT costs; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend Section 2, General Requirements, to include the following language:
f. The ClTY shall utilize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify system, in accordance
with the terms governing use of the system, to confirm the employment eligibility of:
i. all persons employed by the ClTY during the term of this Agreement to perform employment
duties within Florida; and
ii. all persons, including subcontractors, assigned by the CITY to perform work pursuant to this
Agreement with the DEPARTMENT.
WHEREAS, Section 2, General Requirements, and 9, Expiration of Agreement, shall be amended to extend the
contract term from June 30, 201 1 to September 30, 201 1; and
WHEREAS, the final invoice submittal date reflected in Section 10, Final Invoice, shall be amended from October
28,201 1 to January 28,2012; and
WHEREAS, the CITY Commission has adopted Resolution No. on , 20-, to
approve the amended General Requirements;
NOW, THEREFORE, for the considerations hereinafter set forth:
The Contract dated October 31, 2007, is hereby amended as follows:
Section 2 shall be amended to include Section 2(f).
Section 2(a) and 9 are amended to extend the contract term to September 30, 201 1.
Section 10 is amended to extend the final invoice submittal date to Januarv 28. 2012.
............................. REMAl N D ER OF PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY------------------------------------
All other terms and conditions of the Contract are in effect and remain unchanged.
Amendment Four to Joint Participation Agreement between Florida Department of Transportation and the City of Miami Beach,
Project #s 414641-1 -58-01 & 414641-1-68-01
Page 1 of 2
ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH: STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION:
By: By:
CITY Mayor District Secretary
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
By: By:
CITY Clerk Executive Secretary
LEGAL REVlE r/ LEGAL REVIEW:
By: / By:
District Chief Counsel
APPROVED AS -. 1
FORM &
9 C&ECUTION
Amendment Four to Joint Participation Agreement between Florida Department of Transportation and the City of Miami Beach,
Project #s 414641-1-58-01 & 414641-1-68-01
Page 2 of 2
CHARLIE CRIST
GOVERNOR
Florida Department of Transportation
District Contracts and Procurement
1000 Northwest 11 I" Avenue, Room 6203
Miami, FL 331 72
STEPHANIE C. KOPELOUSOS
SECRETARY
Where a request for service is an opportunity to serve you!
November 6,2007
Mr. Fernando Vazquez
Ci of Miami Beach, Transportation Division
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Re: Project # 414641-1-58-01: SR AlA Roadway Improvements; JPA Execution Notice
Dear Mr. Vazquez:
Enclosed for the City of Miami Beach's (City's) records is one (1) original Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) for
the referenced project. This JPA was executed by the Florida Department of Transportation (Department) on
Wednesday, October 31,2007. Another original JPA was mailed by separate cover to the City's Clerk's Ofice,
Attn: Ms. Kerry Hernandez.
Thank you on behalf of the Department for your assistance in expediting the execution of this JPA. If you have
any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (305) 470-5404.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Robertson
District Contracts and Procurement Manager
encl: One (1) original executed JPA Agreement
cc: Ana Awelo, P.E., FDOT Project Manager; File
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE JOINT PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT (JPA) BETWEEN THE ClTY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT), DATED OCTOBER 31, 2007, FOR THE MILLING
AND RESURFACING IMPROVEMENTS ALONG INDIAN CREEK DRIVE (SR AIA)
BETWEEN 26 AND 41 STREETS; SAID AMENDMENT EXTENDING THE
CONTRACT FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE (3) MONTHS, THROUGH
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011; EXTENDING THE FINAL INVOICE SUBMITTAL DATE TO
JANUARY 28, 2012; AND UTILIZING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY'S E-VERIFY SYSTEM TO CONFIRM EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY OF
ALL PERSONS EMPLOYED BY THE ClTY DURING THE TERM OF THE JPA.
WHEREAS, lndian Creek Drive (SR AIA) is a Federal Classified Principal Urban Arterial
which falls under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); and
WHEREAS, the City needs to construct water and sewer improvements in lndian Creek
Drive; and
WHEREAS, FDOT needs to rehabilitate the pavement in lndian Creek Drive; and
WHEREAS, the City and FDOT negotiated a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) in order to
construct these improvements simultaneously; and
WHEREAS, the City agreed to manage the construction of the project and FDOT agreed to
contribute $1,501,000 for project costs; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2007, the City Commission adopted Resolution No 2007-26694,
which approved the JPA; and
WHEREAS, the City needs an additional three (3) months, until September 30, 201 1, to
complete the project; and
WHEREAS, FDOT is requiring the City to utilize the U.S. Homeland Security's E-Verify
system to confirm the employment eligibility of all persons employed by the City during the term of
the JPA to perform employment duties within Florida; and
WHEREAS, the attached Amendment No. 4 amends the JPA to provide the additional time
needed to complete the project and requires the City to use the E-Verify system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby approve
and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the attached Amendment No Four to the Joint
Participation Agreement (JPA) by and between the City and the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT), dated October 31ST, 2007, for the Milling and Resurfacing Improvements
along lndian Creek Drive (SR AIA) between 26TH and 41'' Streets.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of June, 201 1.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
T:MGENDA\2011\6-01-1 l\lndian Creek JPA amendment #4 Reso.doc
194
I
Mayor nPPRBtFEBAS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, Re-
appropriating Eighty-One Thousand Dollars ($81,000) Of Funds From FY 1011 1 Capital Budget Fund
440 - Electrical Buss Duct Replacement For West Wrap Project To The Glass Block Window
Replacement Project At The Convention Center.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
I Tnsure well maintained facilities
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): The 2009 Miami Beach Community
Satisfactory Survey about 113 of residents say they go to the Convention Center between 1 and 2
times per year. Additionally, the Convention Center is projecting a 61 % occupancy and approximately
500,000 attendees.
I"""".
Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the re-appropriation of $81,000 for the Glass Block
Window Project at the Convention Center?
tem SummarylRecommendation:
The Miami Beach Convention Center glass block windows are leaking and in need of repair. The
original project was to replace all of the glass block with impact resistant hurricane proof windows and
had an approved budget of $1,200,000. However, due to the electrical buss duct failure that occurred
in July 2010, and possible expansionlrenovations to the-facility, $950,000 of funding was re-
appropriated in the FY 1011 1 Capital Budget for the emergency buss duct repairs. The emergency
buss duct repairs were completed at a total cost, including the JOC fee, of $866,258.46.
Global Spectrum and the City decided to repair and reseal the glass block windows until a decision is
made on the expansion of the Convention Center. The balance left to repair and reseal the glass
block windows was $250,000. Global Spectrum developed the scope of work for this project and
obtained a quote through the City's Job Order Contracting (JOC) system from Matrix Construction.
The quote, including the JOC fee, totaled $330,064. The remaining $250,000 will not cover the total
costs of the project, including the JOC fee. Therefore, an additional $81,000 needs to be re-
appropriated to cover the remaining balance of the repairs and the waterproofing of the exterior glass 1 block. I
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I
:inancia1 Information:
I I I
Financial Impact Summary: Funding in the amount of $81,000 is available from the Electrical Buss
Duct Replacement For West Wrap Project in account 440-2643-000350, which was budgeted and
appropriated in the FY 1011 1 Capital Budget Fund 440.
OBPl
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
I Max A. Sklar Ext. 61 16
Account
Re-appropriate $81,000 of funds from Electrical Buss
Duct Re~lacement For West Wrap Project Account # 440-
AM1 BEACH
Amount
$81,000
Source of
Funds:
Total
AGENDA ITEM C7J
DATE ..
1
$81,000
2643-00'0350- pfsbuswest
MIAMIBEACH
Ciiy of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.rniamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager nK
DATE: June 1, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, REAPPROPRIATING EIGHTY-ONE THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($81,000) OF FUNDS FROM FY IOlll CAPITAL BUDGET FUND 440 -
ELECTRICAL BUSS DUCT REPLACEMENT FOR WEST WRAP PROJECT TO THE
GLASS BLOCK WINDOW REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT THE CONVENTION
CENTER.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the proposed resolution.
FUNDING
Fundina in the amount of $81.000 is available from the Electrical Buss Duct Replacement For
West irap Project in acciunt'440-2643-000350, which was budgeted and appropriated in the
FY 1011 1 Capital Budget Fund 440.
BACKGROUND \
The Miami Beach Convention Center glass block windows are leaking and in need of repair.
The original project was to replace all of the glass block with impact resistant hurricane proof
windows and had an approved budget of $1,200,000. However, due to the electrical buss duct
failure that occurred in July 2010 that required emergency repair, and possible expansion1
renovations to the facility, $950,000 of funding for the Glass Block project was re-appropriated
in the FY 1011 1 Capital Budget for the emergency buss duct repairs. The emergency buss duct
repairs were completed at a total cost, including the JOC fee, of $866,258.46, or $83,741.54
less than the funding available.
Global Spectrum and the City have decided to repair and reseal the glass block windows until a
decision is made on the expansion of the Convention Center. The balance left from the original
allocation for repair and reseal of the glass block windows is $250,000. Global Spectrum
developed the scope of work for this project and obtained a quote through the City's Job Order
Contracting (JOC) system from Matrix Construction. The quote, including the JOC fee, totaled
$330,064. The remaining $250,000 in the Glass Block project account will not cover the total
costs of the project, including the JOC fee. Therefore, an additional $81,000 needs to be re-
appropriated to cover the remaining balance of the repairs and the waterproofing of the exterior
glass block.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the proposed resolution re-
appropriating $81,000 from the funds remaining and available from the Electrical Buss Duct
project hthe Glass Block Window project.
T:\AGEN~DOI 1\6-01-1 l\Reappropriate Funds for Glass BLock Repairs MBCC Memodoc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE
ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, REAPPROPRIATING EIGHTY-
ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($81,000) OF FUNDS FROM FY 10111
CAPITAL BUDGET FUND 440 - ELECTRICAL BUSS DUCT
REPLACEMENT FOR WEST WRAP PROJECT TO THE GLASS
BLOCK WINDOW REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT THE
CONVENTION CENTER.
WHEREAS, the City originally approved a capital project in the Fiscal Year
2009110 Capital Budget to replace all of the glass block windows with impact resistant
hurricane proof windows with an approved budget of $1,200,000; and
WHEREAS, $950,000 of funding was re-appropriated in the FY 1011 1 Capital
Budget for the emergency electrical buss duct repairs that occurred in July 2010;
WHEREAS, the emergency buss duct repairs were completed at a total cost,
including the JOC fee, of $866,258.46; and
WHEREAS, Global Spectrum and the City decided to repair and reseal the glass
block windows until a decision is made on the expansion of the Convention Center with
the balance of available funds, $250,000; and
WHEREAS, a quote was obtained through City's Job Order Contracting (JOC)
system from Matrix Construction totaling $330,064 including the JOC fee and an
additional $81,000 needs to be re-appropriated from the balance in the Electrical Buss
Duct Replacement Project to cover the remaining balance of the repairs and the
waterproofing of the exterior glass block.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY
COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby re-appropriate $81,000 of funds from FY 1011 1 Capital Budget Fund
440 - Electrical Buss Duct Replacement for West Wrap Project to the Glass Block
Window Replacement Project at the Convention Center.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2011.
ATTEST:
ClTY CLERK,
Robert Parcher
MAYOR
Matti Herrera Bower
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
T:\AGENDA\ZOIO\September 15\Regular\Electrical Buss nsre+ pfimmission Reso 2010.do
197
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, Appropriating $18,750
for the City's Joint Tourism and Hospitality Scholarship Program in partnership with Global Spectrum and
Centerplate; and further awarding said scholarships.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
] Maximize Miami Beach as a Brand Destination.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): The 2009 Community Satisfaction Survey reported
69.2% of resident respondents feel the tourism industry contributes "about the right amount" to the quality of
life, while 13.3% indicated the tourism industry contributes "too little" to the quality of life.
Issue: I Shall the City Commission appropriate funding for the award of Tourism and Hospitality Scholarships? I
I 1
:em SummarylRecommendation:
The City of Miami Beach Tourism and Hospitality Scholarship Program began in 2003 in partnership with
the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau (GMCVB), SMG and Centerplate. Contributions to the
City's scholarship program were contractually required of the three (3) entities. During the GMCVB's
contract renewal in 2004, the requirement was removed from their contract. As you know, in September of
2008, the City replaced SMG with Global Spectrum. Global Spectrum and Centerplate currently partner
with the City on this program and contribute $12,500 and $20,000 respectively annually. There is also a
carry forward balance of $43,600 from 2010. Therefore, the City currently has $76,100 available for this
scholarship program. After the 201 1 awards are made, there will be $57,350 (plus future contributions)
available.
The scholarship program is geared toward Miami Beach residents or graduates of Miami Beach Senior
High School who enroll in post-secondary education and have expressed interest in the food and
hospitality industry (as demonstrated by coursework and extracurricular activities). Since the inception of
the program, $205,150, which includes the current scholarship recommendation of $18,750, has been
awarded to more than 37 different Miami Beach students. The City received eight (8) applications for the
scholarship program. After review of the applications, eight (8) applicants are recommended for
scholarships in 201 1.
Advisory Board Recommendation: I NIA
Financial Information:
I I
u I I
OBPi Total 1$18,750 1 199.6025.000343
Financial impact Summary: Funding for this is provided by Global Spectrum and Centerplate.
Source of
Funds:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
I Max Sklar, Tourism and Cultural Development Director
AM1 BEACH AGENDA ITEM C7/(
Account
199.6025.000343 1
DATE 6-1-11
Amount
$18,750
BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
City Manager Jorge M. Gonzalez
June 1,201 1
w
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION AND EXPENDITURE OF
$18,750 FOR THE CITY'S JOINT TOURISM AND HOSPITALITY SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAM IN PARTNERSHIP WITH GLOBAL SPECTRUM AND CENTERPLATE; AND
FURTHER AWARDING SAID SCHOLARSHIPS.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution
ANALYSIS
The City of Miami Beach Tourism and Hospitality Scholarship Program began in 2003 in partnership with the
Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau (GMCVB), SMG and Centerplate. Contributions to the City's
scholarship program were contractually required of the three (3) entities. During the GMCVB's contract renewal in
2004, the requirement was removed from their contract. As you know, in September of 2008, the City replaced
SMG with Global Spectrum. Global Spectrum and Centerplate currently partnerwith the City on this program and
contribute $1 2,500 and $20,000 respectively annually. There is also a carry forward balance of $43,600 from
201 0. Therefore, the City currently has $76,100 available for this scholarship program. After the 201 1 awards are
made, there will be $57,350 (plus future contributions) available.
The scholarship program is geared toward Miami Beach residents or graduates of Miami Beach Senior High
School who are enrolled or are planning to enroll in post-secondary education and have expressed interest in the
food and hospitality industry (as demonstrated by coursework and extracurricular activities). Since the inception
of the program, $205,150, which includes the current scholarship recommendation of $18,750, has been awarded
to more than 37 different Miami Beach students.
There were a total of eight (8) applications. Representatives from each entity (City of Miami Beach, Global
Spectrum and Centerplate) met to review the applications received and have made the following recommended
awards for 201 1 :
Lyssa Goldberg:
Karen Gonzalez:
Nathalia Gonzalez:
Noelia Gonzalez:
Jesse Kirkpatrick:
Leidy Lorenzo:
lsabella Mongalo:
Melanie Veizaga:
TOTAL:
CONCLUSION
The City Administration recommends appropriation of $18,750 in support of the Tourism and Hospitality
Scholars~rogram, and further recommends approval of the aforementioned scholarships.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF
MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION AND
EXPENDITURE OF $18,750 FOR THE CITY'S JOINT TOURISM AND
HOSPITALITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM IN PARTNERSHIP WITH GLOBAL
SPECTRUM AND CENTERPLATE; AND FURTHER AWARDING SAID
SCHOLARSHIPS.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach Tourism and Hospitality Scholarship Program began in
2003 in partnership with the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau (GMCVB), SMG and
Centerplate; and
WHEREAS, Global Spectrum and Centerplate currently partner with the City on this program;
and
WHEREAS, Global Spectrum contributes $12,500 annually and Centerplate contributes
$20,000 annually; and
WHEREAS, the scholarship program is geared toward Miami Beach residents or graduates of
Miami Beach Senior High School who are enrolled or are planning to enroll in post-secondary
education and have expressed interest in the food and hospitality industry (as demonstrated by
coursework and extracurricular activities); and
WHEREAS, the City Administration recommends appropriation of $1 8,750 in support of the
Tourism and Hospitality Scholarship Program and further recommends approval of the
aforementioned scholarships.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, authorize the appropriation and expenditure of $1 8,750
for the City's joint Tourism and Hospitality Scholarship Program in partnership with Global Spectrum
and Centerplate; and further awarding said scholarships.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ,2011.
ATTEST:
ClTY CLERK
MAYOR:
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City Commission Meeting
City Hall, Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, 1700 Convention Center Drive
June 1,2011
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower
Vice-Mayor Jonah Wolfson
Commissioner Jorge Exposito
Commissioner Michael G6ngora
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
City Manager Jorge M. Gonzalez
City Attorney Jose Smith
City Clerk Robert E. Parcher
Visit us at www.miamibeachfl.gov for agendas and video "streaming" of City Commission Meetings.
ATTENTION ALL LOBBYISTS
Chapter 2, Article VII, Division 3 of the City Code of Miami Beach entitled "Lobbyists" requires the
registration of all lobbyists with the City Clerk prior to engaging in any lobbying activity with the City
Commission, any City Board or Committee, or any personnel as defined in the subject Code sections.
Copies of the City Code sections on lobbyists laws are available in the City Clerk's office. Questions
regarding the provisions of the Ordinance should be directed to the Office of the City Attorney.
REGULAR AGENDA
R2 - Competitive Bid Reports
R2A Request For Approval To Award Contracts To ISS Facility Services, Inc., Omarcio Cleaning Services,
Inc., Performance Cleaning Group, And Professional Building Services; Reject Bids Received For
The Following Locations: City Hall Parking Garage And Offices Located At City Hall Parking Garage;
Pursuant To Invitation To Bid No. 13-1 011 I, For Janitorial Services Citywide, In The Annual Amount
Of $1,311,099.60; And Authorize The Administration To Evaluate The Current Service Levels To
Further Reduce The Total Cost. (Page 205)
(Procurement)
R2B Request For Approval To Reject All Qualifications Received Pursuant To Request For Qualifications
(RFQ) No. 54-0911 0, For The Provision Of Governmental Consulting Services At Miami-Dade County,
Florida. (Page 245)
(Economic DevelopmentlProcurement)
(Deferred from May 1 I, 201 1)
(Related to Item R7B)
Regular Agenda, June 1,201 1
R5 - Ordinances
R5A An Ordinance Amending Chapter 82 Of The City Code, Entitled "Public Property," By Amending
Article VI, Entitled "Naming Of Public Facilities And Establishments Of Monuments And Memorials",
By Amending Section 82-501(C), To Exempt The Miami Beach Botanical Garden From The
Provisions Of Said Article VI, Subject To The Terms And Conditions Contained In This Ordinance;
Providing For Repealer, Severability, Codification And Effective Date. 10:15 a.m. Second Reading
Public Hearing (Page 253)
(Requested by Commissioner Jerry Libbin)
(Legislative Tracking: Real Estate, Housing & Community Development)
(First Reading on May 11, 201 1)
(Related to R7F)
R5B Alton Road Historic District Buffer Overlay
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 142, "Zoning Districts And Regulations," Article Ill, "Overlay
Districts," Creating Division 8 "Alton Road - Historic District Buffer Overlay," By Including Section 142-
858 "Location And Purpose," And Section 142-859 "Development Regulations,: Including Among
Other Provisions Regulations On Maximum Floor Area Ratio; Maximum Building Height; Minimum
Setbacks; Building Separation; Demolition Or Additions To Contributing Buildings In An Historic
District; And Land Use Regulations For Location Of Retail Uses, Restaurants, Bars, Entertainment
Establishments, Alcoholic Beverage Establishments And Similar Uses; Requiring Conditional Use
Approval Of Such Uses In Excess Of 20,000 Sq. Ft.; And Prohibiting Alcoholic Beverage And
Entertainment Establishments In Open Areas With Exceptions As Prescribed In The Ordinance.
11 :00 a.m. First Reading Public Hearing (Page 263)
(Requested by City Commission in 2009)
(Legislative Tracking: Planning Department)
(Continued from April 13, 201 IIReferred to LUDC)
R5C Parking District Boundaries And Fees In-Lieu Of Parking
An Ordinance Amending The Land Development Regulations Of The Code Of The City Of Miami
Beach, By Amending Chapter 130, "Off Street Parking", Article II, "District Requirements", By
Amending Section 130-31, "Parking Districts Established", To Expand The Boundaries Of The
Existing Parking Districts; By Amending Section 130-33, "Off-Street Parking Requirements For
Parking Districts Nos. 2,3 And 4," To Amend Regulations Pertaining To Parking Districts 2,3, And 4;
And By Amending Article V, "Fee In Lieu Of Parking Program," Section 130-132, "Fee Calculation",
Reducing The Yearly Fee In Lieu Of Parking From The Current Three Percent Of The One-Time
Payment To A Lesser Percentage; Providing For Repealer, Codification, Severability And An Effective
Date.. First Reading (Page 273)
(Requested by Vice-Mayor Jonah Wolfson)
(Legislative Tracking: Planning Department)
Regular Agenda, June 1,201 1
R7 - Resolutions
R7A A Resolution Following A Duly Noticed Public Hearing Accepting The Recommendation Of The
Historic Preservation Board And Granting A Certificate Of Appropriateness For The Demolition Of
The 6th Street Restrooms, A Non-Contributing Facility Located At 599 Ocean Drive. 10:OO a.m. Public
Hearing (Page 291)
(Capital Improvement Projects)
R7B Resolution Following A Duly Noticed Public Hearing And Pursuant To A 5ffths Vote, Granting A
Waiver Of A Conflict Of lnterest Under Section 2-1 1 .l(C) Of The Miami-Dade County Conflict Of
lnterest And Code Of Ethics Ordinance, For Mr. Randall Hilliard, Who Is A Member Of The City's
Convention Center Advisory Board And Also A Principal Of Washington Square Partners, Inc., Which
Entity, In Conjunction With Rosario Kennedy And Associates, Corp. And The Law Offices Of N.
Patrick Range 11, P.A. (The Proposal Team), Submitted A Proposal In Response To Request For
Qualifications No. 54-0911 0 For Governmental Consulting Services At Miami-Dade County Florida
(The RFQ); Finding That Pursuant To Section 2-1 1 .I (C)(6) Of The County Code, The Aforestated
Conflict Of lnterest May Be Waived In Order To Authorize The Administration To Negotiate With The
Proposal Team And, If Successful, Authorize The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute A Contract With
Said Team, As: 1) The Aforestated Proposal In Response To The RFQ Was Submitted Pursuant To
An Open-To-All Sealed Competitive Bidding Process; And 2) The Award Of The Proposed RFQ And
Ensuing Contract Is In The Best lnterest Of The City. 10:20 a.m. Public Hearing (Page 295)
(City Attorney's Office)
(Related to R2B)
R7C A Resolution Approving The Substantive Terms Of An Agreement Between The City And Coca Cola
For An Exclusive Non-Alcoholic Beverage Municipal Marketing Partnership For Vending And
Dispensing In Certain City-Owned Properties, With Said Proposed Agreement Having An Initial Term
Of Ten (I 0) Years; Authorizing The City Manager And City Attorney's Office To Negotiate And Draft
The Final Agreement, Based Upon The Approved Terms (As Further Referenced In The Term Sheet
Attached As Exhibit "A To This Resolution); And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute
The Final Agreement; Provided, However, That In The Event That The Final Negotiated Agreement
Includes Any Term Or Terms Which Substantially Deviate From The Approved Substantive Terms
(As Referenced In The Attached Term Sheet), Or Contain New And/or Additional Terms Which, In
The City Manager And City Attorney's Opinion, Materially Alter The Proposed Transaction (As
Referenced In The Approved Term Sheet), Then Requiring That The Final Negotiated Agreement To
Be Brought To The City Commission For Its Consideration. (Page 299)
(City Manager's Office)
(Memorandum, Resolution & Agreement to be Submitted in Supplemental)
R7D A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute A Joint Participation
Agreement With Miami-Dade County For Road Impact Fee Funds In The Amount Of $3,011,000 For
The West Avenue Bridge Project, Of Which $1,635,000 Will Be Used For Land Acquisition And
$1,376,000 Will Be Used For Construction Costs; And Further Approving And Authorizing Re-
Appropriating $1 8,211 Of People's Transportation Plan Funding For Land Acquisition. (Page 301)
(Public Works)
Regular Agenda, June 1,201 1
R7 - Resolutions (Continued)
R7E A Resolution Adopting The City Of Miami Beach Traffic Calming Manual (TCM); Further Approving
And Authorizing The City Manager To Execute An Intergovernmental Agency Agreement (IAA) With
Miami-Dade County Pursuant To Section 2-96.1 Of The County Code For The Installation And
Maintenance Of Traffic Calming Devices And Their Related Traffic Control Signs On The City's Local
Municipal Streets Pursuant To The City's Traffic Calming Manual. (Page 321)
(Public Works)
R7F A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute A First Amendment To
That Certain Management Agreement By And Between The City And The Miami Beach Garden
Conservancy, Inc. (The "Conservancy"), Dated January 17, 2007, For The Management Of The
Miami Beach Botanical Garden (The "Premises"), Located At 2000 Convention Center Drive, Miami
Beach, Florida; Said Amendment Establishing Criteria And Guidelines For The Conservancy To
Award Naming Rights For Portions Of The Botanical Garden, In Exchange For Monetary
Contributions From Private Donors, To Fund Certain Capital lmprovements To The Premises.
(Page 381)
(City Manager's Office)
(Related to R5A)
R7G A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute Amendment No. 2 To
The Management Agreement Between The City Of Miami Beach, Florida And Altos Del Mar Sculpture
Park, Inc. (ADMSP) For The Operation Of A Sculpture Park In Altos Del Mar Park; Said Amendment
Modifying The Deadline To Obtain A Building Permit For Construction Of The Sculpture Park
Proposed lmprovements From May 13,201 1, To March 31,2012; And Further Requiring ADMSP To
Provide Proof To The City Commission By September 14,201 1, That Funding For Architectural And
Engineering Services For Design And Development Of The Proposed lmprovements Has Been
Secured. (Page 391)
(Tourism & Cultural Development)
R7H A Resolution Pertaining To The Par 3 Golf Course And The Flamingo Park Project Tennis Center,
And Ratifying Previously Approved Resolution No. 201 0-27407, Which Approved And Adopted The
Par 3 Project Master Plan, Including The Construction Of Four (4) Hard Surface Tennis Courts, Tot
Lot, And Splash Pad And Ratifying Previously Approved Resolution No. 2009-27190, Which
Approved The Flamingo Park Master Plan Option "L", As Amended, Including The Construction Of
Seventeen (1 7) Hydro Courts At The Proposed Tennis Center. (Page 395)
(Capital Improvement Projects)
(Memorandum & Resolution to be Submitted in Supplemental)
Regular Agenda, June 1,201 1
R9 - New Business and Commission Requests
R9A Board And Committee Appointments. (Page 399)
(City Clerk's Office)
R9A1 Board And Committee Appointments - City Commission Appointments. (Page 403)
(City Clerk's Office)
R9A2 Nomination Of Mark Sinnreich For Health Facilities Board. (Page 409)
(Requested by Vice-Mayor Jonah Wolfson)
R9B1 Dr. Stanley Sutnick Citizen's Forum. (12:30 p.m.) (Page 41 1)
R9B2 Dr. Stanley Sutnick Citizen's Forum. (5:30 p.m.)
R9C Report On The 201 1 Florida Legislative Session. (Page 413)
(Economic Development)
R9D Discussion Regarding The Status Of Repairs To Belle Isle Infrastructure That Are Pending To
Resolve Ongoing Flooding Issues. (Page 425)
(Requested by Vice-Mayor Jonah Wolfson & Commissioner Michael Gongora)
R9E Discussion And Update On The Progress Of The Baywalk. (Page 427)
(Requested by Commissioner Deede Weithorn)
R9F Discussion Of Viability Of Storing City Directed Towed Vehicles On Terminal Island. (Page 429)
(City Manager's Office)
(Memorandum to be Submitted in Supplemental)
R9G Discussion Regarding Two (2) Resolutions Placing Two Ballot Questions To Amend Section 6.03 Of
The City Charter For The November 1, 201 1, General Election. (Page 431)
1. A Resolution Calling For A November 1, 201 1 Special Election, For The Purpose Of
Submitting To The Electorate Of The City Of Miami Beach A Question Asking Whether Miami
Beach City Charter Section 6.03 Should Be Amended To Change The Time Period That A
Qualified Elector Of The City, Residing Within The City For At Least One (1) Year Prior To
Qualifying, Has To File With The City Clerk HisIHer Petition For Qualifying As A Candidate
For Office, From No Later Than The Second Day Of The Consecutive Four (4) Day Period For
Qualifying As A Candidate For Such Office, To No Later Than Noon Of The 14th Day
Preceding The First Day Of Such Consecutive Four (4) Day Qualification Period.
2. A Resolution Calling For A November 1, 201 1 Special Election, For The Purpose Of
Submitting To The Electorate Of The City Of Miami Beach A Question Asking Whether Miami
Beach City Charter Section 6.03 Should Be Amended To Require A Waiver Of The City
Qualifying Fee In The Event That The County Supervisor Of Elections Does Not Verify A
Candidate For Office's Qualifying Petition By 5:00 Pm On The Second Day Of The Four Day
Qualifying Period.
(Requested by Vice-Mayor Jonah Wolfson)
Regular Agenda, June 1,201 1
RIO - City Attorney Reports
Rl OA Attorney Client Session (Page 443)
Pursuant To 9286.01 1, Florida Statutes, The City Attorney Hereby Advises The Mayor And City
Commission That He Desires Advice Concerning The Following Pending Litigation Matter:
The Citv Of Miami Beach. Florida Vs. Hargreaves Associates, Incorporated, William Lane Architect,
Inc., William Lane, Savino & Miller Design Studio. P.A., Dan Euser Water Architecture. Inc., Kenneth
Didonato, Inc., Kenneth Didonato, Inc., Kenneth Didonato, LAM Partners, Inc., William A. Abarca,
P.E., Plav.Site.Architecture. Inc., Joanne Hiromura, Johnson, Avedano, Looez, Rodriguez & Walewski
Engineering Group, Inc., Horacio A. Rodriguez, P.E. Magnum Construction Management, Coro. D/B/A
MCM Corp., And Or MCM, Eleventh Judicial Circuit Of Florida , Case No. 10-61979 CA 03
Therefore, A Private Closed Attorney-Client Session Will Be Held During The Lunch Recess Of The
City Commission Meeting On June 1,201 1, In The City Manager's Large Conference Room, Fourth
Floor, City Hall, To Discuss Settlement Negotiations And/or Strategy Related To Litigation
Expenditures With Regard To The Above-Referenced Litigation Matter.
The Following Individuals Will Be In Attendance: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower; Members Of The City
Commission: Jorge Exposito, Michael Gongora, Jerry Libbin, Edward Tobin, Deede Weithorn And
Jonah Wolfson; City Manager Jorge Gonzalez, City Attorney Jose Smith, First Assistant City Attorney
Steven Rothstein, Special Counsel, Richard, Lydecker, Special Counsel Meredyth S. Cooper, And
Special Counsel Christopher Berga.
Reports and Informational ltems
Reports and Informational ltems (see LTC #125-2011)
End of Regular Agenda
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.rniarnibeachfl.gov
HOW A PERSON MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE ClTY COMMISSION OF
THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE CITY COMMISSION ARE ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION. SCHEDULED
MEETING DATES ARE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, DISPLAYED ON MBN 77, AND ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ClTY
CLERK'S OFFICE. COMMISSION MEETINGS COMMENCE NO EARLIER THAN 9:00 A.M. GENERALLY THE ClTY
COMMISSION IS IN RECESS DURING THE MONTH OF AUGUST.
1 . DR. STANLEY SUTNICK CITIZENS' FORUM will be held during the first Commission meeting each month. The Forum is split
into two (2) sessions, 1 2:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, provided that the Commission Meeting
has not already adiourned prior to the time set for either session of the Forum. In the event of adiournment prior to the Stanley
Sutnick Citizens' Forum, notice will be posted on MBN 77, and posted at City Hall. Approximately thirty (30) minutes will be
allocated for each session, with individuals being limited to no more than three (3) minutes or for a time period established by
the Mayor. No appointment or advance notification is needed in order to speak to the Commission during this Forum.
2. Prior to every Commission meeting, an Agenda and backup material are published by the Administration. Copies of the
Agenda may be obtained at the City Clerk's Office on the Monday prior to the Commission regular meeting. The complete
Agenda, including all backup material, is available for inspection beginning the Monday prior to the Commission meeting at
the City Clerk's Office and at the following Miami Beach Branch Libraries: Main, North Shore, and South Shore. The
information is also available on the City's website: www.miamibeachfl.gov the Friday prior to a Commission Meeting.
Any person requesting placement of an item on the Agenda must provide a written statement with his/her complete address
and telephone number to the Office of the City Manager, 1700 Convention Center Drive, 4th Floor, Miami Beach, FI 33 139,
briefly outlining the subject matter of the proposed presentation. In order to determine whether or not the request can be
handled administratively, an appointment may be scheduled to discuss the matter with a member of the City Manager's staff.
"Requests for Agenda Consideration" will not be placed on the Agenda until after Administrative staff review. Such review will
ensure that the issue is germane to the City's business and has been addressed in sufficient detail so that the City Commission
may be fully apprised. Such written requests must be received in the City Manager's Office no later than noon on Monday of
the week prior to the scheduled Commission meeting to allow time for processing and inclusion in the Agenda package.
Presenters will be allowed sufficient time, within the discretion of the Mayor, to make their presentations and will be limited to
those subjects included in their written requests.
4. Once an Agenda for a Commission Meeting is published, persons wishing to speak on item(s) listed on the Agenda, other than
~ublic hearing items and the Dr. Stanley Sutnick Citizens Forum, should call or come to City Hall, Office of the City Clerk,
1700 Convention Center Drive, telephone 673-741 1 , before 5:00 p.m., no later than the day prior to the Commission meeting
and give their name, the Agenda item to be discussed, and if known, the Agenda item number.
5. All persons who have been listed by the City Clerk to speak on the Agenda item in which they are specifically interested, and
persons granted permission by the Mayor, will be allowed sufficient time, within the discretion of the Mayor, to present their
views. When there are scheduled public hearings on an Agenda item, IT IS NOT necessary to register at the City Clerk's
Office in advance of the meeting. All persons wishing to speak at a public hearing may do so and will be allowed sufficient
time, within the discretion of the Mayor, to present their views.
6. If a person wishes to address the Commission on an emergency matter, which is not listed on the Agenda, there will be a
period allocated at the commencement of the Commission Meeting when the Mayor calls for additions to, deletions from, or
corrections to the Agenda. The decision as to whether or not the matter will be heard, and when it will be heard, is at the
discretion of the Mayor. On the presentation of an emergency matter, the speaker's remarks must be concise and related to a
specific item. Each speaker will be limited to three minutes, or for a longer or shorter period, at the discretion of the Mayor.
201 1 Schedule of City of Miami Beach
City Commission and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Meetings
Meetings begin at 9:00 a.m., and are held in the City Commission Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall,
1 700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida.
Commission Meetings Alternate Meetings
January 19 (Wednesday) January 26 (Wednesday)
February 9 (Wednesday) February 16 (Wednesday)
March 9 (Wednesday) March 16 (Wednesday)
April 1 3 (Wednesday) April 27 (Wednesday]
May 1 1 (Wednesday) May 18 (Wednesday]
June 1 (Wednesday)
July 13 Wednesday) July 20 Wednesday)
August - Cify Commission in recess
September 14 (Wednesday)
October 1 9' (Wednesday] October 26 (Wednesday)
November 2 (Wednesday] - Election related only
November 16 (Wednesday] - If Run-off Election only
December 14 (Wednesday] December 2 1 (Wednesday)
F:\CLER\$ALL\a City Commission\201 1 Schedule of City of Miami Beach.docx
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
LOBBYISTS LIST
June 1, 2011
LOBBYIST NAME RETAINED BY DATE REGISTERED DISCLOSURE
R5B Alton Road Historic District Buffer Overlay
Neisen Kasdin Jimmy Resnick 08/19/2010 $580/hour
R9E Discussion And Update On The Progress Of The Baywalk.
Kent Robbins Sierra Club Miami Group 12/05/2006 Non-Profit
C:\Documents and Settings\centvalk\Desktop\2011Agenda\Lobbyist List_1June2011.doc
COMPETITIVE BID REPORTS
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Request For Approval To Award Contracts To ISS Facility Services, Inc., Omarcio Cleaning Services, Inc.,
Performance Cleaning Group, And Professional Building Services; Reject Bids Received For The Following
Locations: City Hall Parking Garage And Offices Located At City Hall Parking Garage; Pursuant To lnvitation
To Bid No. 13-1011 1, For Janitorial Services Citywide, In The Annual Amount Of $1,311,099.60; And
Authorize The Administration To Evaluate The Current Services Levels To Further Reduce The Total Cost.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Ensure well maintained facilities.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): The 2009 Customer Satisfaction Survey indicated that
87.2% of residents, and 85% of businesses rated the appearance and maintenance of the City's public
buildings as excellent or good. A
Issue:
[Shall the City Commission approve the award of Contracts? I
item SummarylRecommendation:
I lnvitation to Bid (ITB) No. 13-09/10, was issued on January 27,201 1, and 27 bids were received on March 11, I . ,
201 1. The purpose of the ITB is to establish contracts by means of competitive sealed bids to qualified
providers of janitorial services. These contracts shall remain in effect until September 30,201 3, and may be
renewed by mutual agreement for three (3) additional years, on a year-to-year basis.
A Technical Review Panel (the "PanelJ') convened on March 31,201 I to be briefed on the evaluation process,
and to receive all responsive bids. The Panel reconvened on April 13 and 20,201 1 to discuss their rankings of
the companies per location. After all scorings were tabulated, the panel recommended award to four (4)
companies: ISS Facility Services, Inc., Omarcio Cleaning Services, Inc., Performance Cleaning Group,
and Professional Building Services.
The contract price to provide janitorial services resulting from ITB 13-10111 is fixed and firm through
September 30, 2013, which means savings of approximately $58,572 through September 30, 201 1. After
October 1,201 1, the annual savings realized are approximately $281,228 for Fiscal Year 2012 and $282,356
for Fiscal Year 2013, for a total of $622,156 through September 30, 2013.
I APPROVE THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS. I
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I
Financial Information:
i
Source of
I I 1 2 1 $342.342.60 1 Parkina Department Account 480-0463-000325 (12"~ 1
Amount 1 Account
Funds:
I I
1 1 $792,885.00 1 Property Management Account 520-1720-000325 I
3
I Sfreef Garage)
5 1 $3,184.00 1 Public Works Water Account 425-041 0-000325 1
4
OBPl
$82,800.00
13'~, 1 Fh, 4Pd Sfreef, Cify Hall and Penn Av ~ara~es)
Parking Department Account 142-6976-000325 (7"'
$77,520.00
Financial
Sfreef Garage)
Parking Department Account 463-1 990-000325 (1 6th
6
7
8
Total
Impact Summary: I
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
1
$3,184.00
$3,184.00
$6,000.00
$1,311,099.60
Gus Lopez Ext. 6641
Public Works Sewer Account 425-0420-000325
Public Works Stormwater 427-0427-000325
Fire Department Account 01 1-1210-000325
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.rniarnibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the Cp Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June 1, 201 1
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO TO ISS FACILITY
SERVICES, INC., OMARCIO CLEANING SERVICES, INC., PERFORMANCE
CLEANING GROUP, AND PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SERVICES; REJECT
BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: CITY HALL PARKING
GARAGE AND OFFICES LOCATED AT CITY HALL PARKING GARAGE;
PURSUANT TO INVITATION TO BID NO. 13-10/11, FOR JANITORIAL
SERVICES CITYWIDE, IN THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $1,311,099.60; AND
AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO EVALUATE THE CURRENT SERVICE
LEVELS TO FURTHER REDUCE THE TOTAL COST.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve the award of contracts.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME
Ensure well-maintained facilities.
FUNDING
Funding will be provided from the following Accounts:
Property Management Account 520-1 720-000325
Parking Department Account 480-0463-000325
(1 2th, 1 3thJ 1 fh, 4Yd Street, City Hall and Pennsylvania Av. Garages)
Parking Department Account 142-6976-000325 (7th Street Garage)
Parking Department Account 463-1 990-000325 (1 6th Street Garage)
Public Works Water Account 425-041 0-000325
Public Works Sewer Account 425-0420-000325
Public Works Stormwater 427-0427-000325
$6,000 Fire Department Account 01 1-1 21 0-000325
$1,311,099.60 Total
ANALYSIS
The purpose of Invitation to Bid (ITB) 13-1011 1 is to establish contracts by means of
competitive sealed bids to qualified providers of janitorial services. These contracts shall
remain in effect until September 30,201 3, and may be renewed by mutual agreement for
three (3) additional years, on a year to year basis. The IT6 is subject to the requirements
of the Living Wage and Equal Benefits Ordinances.
Commission Memorandum - ITB 13-09/10 Janitorial Services
June I, 2011
Page 2
The contracts consist of providing janitorial services to City facilities and parking garages
which include administrative offices, recreational facilities, parking facilities and public
restrooms. The awarded companies shall provide all supervision, administrative and
technical support, labor, subcontractors, materials, supplies and equipment (except as
otherwise provided), and shall plan, schedule, coordinate and assure effective completion
of all services.
The awarded companies shall also be responsible for all toilet paper, paper towels, hand
soaps and other consumables required to maintain restrooms and shower facilities located
City-wide. As part of the City's "GREEN BUILDING" REQUIREMENTS, it is the intent of the
City to make our buildings environmentally friendly through waste prevention, and the use
of environmentally friendlylpreferable products.
The ITB was issued with language which required that all chemicals used be those
commercially available which meet Federal, State, and local codes; that meets the
Environmental Protection Agency's criteria for Low or no Volatile Organic Chemicals
(VOC's). Companies shall use as many waste prevention and environmentally preferable
products as possible, as well as the use of products made with a minimum of recycled post
consumer materials as set forth in the EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG)
while at the same time taking into consideration, waste prevention methods. (1.e. - roll
towels rather than individually folded towels and multi-rolls of toilet tissue rather than single
rolls.)
As part of the evaluation proceedings, the responsive bidders were allocated points for their
responses to the City's required environmental program and corporate responsibility plan.
The ITB provides for a mechanism to monitor and ensure that the City's green guidelines
and corporate responsibility plans proposed are adhered to.
Although this ITB identifies specific facilities to be serviced, any facility may be added or
deleted to from this contract at the option of the City. When an addition to the contract is
required, awarded companies shall be invited to submit price quotes for these new facilities.
If these quotes are comparable with prices offered for similar services, the award(s) shall
be made to the lowest and best responsible bidder(s) meeting the specifications, or scope
of services.
BID PROCESS
Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. 13-0911 0, was issued on January 27, 201 1 with a bid opening
date of February 25,201 1. A Pre-Bid Conference was held on February 11,201 1, and site
visits were conducted on February 24 and 25, 201 1. Five (5) Addendums were issued to
provide additional information and to respond to all questions submitted by the prospective
bidders, thus extending the bid opening due date to March 1 I, 201 1.
Bidsync and Bidnet issued bid notices to 81 and 45 prospective bidders respectively. The
notices resulted in the receipt of 27 bids from the following companies:
ABP Maintenance
AJ&AJ Cleaning Solutions
Best Janitorial & Supplies
Boro Building & Property Maint.
Carolina Cleaning
Chi-Ada Corporation
Cleaning Systems lnc.
Come Land Maintenance Co.
High Maintenance Services (HMS)
Honor Cleaning
ISS Facility Services
Magic Brite Janitorial
N&K Enterprises
OJS Systems
Omarcio Cleaning Services
Performance Cleaning Group
Commission Memorandum - IT5 13-09/10 Janiforial Services
June 1, 2011
Page 3
D&A Building
Diamond Contract Services
Dream Clean Inc.
Federal Janitorial
FMC Services
Frank Medina & Associates
Powermind Global Service
Professional Building Services
Stockton Maintenance Group
Triangle Services
Vista Building Maintenance
The test of responsiveness performed by the Procurement Department resulted in the
following companies being deemed non-responsive for failing to comply with the
requirements of the ITB: AJ&AJ Cleaning Solutions did not meet the three minimum year
requirement, and FMC Services and Stockton Maintenance Group acknowledged they had
not accounted for Living Wage increases through September 30, 2013.
A Technical Review Panel (the "Panel") convened on March 31,201 1 to be briefed on the
evaluation process, and to receive all responsive bids. The Panel consisted of the following
individuals:
Ellen Vargas, Parks and Recreation, Facilities Manager
Andrew Plotkin, Parks and Recreation, Facilities Manager
Gus Andino, Property Management, Contracts Coordinator
Miguel Beingolea, Parking Department, Operations Manager
The Panel was provided with the Evaluation Criteria, and method of award to be utilized to
rank the vendors. The Panel was asked to score and rank the bids in accordance with the
following evaluative criteria:
1. Price (50 points)
2. Qualifications of Bidder (1 5 Points)
3. Experience and Past Performance (1 5 Points)
4. Contract Compliance (5 Points)
5. Corporate Responsibility Plan (I 5 Points)
During the Panel's meeting, it was discussed that the ranking of companies per facility
would result in potential savings of over $200,000 per year. Therefore, the Panel was
requested to score and rank companies per facility. Companies whose bid amount
exceeded the current amount budgeted for a particular location were not to be short listed
for award consideration. See Bid Tabulation, Attachment A.
There were two locations in the bid, the Offices located at the City Hall Parking Garage, and
the City Hall Parking Garage, that when the results were tabulated showed current cost was
below bid amount. For those locations, the Administration recommends rejecting the bids
received for those two locations, and renewing the existing contract at the lower cost.
The Panel reconvened on April 13 and 20,201 1 to discuss their rankings of the companies
per location. Panel members ranked all companies whose bid amount fell within the current
budgeted cost of providing the services. After all scorings were tabulated, the results
showed award to seven companies; two of those, HMS and N&K, ranked first on one
location each, Normandy Isle Park and Pool Facility and Ocean Front Auditorium
respectively. Both companies declined the offer to provide services for that one location
unless they were awarded others, mainly due to the small level of service required, twice a
day cleaning for Normandy Pool and twice a week (2hrs per day) for Ocean Front
Auditorium. A third company, DM, withdrew its bid from consideration due to errors in their
calculations. Award of these locations was subsequently moved to the second ranked
companies.
Commission Memorandum - I TB 13-09/10 Janitorial Services
June 1,2011
Page 4
Upon further review of the Panel rankings, the following locations showed that the top
ranked company being recommended offered a higher price than another company being
recommended by the Panel for other locations. The locations are: North Beach Police
Substation, Normandy Isle Park and Pool Facility, Flamingo Park and Pool, and Flamingo
Park Tennis Court Restrooms.
The Panel met again on May 10, 2011 for a final review of their rankings and
recommendation for all locations. The Panel agreed that on those locations where one of
the companies being recommended for award provided a lower cost than the top ranked
company for that particular location, it would make sense to change the recommendation to
the lower bidder (which is being recommended for award on other locations) based on
savings. The only location where the panel agreed that the top ranked company should
remain was Normandy Park and Pool due to the fact that it was the same company
currently providing the services, Omarcio Cleaning, and would therefore ensure continuity
of service and guarantee end user will receive same level of service, while, at the same
time, providing savings from current amount being paid in the amount of $147.76lmonth.
The Panel also discussed the possibility of recommending the second ranked company for
one other location, North Shore Recreation and Tennis Center, where the second ranked
company, Performance Cleaning Group, had been the top ranked for Scott Rakow Youth
Center, Police Athletic League and Recreation Center, and 21 Street Recreation Center.
The Panel argued that Performance Cleaning seemed to have better experience and
qualifications than the top ranked company, Professional Building Services, and while the
higher price did not allow Performance to be top ranked, the Panel believed they will better
serve the recreation center. Several of their customers include high traffic facilities, such as
the Tampa Port Authority cruise terminal and offices, Lakeland Area bus terminal, and other
local governments, including City of Boynton Beach and City of Lake Mary. Professional
Building Services offered more experience in corporateloffice environment buildings.
Recommending Performance will also ensure same level of service received by all
recreation centers, since these recreation centers serve same end user, and are heavily
utilized sites, they are expected to receive same standard of cleanliness. While the Panel
was asked to rank and score per location, in this instance they strongly believed that
keeping the Recreation centers maintained by the same company would be to the benefit of
the City for the reasons stated above. This recommendation would mean no increase to the
current cost of maintaining the facility.
For all other locations where the recommended company was not the lowest, the Panel
justified their rankings by arguing that the difference in price did not make up for the higher
scores in experience, qualifications, past performance and corporate responsibility plan of
the recommended companies. Failure to include the intent to hire existing or local
residents, or a corporate responsibility plan that did not provide specific information were
raised as a concern by the panel, and a basis for not recommending the low bidder.
At the conclusion of the ranking and scoring process, the Panel felt comfortable with the
companies being recommended for award. All four (4) companies had shown a solid
Corporate Responsibility Plan, including their willingness to hire residents and green
initiatives; their experience and qualifications were more than satisfactory.
All companies were reminded of the Living Wage requirements applicable to this ITB, and
all four (4) certified that their bids had been submitted in compliance with the Living Wage
Ordinance. See attached Living Wage Certifications.
Attachment B shows Panel's recommendation for award and monthly and annual cost per
location.
Commission Memorandum - IT6 13-09/10 Janiforial Services
June 1,201 1
Page 5
The Administration has reviewed the bidder's qualifications, experience, capability, and
references of the recommended vendors. Below is an overview of each recommended
company.
ISS Facilitv Services
ISS Facilitv Services (ISS) has been in business since 1975. ISS provides services to . ,
commercial offices, government facilities, medical facilities, educational campuses,
warehouse and industrial properties, event venues and airports on a daily basis. Their list of
clients includes City of Jacksonville, Volusia County and Salt Lake City International Airport.
ISS holds a membership with the United States Green Building Council. As part of their
corporate responsibility plan, ISS would consider a community cleanup day as part of ISS
"World of Community Service". Other events can be discussed/negotiated upon award.
Omarcio Cleanina Services
Omarcio Cleaning has provided janitorial services to the City of Miami Beach since 2007.
Property Management Division and Parking Department are very satisfied with the level of
service provided by Omarcio. Their corporate responsibility plan includes a commitment to
contribute a minimum of $1,500 to Miami Beach Senior High per contract year. Omarcio will
make every reasonable effort to reach out to the multiple labor forces, i.e. UNIDAD, within
the City limits to employ residents.
Performance Cleaning Group
Performance Cleaning Group (PCG) is a privately owned company headquartered in
Tampa, with operating offices throughout the State of Florida. The company has been in
operation for over 5 years, with clients that include Tampa Port Authority, City of Boynton
Beach and Duval and Orange Counties Health Deparments. PCG is certified by the Green
Clean Institute; its corporate responsibility plan included green cleaning initiatives, as well
as efforts to hire local City of Miami Beach residents to help with local unemployment.
Professional Building Services
Professional Building Services (Professional) was established over 30 years ago. Their
customer base encompasses a wide range of clients, including South Florida Water
Management, Plantation Executive Building and Zenith Property Management among
others. Their corporate responsibility plan included their willingness to hire local residents
and existing pool of employees, and volunteer work to contribute to the community.
All recommended companies will interview and consider hiring existing custodians.
See attached letter of non-displacement of qualified workers signed by the recommended
companies.
COST COMPARISON
The current cost of providing janitorial services for the buildings and garages specified by
the ITB is $1,545,387.82 through September 30,201 1. This amount would have increased
at the beginning of Fiscal Years 2012 and 201 3 according the Living Wage Ordinance in
the amounts of $46,940 and $48,068 respectively.
The contract price to provide janitorial services resulting from ITB 13-1 011 1 is fixed
and firm through September 30, 2013, which means savings of approximately
$59,673 through September 30, 2011. After October 1, 2011, the annual savings
realized are approximately $285,635 for Fiscal Year 2012 and $286,763 for Fiscal Year
2013. The table below shows savings realized from an award pursuant to ITB 13-
10111:
Commission Memorandum - ITB 13-09/10 Janitorial Services
June I, 201 1
Page 6
The Administration opted to issue an ITB in lieu of renewing the current contracts,
which resulted in savings of approximately $622,156 through September 30,2013.
Annual Cost Facilities and Garages until September
30, 2011 (current contract)
ITB 13-10111 Annual Cost Facilities and Garages
until September 30,2013
Annual Savings from current contract
Fiscal Year 2011 Savings (3 Months thru September
30,2011 - $19,524lmonth)
Fiscal Year 2012 Savings ($234,288 + $46,940)
Fiscal Year 2013 Savings ($234,288 + $48,068)
Savings through September 30,2013
During the bid process, there were several questions submitted by prospective bidders
regarding the requirement that this contract be subject to a union or collective bargaining
agreement. Bidders were informed of no such requirement by the City. Additionally, the City
requested from its current janitorial contractors information regarding the existence of a
collective bargaining agreement. As a response, the City was notified on February 11,
201 1, that Vista and its subcontractor had previously entered into "Card Check"
(recognition) agreements with SEIU Local 32BJ. A written collective bargaining agreement
was not yet available. Omarcio Cleaning and Diamond advised they did not have a
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
$1,545,387.82
$1,311,099.60
$234,288.22
$58,572
$281,228
$282,356
$622,156
Vista's total cost is $1,638,239, which is approximately 25%, or $327,139lannually1 higher
than the total dollar amount of the recommended companies for all 41 facilities.
CITY MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE
After considering the review and recommendation of City staff, the City Manager exercised
his due diligence and recommends to the Mayor and City Commission the award of a
contract to ISS Facility Services, Inc., Omarcio Cleaning Services, Inc., Performance
Cleaning Group, and Professional Building Services.
The Panel's recommendation for award shows that of the 41 facilities, 21 are awarded to
the lowest bidder and two (2) are being renewed under the current contract. The 18
remaining facilities are awarded to other than the lowest bidder. The difference between the
lowest bidder and the recommended bidder (lowest and best), is de minimus. Overall, 5%
difference between low bidder and top ranked. The bid tabulations provide specific reasons
for each facility that the lowest bidder was not recommended.
It should be noted that the City's regular process of considering the price for contracts and
its standard process for bidding contracts has resulted in a price that is reflective of the
current market. At present, it appears that the market is very competitive and that the City
may continue to receive bids that are lower than those received in the past year or so. The
public procurement process, which is an open and competitive, transparent process, has
again served the City to provide the lowest and best bidders for these services, as it has in
the past.
It must be noted that the recommendation for award does not represent any reductions to
the current service levels being provided. After award, the Administration will evaluate the
level of services being provided, and the feasibility of reducing them, in order to reduce the
annual contract amount.
Commission Memorandum - ITB 13-09/10 Janitorial Services
June I, 201 I
Page 7
CONCLUSION:
Based on the aforementioned, the Administration recommends that the Mavor and City
Commission award contracts to ISS Facility Services, Inc., Omarcio cleaning services,
Inc., Performance Cleaning Group, and Professional Building Services; reject bids received
for the following locations: City Hall Parking Garage and Offices Located at City Hall
Parking Garage; Pursuant to Invitation to Bid No. 13-1 011 1, for Janitorial Services Citywide,
in the annual amount of $1,311,099.60; and authorize the Administration to evaluate the
current services levels to further reduce the total cost.
T:\AGENDA\2011\6-01-1 I\ITB 13-10-1 1 Janitorial Services MEMO.doc
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-10111 - JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing services) 1 City Hall Current Cost I $ 11,220.90 Powermind Global Service I $ 9,180.00 lomarcio Cleanina I S 9.950.001 Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Savings from current contract: 1 I .33% or $1,270.9O/month Lowest Bidder was scored low by the Panel on Corporate Responsibility plan and past performance (no past performance surveys were received). 2 Offices Located at the City Hall Parking Garage lcurrent Cost I $ 3.646.951 Come Land Maint Serv Federal Janitorial $ 10,547.65 Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning * Bid cost is over current contract, reject and renew current. Page 1 of 11 Y 777 Building (City Hall Annex Bldg) Powermind Global Service Chi-Ada 1 ~iamond Contract Serv I $ 3.169.731 Omarcio Cleaning 1 $ 3,450.00 Professional Building Serv 1 $ 3,452.00 Carolina Boro Building & Prop Maint ~OJS svstems 1 $ 3.484.001 $ 3,301.00 $ 3,360.00 Top Ranked: ISS Facility Services Savings from current contract: 17.06% OR $641.95/month Lowest Bidder was scored low by the Panel Federal Janitorial ABP Maintenance because company had compliance/performance issues in previous City contracts. $ 3,497.74 $ 3,516.23 2nd Lowest Bidder was scored low by the Panel on Corporate Responsibility and past performance; no past performance surveys were received. Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis.
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-10111 -JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST Page 2 of 11 Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing services) 6 Police Station Top Ranked: ISS Facility Services Savings from current contract: 30.59% or $655.93lmonth ISS received higher scores in experience, qualifications, past performance and corporate responsibility plan than lowest bidder. Current Cost I $ 15,396.95 Best Janitorial & Suo~lies I $ 13,400.00 Professional Building Sew 1 $ 13,706.67 Boro Building & Prop Maint I $ 13,820.00 [gwermind Global Service 1 $ 13,920.141 /come Land Maint Serv I $ 14,074.681 l~ederal Janitorial I $ 14,473.131 l~ista Building Maintenace I $ 14,843.441 Performance Cleaning Group C hi-Ada ABP Maintenance l~arolina Cleaning I $ 14,914.341 $ 14,603.00 $ 14,765.00 $ 14,791.19 1 Diamond Contract Serv I $ 15,097.56 1 Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Top Ranked: Professional Building Savings from current contract: Savings from current contract: 18.53% OR $1,594.96/month 10.98% or $1,690.28lmonth Lowest Bidders were scored low by the Panel because: Lowest Bidder was scored low by the Panel because Powermind: did not submit Corporate Responsibility company had compliance/performance issues plan; no past performance surveys were received. in previous City contracts. Best Janitorial: compliancelperformance issues in previous City contracts. Diamond - performance below average: complaints have been received for several of their locations under their current contract with the City. Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis.
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-10111 -JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing sel Page 3 of 1 1 vices) - - 9 North Beach Police Substation Fire Support Sewices Current Cost I$ 61593 Omarcio Cleaning I $ 500.00 t V South Shore Community Center 1 $ 3,020.86 Professional Building Sew I $ 2,765.75 Current Cost ($ 705.16 Professional Building Sew 1 $ 465.00 lcleaning Systems Inc. I $ 500.001 Boro Building & Prop Maint 1 $ 550.00 Federal Janitorial I $ 578.97 ~OJS Svstems I $ 584.001 ISS Facility Services 1 $ 591.96 Powermind Global Service I $ 592.00 ABP Maintenance I rS 598.68 I ono or Cleanina 1 $ 614.001 Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Savings from current contract: 18.82% or $1 15.93lmonth l~ederal Janitorial I S 2.839.611 Top Ranked: Professional Building Savings from current contract: 8.44% or $255.1 llmonth ABP Maintenance ISS Facility Services IFederal Janitorial I $ 662.851 $ 489.00 $ 569.07 Omarcio Cleaning Boro Building & Prop Maint Vista Building Maintenace I $ 671.46 Best Janitorial & Su~~lies I $ 695.00 $ 575.00 $ 650.00 l~owermind Global Service 1 $ 695.001 Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Recommended (2nd Ranked): Professional Building - Savings from current contract: 34.06% or $240.16lmonth Omarcio was top ranked by the Panel, however Professional Building is recommended by the Panel since they offered a lower bid, and they are also recommended for other locations in the same area, Normandy Shores Guardhouse & N. Shore Bandshell Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis.
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-1011 1 - JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST Page 4 of 11 Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing services) 10 21st Street Recreation Center Current Cost I $ 2,830.00 Performance Cleaning Group I $ 1,790.00 l~i~h Maint Serv (HMS) 1 $ 2,102.291 11 Ocean Front Auditorium Current Cost 1 $ 1,906.50 N&K Enterprises 1 $ 300.00 Diamond contract Serv Powermind Global Service ABP Maintenance 1 $ 2,479.34 Omarcio Cleanina 1 $ 2.500.00 T $ 1,937.50 $ 2,015.10 Carolina Cleaning Best Janitorial & Supplies ISS Facility Services l~oro Building & Prop Maint 1 $ 2,560.00/ $ 2,313.43 $ 2,390.00 $ 2,397.39 Performance Cleaning Group Diamond Contract Serv $ 440.00 $ 446.20 Best Janitorial & Supplies Come Land Maint Serv LABP Maintenance ( $ 689.751 $ 550.00 $ 571.28 Carolina Cleaning High Maint Serv (HMS) Vista Buildina Maintenace Triangle Services 1 $ 720.00 ISS Facility Services 1 $ 743.71 $ 591.00 $ 640.43 $ 661.40 [~oro Building & Prop Maint I $ 1,426.00) Professional Building Serv $ 1,648.33 Powermind Global Service $ 1,695.10 Chi-Ada !# 1.750.00 Federal Janitorial Vista Building Maintenace 1 Federal Janitorial I $ 1.772.521 ~OJS systems I $ 1,782.001 $ 2,632.00 $ 2,689.88 Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: 36.75% or $1,040.001month Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: 76.92% or $1,466.50lmonth N&K Enterprises was top ranked by the Panel, however declined servicing of one location. Performance Cleaning became Top Ranked. Dream Clean Inc. Omarcio Cleaning Top Ranked: Professional Building Award to lowest Hourly Rate provided by one of the four companies being recommended for award. $ 1,596.46 $ 1,625.00 Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis.
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-1011 I -JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST Page 5 of 11 Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing services) I 1'1 1 I I4 I Current Cost 1 $ 6,984.60 Powermind Global Service 1 $ 6,370.00 I I U I North Shore Recr & Tennis Center 1 professional Building Sew 1 $ 6,424.001 . . North Shore Open Space Offices l~ome Land Maint Sew 1 $ 6,492.591 Federal Janitorial $ 6,565.52 $ 6,700.00 Carolina C $ 6,760.00 ~OJS systems I $ 6,834.001 ~ABP Maintenance 1 $ 6,858.231 Top Ranked: Professional Building Recommended (2nd Ranked): Performance Cleaning Group at same cost as current. The Panel's recommendation was to award this location to Performance Cleaning, the second ranked company since they are also recommended on the other recreation centers, and it was important for the Panel that the recreation centers receive same level of service. Current Cost OJS Systems Magic Brite Janitorial I $ 400.00 Diamond Contract Sew 1 $ 402.73 $ 342.00 Chi-Ada Boro Building & Prop Maint Cleaning Systems Inc. ABP Maintenance $ 364.00 $ 380.00 $ 400.00 Omarcio Cleaning $ 600.00 N&K Enterprises $ 611.12 Honor Cleaning I $ 650.00 ISS Facility Services I $ 657.33 -- Vista Building Maintenace $ 663.17 Best Janitorial & Supplies $ 690.00 Federal Janitorial I $ ~1,728.00 Frank Medina & Assoc. I Triangle Services Come Land Maint Serv Dream Clean Inc. Powermind Global Service Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: Not available - new location. Lowest Bidders were scored low by the Panel on selection criteria other than price, including qualifications, experience, past performance, and corporate responsibility plan. The lower monthly cost did not warrant a top rank position for any of the lowest bids received based on the selection criteria point allocation. $ 720.00 $ 742.66 $ 997.00 $ 1,184.20 15 Muss Park Current Cost I $ 608.26 Performance Cleanina Group 1 $ 398.00 Omarcio Cleaning I $ 475.00 Professional Building Serv I $ 490.83 - ABP Maintenance Carolina Cleaning Boro Building & Prop Maint pleaning Systems Inc. I $ 600.001 $ 490.90 $ 535.86 $ 550.00 ISS Facility Services Federal Janitorial Powermind Global Service ~OJS systems I $ 604.00) $ 569.07 $ 571.76 $ 592.00 Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: 34.57% or $210.26/month Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis.
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-10111 - JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST Page 6 of 11 Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing services) 18 Still Water Park Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: 35.02% or $219.851month Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: 35.02% or $219.85lmonth Lowest Bidder was scored low by the Panel on Corporate Responsibility Plan. Top Ranked is being recommended for other parks in the area (Crespi, Still Water and Fairway) and North Shore Open Space trailer offices. Current Cost I $ 572.48 Performance Cleaning Group I $ 408.00 lomarcio Cleaning I $ 430.001 Federal Janitorial $ 538.13 l~arolina Cleaning I $ 545.971 Powermind Global Service $ 565.00 ISS Facility Services $ 569.07 r Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: 28.73% or $164.48lmonth Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis.
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-1011 1 - JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (sha I 10 I I Fairway Park I Current Cost I $ 572.48 Performance Cleaning Group 1 $ 398.00 - Omarcio Cleaning Professional Building Serv ABP Maintenance l~owermind Global Service I $ 565.001 $ 430.00 $ 445.00 $ 490.90 Federal Janitorial Boro Building & Prop Maint Carolina Cleaning llSS Facility Services I $ 569.071 $ 538.13 $ 540.00 $ 545.97 Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: 30.48% or $1 74.48lmonth ~ded area represents bids over current cost of providing 20 Normandy Shores Park Current Cost / $ 655.97 Cleanina Svstems Inc. I $ 400.00 Omarcio Cleaning I $ 500.00 Professional Building Serv I $ 516.25 Federal Janitorial I $ 616.61 Honor Cleaning I $ 650.00 Boro Building & Prop Maint Powermind Global Service ABP Maintenance Page 7 of 11 $ 540.00 $ 592.00 $ 595.35 services) I ,-I4 I L I Normandy Shores Guardhouse l~owermind Global Service 1 $ 250.001 Current Cost Boro Building & Prop Maint Professional Building Serv 1 $ 262.67 Federal Janitorial 1 $ 266.83 $ 283.86 $ 200.00 Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Savings from current contract: 23.78% or $155.97lmonth Top ranked company was found to be superior in past performance and corporate responsibility plan. Top Ranked: Professional Building Savings from current contract: 7.46% or $21.19lmonth Lowest bidder had below average past performance survey; also scored low on Corporate Responsibility 2nd Lowest Bidder was scored low by the Panel on Corporate Responsibility plan and past performance (no surveys were received). Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis.
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-1011 1 - JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing ser 1 - - i I 0'1 i 22 Normandy Isle Park and Pool Facility L3 Parks Maintenance Building Current Cost High Maint Serv (HMS) Boro Building & Prop Maint Professional Building Serv [~ederal Janitorial 1 $ 2,275.741 $ 2,447.76 $ 587.28 $ 1,200.00 $ 2,008.33 C hi-Ada N&K Enterprises Powermind Global Service Omarcio Cleaning 1 $ 2,300.00 Diamond Contract Serv / $ 2,319.90 $ 2,045.04 $ 2,081.44 $ 2,120.00 l~arolina Cleaning 1 $ 2,384.421 Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Savings from current contract: 6.04% or $147.761month $ 147.76 HMS was top ranked but declined one location. Omarcio became top ranked, scored high on past performance and Corporate Responsibility Plan. Omarcio recommend over lowest bidders since currel servicing this location. End user highly satisfied with their service. This will ensure end user satisfaction wl, still realizing savings from current contract. Current cost 1 $ 616.21 Omarcio Cleaning 1 $ 500.00 l~rofessional Building Serv ( $ 531.671 For Cleaning 1 $ 615.001 ISS Facility Services Federal Janitorial Pnwermind Global Service Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Savings from current contract: 18.86% or $1 16.2llmonth $ 576.54 $ 579.24 $ 595.12 ntly Tile vices) 24 Property Management Office and Maintenance I Facilitv I Current Cost 1 $ 1,257.07 Professional Building Serv 1 $ 1,056.67 powermind Global Service $ 1,095.94 Boro Building & Prop Maint $ 1,116.00 ABP Maintenance $ 1,240.28 Top Ranked: Professional Building Savings from current contract: 15.94% or $200.40lmonth Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis.
.yluow ad a~ua~ag!p ayd ayl uo paseq uo!l!sod yue~ do$ e sp!q )saMol ayl pJoge IOU saop uo!le3olle lu!od e!~al!~:, uo!palag .swooJlsau s!uual yJed o6u!welj JO~ papuawwo3a~ osle aJe Aayl pua 'p!q JaMol e paJago Aayl asu!s laued ayl Aq papuawwo3a~ s! 6u!pl!ng leuo!ssa4o~d AaAaMoy 'laued ayl Aq ls~y payuw sew axmuJoyad Y~uo~loz'zzz$ JO %£ C'9 C :pe~$uos $ua~~ns uiorj s6u!neg - tSu!pl!ng I LC. I (sa: .s!seq uo!$esol ad uo!$esol e uo laued ay$ Aq paqenlena $ou aJaM eade papeys uo sa!ueduio3 .spequo3 413 sno!~a~d u! sanss! a3ueunogad/a3ue!ldwo3 - $sag ',Q!l!q!suodsa~ aje~od~o:, u! MOI paJo3s 'a~ueunopad )sed a6e~a~e Molaq - o~og 'Al!3 ayl y)!~ pe~luoz~ jua~~n3 J!ayl Japun suo!leDol J!ayl~o beJanas ~04 pa~!a3a~ uaaq aAey slu!eldwo:, :a6e~a~e Molaq a~uew~oyad - puowe!a :uo paseq laued ayl Aq MO~ paJo3s sJapp!q IsaMol Y$U0UJlOLm9P9$ JO %LOSSP :$3e~$uos $uaJrns wo~j s6u!neg 6u!ueal3 o!s~ewo :payuey do1 '43 3au an6ea1'3!~alq~v aas!lod 9z qNas 6u!p!~o~d 40 is03 tuaJJn3 JaAo sp!q sluasa~da~ eaJe papeys) uo!le3ol ad 1say6!y 01 lsaMol wo~4 u~oys sp!a
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-1011 1 -JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing service 28 Flamingo Park Tennis Courts Restr. 29 Flam Prk BaselSoftlFootball Restr Page 10 of 11 !s) 30 Public Works Operations Building Current Cost ( $ 1,051.77 Boro Building & Prop Maint ( $ 890.00 Current Cost I $ 1,313.11 Hiah Maint Serv (HMS) I $ 1.044.90 Current Cost / $ 1,940.08 Performance Cleanina Grour, 1 $ 796.00 l~iah Maint Serv (HMS) 1 $ 898.001 Diamond Contract Serv 1 $ 902.10 Professional Building Sew 1 $ 905.00 1 powermind Global Service I $ 1,015.001 Federal Janitorial ISS Facility Services Honor Cleanina Top Ranked: ISS Facility Services Recommended (2nd Ranked): Professional Bldg Savings from current contract: 13.95% or $146.77lmonth ISS was ranked first by the Panel, however Professional Building is recommneded by the Panel since they offered a lower bid, and they are also recommended for Flamingo Park Pool. Selection criteria point allocation does not afford the lowest bids a top rank position based on the price difference per month. $ 988.66 $ 992.74 $ 1.010.00 l~oro Building & Prop Maint I $ I ,100.00l Performance Cleaning Group I $ 1,142.00 Honor Cleaning I $ 1,150.00 lomarcio Cleanina I $ 1.150.001 1 ~rofessional Buildina Serv I $ 1.156.331 Powermind Global Service $ 1,218.00 Federal Janitorial $ 1,234.32 Best Janitorial & Supplies 1 $ 1,240.00 ISS Facilitv Services I $ 1.245.69 IOJS ~vstems I $ 1.284.001 N&K Enterprises I $ 1,500.00 Professional Building Serv I $ 1,723.33 - l~ederal Janitorial I $ 1,823.671 lcarolina Cleaning I $ 1,830.001 ~OJS systems I $ 1,834.001 l~owermind Global Service I $ 1,865.001 Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: Savings from current contract: 13.03% or $171 .I Ilmonth 58.97% or $1,144.08lmonth Lowest Bidder was scored low by the Panel on Corporate Responsibiliy. 2nd lowest bidder had below average past performance survey; scored low on Corporate Responsibility Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis.
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-10111 - JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST , Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing services) I -- I Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Savings from current contract: 15.31 % or $1 19.33lmonth Lowest Bidders were scored low by the Panel on: Boro: below average past performance survey; scored low in corporate responsibility. Diamond: complains for several of their locations under current contract with the City. Carolina: lower scores on qualifications and experience JZ Marine Patrol Office & Public Restr Current Cost I $ 1,538.00 Boro Buildina & pro^ Maint I $ 280.00 IDiamond Contract Serv I $ 1,127.631 - Cleaning Systems Inc. ISS Facility Services IPerformance Cleaning Group I $ 1,142.00] $ 900.00 $ 985.09 Best Janitorial & Supplies $ 1,190.00 ABP Maintenance $ 1,239.45 Omarcio Cleaning $ 1,400.00 ~arolina~leaning $ 1,411.92 Professional Building Serv $ 1,415.00 Federal Janitorial $ 1,429.74 Chi-Ada $ 1,437.00 OJS Systems $ 1,484.00 -- Powermind Global Service $ 1,495.00 Honor Cleaning $ 1,505.00 Page I I of I I 33 South Pointe Park Current Cost 1 $ 475.45 Powermind Global Service I$ 395.10 Top Ranked: ISS Facility Services Savings from current contract: 35.95% or $552.91lmonth Lowest Bidder had below average past performance survey; ranked low on Corporate Responsibility 2nd lowest was scored low in experience and past performance. Professional Building Serv Boro Building & Prop Maint OJS Systems Top Ranked: Professional Building Savings from current contract: 10.61% or $50.45lmonth Lowest Bidder was scored low by the Panel on Corporate Responsibility plan and past performance (no past performance surveys were received). $ 425.00 $ 470.00 $ 474.00 Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis.
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABUALTION ITB 13-10111 - JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE Page 1 of 3 GARAGES - MONTHLY COST 7th Street Garane laded area represents bids over current cost of providi~ ig services) I I 13'~ street Garage 1 2th Street Garage Current Cost Omarcio Cleaning Current Cost Omarcio Cleaning Professional Bldg Sew $ 1,973.00 $ 1,660.00 r~rofessional Bldg Sew 1 $ 1,681.671 $ 1,973.00 $ 1,660.00 % 1.681.67 Current Cost Omarcio Cleaning Best Janitorial & Supplies Federal Janitorial Honor Cleaning $ 7,810.06 $ 6,900.00 $ 6,940.00 . . [vista Buildina Maintenace I I §i 6.941.321 -. . - Federal Janitorial Powermind Global - 7 -3- . Honor Cleaning 1 $ 6,950.001 $ 1,852.43 $ 1.870.00 I ' Honor Cleaning 1 $ 1.900.001 l~oro Buildina & Prop Maint - t I $ 6,960.001 t~est Janitorial & Su~~lies I §i I~est Janitorial & Sup~lies I I S 1.950.00 kame Land Maint Serv 1 §i 7.052.041 OJS Systems Dream Clean Inc. 1 Federal Janitorial High Maint Sew (HMS) Powermind Global Performance Cleaning Group Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Savings from current contract: 15.86% or $313.001month Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Savings from current contract: 1 I .65% or $910.061month Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Savings from current contract: 15.86% or $313.001month Companies in shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis.
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABUALTION ITB 13-10111 - JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE Page 2 of 3 GARAGES - MONTHLY COST 1 $ 7,252.13 Current Cost 1 $ 9,647.02 Omarcio Cleanina I $ 6.460.00 * Diamond Contract Serv 1 $ 3.221.80 Current Cost $ 2,830.74 Powermind Global $ 2.452.00 I Omarcio Cleaning 1 $ 2,540,001 Honor Cleaning $ 2,543.00 Professional Bldg Sew $ 2,590.00 Federal Janitorial $ 2,658.34 Dream Clean Inc. High Maint Sew (HMS) Vista Building Maintenace $ 6,828.20 $ 6,917.26 $ 6.941.32 Honor Cleaning Boro Building & Prop Maint ~igh Maint Serv (HMS) 1 $ 8,874.82 Dream Clean Inc. I rS 8.906.00 Come Land Maint Sew Professional Bldg Sew $ 6,950.00 $ 6.960.00 l~oK~uilding& Prop ~aint I $ g.04q.001 $ 8,628.49 $ 8,796.67 Powermind Global $ 7,021.00 Chi-Ada $ 7.066.00 IOJS systems I s; 7147onl Federal Janitorial Chi-Ada Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Savings from current contract: 10.92% or $792.13/month $ 9,068.21 $ 9.178.00 * Bidder advised of error in pricing Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Savings from current contract: 16.04% or $1,547.02/month IBest Janitorial & Supplies I !3 7710001 Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Savings from current contract: 10.27% or $290.74/month Lowest Bidder was scored low by the Panel on Corporate Responsibility plan and past performance. OJS Systems Powermind Global Companies in shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis. $ 9,276.00 $ 9.310.00
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABUALTION ITB 13-10/11 - JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE GARAGES - MONTHLY COST Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing services) City Hall Garage I I I I * Magic Brite Janitorial 1 $ 5,000.001 (~marcio Cleaning 1 $ ~,ZOO.OO~ Pennsylvania Avenue Garage Current Cost * Dream Clean Inc. Vista Building Maintenace $ 8,290.65 Come Land Maint Serv $ 8,357.85 Best Janitorial & Supplies $ 8,400.00 Professional Bldg Serv $ 8.538.33 $ 6,368.55 $ 4,262.00 Federal Janitorial $ 8,749.05 High Maint Serv (HMS) $ 8.832.42 Honor Cleaning $ 8,900.00 Boro Building & Prop Maint $ 9,041.00 Chi-Ada $ 9.178.00 Current Cost * Dream Clean Inc. Powermind Global $ 9,210.00 OJS Systems $ 9.276.00 $ 9,307.50 $ 3,700.00 * Bidders advised of error in pricing. * Bidder advised of error in pricing Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Bid cost is over current contract, reject Savings from current contract: and renew current. 11.90% or $1 ,I 07.50lmonth Page 3 of 3 Companies in shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis.
ATTACHMENT B - AWARDED COMPANIES
ITB 13-1 011 1 JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE
Page 1 of 2
The distribution of facilitieslgarages per company is as follows:
* 21 of the 41 facilities were awarded to the lowest bidder.
* 2 of the 41 facilites were rejected because the current cost is lower than the lowest bid
amount. Current contract for these locations to be renewed.
* 18 of the 41 facilities were not awarded to the lowest bidder because the selection panel
scored them lower on the selection criteria other than price, such as qualifications,
expericence, past performance, and corporate responsibility.
Annual Cost
$67,124.52
$728,826.00
$266,244.00
$248,905.08 -
$1,311,099.60
$1,545,387.82
$234,288.22
Company Name
ISS Facility Services
Omarcio Cleaning
Performance Cleaning
Professional Building
Total amount
* Locations being rejected and renewed with Omarcio under RFP 4-07/08
# of Facilities
3
16
13
9
4 1
Current Cost
Savings
item
1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Monthly Cost
$9,950.00
$3,646.95
$3,120.20
$1,488.42
$7,014.00
$13,706.67
$500.00
$2,765.75
$465.00
$1,790.00
$440.00
$13.88/hr
$6,985.00
$408.00
15
16
17
18
19
Facility
City Hall
Offices Located at the City Hall Parking
Garage
777 Building (City Hall Annex Bldg)
555 Building
Scott Rakow Youth Centerllce Rink
Police Station
Fire Support Services
South Shore Community Center
North Beach Police Substation
21st Street Recreation Center
Ocean Front Auditorium
North Shore Bandshell
North Shore Recr & Tennis Center
0
Annual Cost
$1 19,400.00
$43,763.40
$37,442.40
$1 7,861.04
$84,168.00
$164,480.04
$6,000.00
$33,189.00
$5,580.00
$21,480.00
$5,280.00
As needed
$83,820.00
$4,896.00
Company Name
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
ISS Facility Services
ISS Facility Services
Performance Cleaning
Professional Building
Omarcio Cleaning
Professional Building
Professional Building
Performance Cleaning
Performance Cleaning
Professional Building
Performance Cleaning
Performance Cleaning
Muss Park
Crespi Park
Tatum Park
Still Water Park
Fairway Park
Performance Cleaning
Performance Cleaning
Performance Cleaning
Performance Cleaning
Performance Cleaning
$398.00
$408.00
$408.00
$408.00
$398.00
$4,776.00
$4,896.00
$4,896.00
$4,896.00
$4,776.00
ATTACHMENT B - AWARDED COMPANIES
ITB 13-1011 1 JANITORIAL SERVICES ClTNVlDE
Page 2 of 2
* Locations being rejected and renewed with Omarcio under RFP 4-07/08
228
Annual Cost
$6,000.00
$3,152.04
$27,600.00
$6,000.00
$1 2,680.04
$9,480.00
$19,104.00
$1 3,863.96
$10,860.00
$1 3,704.00
$9,552.00
$7,920.00
$1 1,821.08
$5,100.00
$808,437.00
Monthly Cost
$500.00
$262.67
$2,300.00
$500.00
$1,056.67
$790.00
$1,592.00
$1,155.33
$905.00
$1,142.00
$796.00
$660.00
$985.09
$425.00
$67,369.75
Item
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Annual Cost
$82,800.00
$19,920.00
$1 9,920.00
$77,520.00
$97,200.00
$30,480.00
$76,422.60
$98,400.00
$502,862.60
$1,311,099.60
Item
I
2
3
4
5
6
* 7
8
Total Cost Facilities
Facility
Normandy Shores Park
Normandy Shores Guardhouse
Normandy Isle Park and Pool Facility
Parks Maintenance Building
Property Mgt Office and Maintenance
Facility
Beach Patrol Office
Police Athletic League Rec Ctr.
Flamingo Park Pool
Flamingo Park Tennis Courts Restr.
Flam Prk BaselSofVFootball Restr
Public Works Operations Building
Parking Depart Operation Bldg
Marine Patrol Office & Public Restr
South Pointe Park
Garage
7* Street Garage
12~ Street Garage
13* Street Garage
16* Street Garage
17* Street Garage
42"d Street Garage
City Hall Garage
Penn Garage
Company Name
Omarcio Cleaning
Professional Building
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
Professional Building
Omarcio Cleaning
Performance Cleaning
Professional Building
Professional Building
Performance Cleaning
Performance Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
ISS Facility Services
Professional Building
Total Cost Garages
Total Cost Facilties and Garages
$41,888.55
$109,258.30
Company Name
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
Monthly Cost
$6,900.00
$1,660.00
$1,660.00
$6,460.00
$8,100.00
$2,540.00
$6,368.55
$8,200.00
JANTIZE TAMPA BAY PAGE 03/16
LIVING WAGE
CERTl FlCATlON
~utfuant to Section 2-408(e) of the Miami Beach City Code, enfiled CertiScation
mqqimd before paymenf. "Any and all contracts for covered services' may be voidable,
andha funds may be released, unless prior to entering any agreement with the city for a
cov4red services contract, the service contractor"! ceri%es to the city that it will pay each
of itk covered employees no less than the living wage described in section 2-408(a). A
cop$ of this certificate must be made available to the public upon request. The
cerl@cate, at a minimum, must Include the following:
1. The name, address, and phone number of the covered employer, a local contact
; person, and the specific project far which the covered services contract is sought;
- The amount of the covered services contrack, a brief description of the project or
; service provided and the city department the contract will serve;
i Amount of cantract; $
j City Department(s);
i Description of service or project:
4 "~o&isred senrlces'' Contracts involving the city's eqwnditure of over $100,000 per year and which indude
the ft$tlowing types of services: Food Preparation andlor Disttibution; Secu* Services;' Routine
Maintdnance Service6 such as Custodial, Cleaning, Refuse Removal, Refiair, Refinishing and Recycling:
Clericbl or Other Non-Supervisory Office Work (whether temporary or permanent); Transpo@ation and
Parkirb Services; Printing and Reproduction Services; Landscaping, Lawn, andlor Agricultural Services; and
Park ajnd Public Propetty Maintenance.
2 'Seelce mntractor" is is any individual. corporation (whether for profit or not for proRt), pamewhip, limited 2 d 7 liabiliq company, joint venture, or other business entiiy who is conducting business in Miami Beam, and
who iq either ('I) paid in whole or part from one or more of the City's general fund, capital project funds, Nin;wt~y
specid revenue funds, or any other funds, whether by competitive bid process, infbnnai bids, requests for ---
propo&3ls, some form of solicitetion, negotiation, or agreement, or any other decision to enter inta a contract;
or (2) engaged in the business.of, or part of, a contract to provide, or a subcontract to provide, services, for
the bepafit of the crty. However, this does not apply to contram related primatily to the sale of products or
g~ds; 201'3
JANTIZE TAMPA BAY
9, A commitment to pay all covered employees the living wage, as defined by
i section 2408(a) and including, without limitation, any annual Indexes thereto (as
provided in section 2-408(d).
EffWve October 1, 201 0, service contractors shall be required to pay all its employees
whd provide services for covered service contracts, the hourly living wage rates based
on $e following three (3) year phase-in approach:
Commencing with City fiscal year 2010-1 1 (October I, 2010), the hourly living
; wage rate will be $IO.l6\hr. with health benefits3 of at least $1.251hr, and
j $1 1.411hr without benefits;
Commencing with City fiscal year 201 1-12 (October 1, 201 I), the hourly living
j wage rate will be $10.72hr with health benefits of at least $1.45fhrI and
i $1 2.17Ihr without benefb; and
6 Commencing with Ci fiscal year 2012-13 (October 1, 2022), the hourly living
! rate will be $1 I .281hr with health benefits of at least $l.MIhr, and $12.92/hr / without benefits.
I fumer understand and agree and acknowledge that hilure to comply with the Living
~abe Ordinance requirements shall constitute a material breach of the contract by
whith the City may immediately terminate same.
. I diclare under penalty of perjury under the: laws of the State of Florida that the
for&oing is true and correct, and that I am authorized to bind this entity contractually.
1-(
City
/Zd inttieyear2~11 ,,at,*State
74/02 d 5hd 9 ck d?f3
Mailing Address
NaFe of Signatory (please print)
*n
44 f ,' 7-2 233?7
City, State, Zip Code
~o{more information on the Living Wage or a copy of the Ordinance, rekr to the Cny of
Mishi Beach website: h~://web.miamibeachfl.cravl~rbcurement
City of Miami Beach I PRQCUREMENT DIVISION
1700 Convention Center Drive I third floor 1 Mlami Beach, F L.133139
T; 305.673.7490 1 F: 786.804.4000
procureme~miamibeachfl.gov
"Health Benew shall, at a minimum, mean health insurance coverage which cansists of wellness and
pregentive care, including maternity, and that meets the requirements of a "standard health benefits plan" as
defihed in Subsection 627.88$$ ((12)(b)(4), Florida Statutes*, as may be amended fmrn time to time.
PAGE 04/16
VVd o:t?lmmmiaad 10 providln~ exce//ent public sorvicc and ~afcty to all YVI~ Bve, work, and ploy in our vibront, hpical, historic mmmuniv. I
I
LIVING WAGE
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 2-408(e) of the Miami Beach City Code, entitled Certification required before
payment. "Any and all contracts for covered services may be voidable, and no funds may be released,
unless prior to entering any agreement with the city for a covered services contract, the service
contracto; certifies to the city that it will pay each of its covered employees no less than the living wage
described in section 2-408(a). A copy of this certificate must be made available to the public upon
request. The certificate, at a minimum, must include the following:
1. The name, address, and phone number of the covered employer, a local contact person, and the
specific project for which the covered services contract is sought;
Project: Bid # 13-1 011 1
Name of Contractor: ISS Facility Services Inc.
Contact person: Laura Thompson
Address: 9363 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, Florida 33065
Phone number: 407-687-5267
2. The amount of the covered services contract, a brief description of the project or service provided and
the city department the contract will serve;
Amount of contract: To be determined
City Department(@:
Description of service or project: Janitorial and related services.
3. A statement of the wage levels for all employees; All ISS Facility Services lnc. employees will
be compensated in compliance with the Living Wage ordinance for the City of Miami Beach
Florida.
' u Covered services" Contracts involving the city's expenditure of over $100,000 per year and which include the following types
of services: Food Preparation andlor Distribution; Security Services; Routine Maintenance Services such as Custodial, Cleaning,
Refuse Removal, Repair, Refinishing and Recycling; Clerical or Other Non-Supervisory Office Work (whether temporary or
permanent); Transportation and Parking Services; Printing and Reproduction Services; Landscaping, Lawn, andlor Agricultural
L
Services; and Park and Public Property Maintenance. "Service contractor" is is any individual, corporation
(whether for profit or not for profit), partnership, limited liability company, joint venture, or other business
entity who is conducting business in Miami Beach, and who is either: (I) paid in whole or part from one or
more of the City's general fund, capital project funds, special revenue funds, or any other funds, whether
by competitive bid process, informal bids, requests for proposals, some form of solicitation, negotiation,
or agreement, or any other decision to enter into a contract; or (2) engaged in the business of, or part of,
a contract to provide, or a subcontract to provide, services, for the benefit of the city. However, this does
not apply to contracts related primarily to the sale of products or goods.
4. A commitment to pay all covered employees the living wage, as defined by section 2-408(a) and
including, without limitation, any annual indexes thereto (as provided in section 2-408(d).
Effective October I, 2010, service contractors shall be required to pay all its employees who provide
services for covered service contracts, the hourly living wage rates based on the following three (3) year
phase-in approach:
Commencing with City fiscal year 201 0-1 1 (October 1, 201 O), the hourly living wage rate will be
3
$1 0.16lhr. with health benefits of at least $1.25/hr, and $1 1.41lhr without benefits;
8 Commencing with City fiscal year 201 1-12 (October 1, 201 I), the hourly living wage rate will be
$1 0.721hr with health benefits of at least $1.451hr, and $1 2.171hr without benefits; and
Commencing with City fiscal year 2012-13 (October 1,2012), the hourly living rate will be
$1 1.28lhr with health benefits of at least $1.64/hr, and $12.921hr without benefits.
I further understand and agree and acknowledge that failure to comply with the Living Wage Ordinance
requirements shall constitute a material breach of the contract by which the City may immediately
terminate same.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida that the foregoing is true and
correct, and that I am authorized to bind this entity contractually.
at Coral S~rinns
9363 W. Sam~le Road Coral Springs, Florida 33065
Name of Signatory (please print) City, State, Zip Code
Laura Thompson
Titie: Director of Business Development
For more information on the Living Wage or a copy of the Ordinance, refer to the City ofMiami Beach
website: htt~:llweb.miamibeachfl.aov/~rocurement
City of Miami Beach 1 PROCUREMENT DIVISION 1700
Convention Center Drive 1 third floor I Miami Beach, FL 1 33139
7: 305.673.7490 I F: 786.394.4000
procurement@miamibeachfl.gov
'"~ealth Benefitsn shall, at a minimum, mean health insurance coverage which consists of wellness and
preventive care, including maternity, and that meets the requirements of a "standard health benefits plan"
as defined in Subsection 627.6699 (12)(b)(4), Florida Statutes*, as may be amended from time to time.
We are committed to provldfng excellent public servrce and safety to aN who hve, work, and play rn our vibrant, tmpical, historrc communrfy
LIVING WAGE
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 2-408(e) of the Miami Beach City Code, entitled Cerfificafion
required before payment. "Any and all contracts for covered services' may be voidable,
and no funds may be released, unless prior to entering any agreement with the city for a
covered services contract, the service contracto? certifies to the city that it will pay each
of its covered employees no less than the living wage described in section 2-408(a). A
copy of this certificate must be made available to the public upon request. The
certificate, at a minimum, must include the following:
1. The name, address, and phone number of the covered employer, a local contact
person, and the specific project for which the covered services contract is sought;
Project: ~TB KQ /3-- IO)Q
Name of Contractor:
Phone number:
2. The amount of the covered services contract, a brief description of the project or
service provided and the city department the contract will serve;
Amount of contract: $ Ctnkoo~n
City Department(s): \)A e! o J S
Description of service or project:
3. A statement of the wage levels for all employees;
Om-: n w A\ &-b&?.rc- To L \UJn\ td
"Covered services" Contracts involving the city's expenditure of over $100,000 per year and which include
the following types of services: Food Preparation andlor Distribution; Security Services; Routine
Maintenance Services such as Custodial, Cleaning, Refuse Removal, Repair, Refinishing and Recycling;
Clerical or Other Non-Supervisory Office Work (whether temporary or permanent); Transportation and
Parking Services; Printing and Reproduction Services; Landscaping, Lawn, andlor Agricultural Services; and
Park and Public Property Maintenance.
"Service contractor" is is any individual, corporation (whether for profit or not for profit), partnership, limited
liability company, joint venture, or other business entity who is conducting business in Miami Beach, and
who is either: (1) paid in whole or part from one or more of the City's general fund, capital project funds,
special revenue funds, or any other funds, whether by competitive bid process, informal bids, requests for
proposals, some form of solicitation, negotiation, or agreement, or any other decision to enter into a contract;
or (2) engaged in the business of, or part of, a contract to provide, or a subcontract to provide, services, for
the benefit of the city. However, this does not apply to contracts related primarily to the sale of products or
goods.
4. A commitment to pay all covered employees the living wage, as defined by
section 2-408(a) and including, without limitation, any annual indexes thereto (as
provided in section 2-408(d).
Effective October I, 201 0, service contractors shall be required to pay all its employees
who provide services for covered service contracts, the hourly living wage rates based
on the following three (3) year phase-in approach:
Commencing with City fiscal year 2010-1 1 (October 1, 2010), the hourly living
wage rate will be $10.16/hr. with health benefits3 of at least $1.25/hr, and
$1 1.411hr without benefits;
Commencing with City fiscal year 201 1-12 (October 1, 201 I), the hourly living
wage rate will be $10.72/hr with health benefits of at least $1.45/hr, and
$1 2.171hr without benefits; and
Commencing with City fiscal year 2012-13 (October 1, 2012), the hourly living
rate will be $1 1.281hr with health benefits of at least $1.64/hr, and $12.92/hr
without benefits.
I further understand and agree and acknowledge that failure to comply with the Living
Wage Ordinance requirements shall constitute a material breach of the contract by
which the City may immediately terminate same.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida that the
foregoing is true and correct, and that I am authorized to bind this entity contractually.
, in the year , at I- FG
City State
42b sd 3 ~Te4fi &+
Mailing AddresS
fli&nn; 6br~:bA 33\=
of Signatory (please print) Nm City, State, Zip Code
Title
For more information on the Living Wage or a copy of the Ordinance, refer to the City of
Miami Beach website: htt~://web.miamibeachfl.aovl~rocurement
City of Miami Beach I PROCUREMENT DIVISION
1700 Convention Center Drive I third floor I Miami Beach, FL ( 33139
T: 305.673.7490 1 F: 786.394.4000
procurement@miamibeachfl.gov
"Health Benefits" shall, at a minimum, mean health insurance coverage which consists of wellness and
preventive care, including maternity, and that meets the requirements of a "standard health benefits plan" as
defined in Subsection 627.6699 (12)(b)(4), Florida Statutes*, as may be amended from time to time.
\:I+ ore cornmrtsd io p~oi,tdrng e,\ceiieni pubhi szn:,ce orld solzrv lo 011 who 1;vs work nnd picJy rn our vibrnn: ircprcvi. hrs~oric ~~-.nln~vnrt..
LIVING WAGE
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 2-408(e) of the Miami Beach City Code, entitled Certification
required before payment. "Any and all contracts for covered services' may be voidable,
and no funds may be released, unless prior to entering any agreement with the city for a
covered services contract, the service contracto? certifies to the city that it will pay each
of its covered employees no less than the living wage described in section 2-408(a). A
copy of this certificate must be made available to the public upon request. The
certificate, at a minimum, must include the following:
1. The name, address, and phone number of the covered employer, a local contact
person, and the specific project for which the covered services contract is sought;
Project: Citywide Janitorial Services
Name of Contractor: Professional Building Services
Contact person: Craig Saxner
Address: 7027 W. Broward Blvd., #303 Plantation, FL 33317
Phone number: 954-473-0025
2. The amount of the covered services contract, a brief description of the project or
service provided and the city department the contract will serve;
Amount of contract: $ TBD
City Department(s): Various
Description of service or project:
3. A statement of the wage levels for all employees;
Living wage standards to be followed
"Covered services" Contracts involving the city's expenditure of over $100,000 per year and which include
the following types of services: Food Preparation andlor Distribution; Security Services; Routine
Maintenance Services such as Custodial, Cleaning, Refuse Removal, Repair, Refinishing and Recycling;
Clerical or Other Non-Supervisory Office Work (whether temporary or permanent); Transportation and
Parking Services; Printing and Reproduction Services; Landscaping, Lawn, andlor Agricultural Services; and - Park and Public Property Maintenance.
2 "Service contractor" is is any individual, corporation (whether for profit or not for profit), partnership, limited
liability company, joint venture, or other business entity who is conducting business in Miami Beach, and
who is either: (I) paid in whole or part from one or more of the City's general fund, capital project funds,
special revenue funds, or any other funds, whether by competitive bid process, informal bids, requests for
proposals, some form of solicitation, negotiation, or agreement, or any other decision to enter into a contract;
or (2) engaged in the business of, or part of, a contract to provide, or a subcontract to provide, services, for
the benefit of the city. However, this does not apply to contracts related primarily to the sale of products or
goods.
4. A commitment to pay all covered employees the living wage, as defined by
section 2-408(a) and including, without limitation, any annual indexes thereto (as
provided in section 2-408(d).
Effective October I, 2010, service contractors shall be required to pay all its employees
who provide services for covered service contracts, the hourly living wage rates based
on the following three (3) year phase-in approach:
Commencing with City fiscal year 201 0-1 1 (October 1, 201 O), the hourly living
wage rate will be $IO.l6/hr. with health benefits3 of at least $1.25/hr, and
$1 1.41lhr without benefits;
Commencing with City fiscal year 201 1-12 (October 1, 201 I), the hourly living
wage rate will be $10.72/hr with health benefits of at least $1.45Ihr, and
$1 2.1 7lhr without benefits; and
Commencing with City fiscal year 2012-1 3 (October 1, 201 2), the hourly iiving
rate will be $1 1.28lhr with health benefits of at least $1.64/hr, and $12.92/hr
without benefits.
I further understand and agree and acknowledge that failure to comply with the Living
Wage Ordinance requirements shall constitute a material breach of the contract by
which the City may immediately terminate same.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida that the
foregoing is true and correct, and that I am authorized to bind this entity contractually.
Executed this ?day of March ,
Craig Saxner
Name of Signatory (please print)
President
in the year 201 1 , at Plantation FL
1-
City State
7027 W. Broward Blvd., #303
Mailing Address
Plantation, FL 33317
City, State, Zip Code
Title
For more information on the Living Wage or a copy of the Ordinance, refer to the City of
Miami Beach website: htt~:llweb.miamibeachfl.aov/~rocurernent
- City of Miami Beach ( PROCUREMENT DIVISION
1700 Convention Center Drive 1 third floor I Miami Beach, FL 1 331 39
T: 305.673.7490 1 F: 786.394.4000
procurement@miamibeachfl.gov
'Health Benefits" shall, at a minimum, mean health insurance coverage which consists of wellness and
preventive care, including maternity, and that meets the requirements of a "standard health benefits plan" as
defined in Subsection 627.6699 (12)(b)(4), Florida Statutes*, as may be amended from time to time.
We are commitfed to providing excellent public service and safety to all who live, work, and play in our vibrant, tropical, historic community
JANTIZE TAMPA BAY PAGE 01/02
City af kmi Beash, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beah, Flcrlda 33139, www,miarnibwchfl.gov
PLOCUI~MENI DIVISION
Tel: 3~.$73 -7490 , Fax: 7fh5-39A-4003
May l& 201 1
Mr. Datiel Gorritz
Perfo ance Cleaning Group "t 7402 N, Street, Ste 840
Tamp14 FI 33517 Sent Via e-mail: daniel~~@~~llclean.~om
RE: @E) HO, 13-10iIl JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE
Dear Mk. Goriltz;
It is thelpalicy of the City of Miami Beach that the custodial companies awarded contracts shall in
good &ih offer those employees (other than managerial and supervisory employees) employed
under the predecessor contract whose employment will be terminated as a result of award of these
contra@ or the expiration of the contracts under which the employee$ were hired, a right of first
refusalkf employment under this contract in positions for which employees are qualified.
The c@odial companies shall determine the number of employees necessary for efficient
perfom)anc;e of this contract and may elect to employ fewer employees than the predecessor
custadiil company employed in connection with performance of the work. It is the policy of the City
that all brnployees hired by the custodial companies who were employed under the predecessor
contra4 should be retained for at least a 9Gday transition period during which the custodial
campaby should refrain from discharging without cause any employee retained pursuant to this
su bse@on.
Ple-asejadvise if you're awardad a contract for janitorial services, if you would be agreeable to the
followitig contract provision:
NOND@PLACEMENT OF QUALIFIED WORKERS
;(a) Consistent with the efficient performance of this contract, the contractor and its
subc~rltracfors shall, except as otherwise provided herein. in good faith offer those employees
(other ihan managerial and supervisory employees) employed under the predecessor contract
whose brnployment will be terminated as a result of award d this contract or the expiration of the
contra& under which the employes were hired, a right of first rehsal of employment under this
contra& in positions for which employees are qualiffed. The contractor and its subcontractbrs shall
deterdne the number of employees necessary for efficient performance of this contract and may
elect td employ fewer employees than the predecassor contractor employed in connection with
perForr#ance of the work. Except as provided in paragraph (b) there shall be no employment
apenino under this contract, and the contractor and any subcontractors shell not offer employment
underqis contract, to any person prior to having complied fully with this obligation. The contractor
and its$ubcontractors shall make an express offer of employment to each employee as provided
herein Bnd shall state the time within which the employee must accept such offer, but in no case
shall the period within which the employee must accept the offer of employment be less than
10 day&.
We om &ml&d ta pravtding excellent public service ond mfe~ to oll who lh, mtk, md ploy m ow vibrant,. ~~q~fcol, histwic communiiy.
JANTIZE TAMPA BAY PAGE 02/02
i{b} Notwithstanding the obligation under paragraph (a) above, the cantractor and any
(I) may employ under this contract any employee who has worked for the contractor
for at least 3 months immediately preceding the commencement af this contract
and whjb would othewise face lay-off or discharge, (2) are not required to offer a tight offitst refusal
to any~emplayee(s) of the pradecsssor contractor who are not sewice employees within
the medning of the Service Contract Act of 1965, as amended, 41 U.S.C. 357(b), and (3) are not
required to offer a right of first refusal to any employse(s) ofthe predecmor contractor whom the
contracfor or ally of its subcontractors reasonably believes, based on the particular employee's past
perfofiance, has failed to perform suitably on the job.
jc) The contractor shall, not less than 10 days before completion ofthis contract, furnish the
Procurdment Director a certified list of the names of all service employees working under this
contra4 and its subcontracts during the last month of contract performance. The list shall also
contairr!anniversary dates of employment of each service employee under this contract and its
predec!ssor contracts either with the current or predecessor contracto& or their subcontractors.
The P~curernenl Disctor will provide the lie to the successor contractor, and the list shall be
provide@ on request to employees or their representatives,
id) If it is determined by the City Mansgar, that the contractor or its subcontractors are not
in combliance with the requirements of this clause, appropriate sanctions may be imposed and
rernedibs invoked against the caniractor or its subwntrar=tars, as provided in the Miami Beach City
Coda, 4r as othennrise provided by law.
'!(e) In every subcontract entered into in order to perform services under this contract, the
contrac$or will include provisions that ensure that each subcontractor wlll honor the requirements of
paragr4phs (a) through (b) with respect to the ernplayem of a predecessor subcontractor or
subcan)ractors working under this contract, as well as of a predecessor contractor and its
subcof$ractors. The subcontract shall also include provisions to ensure that the subcantractor will
providiJI the contractor with the information about the employees of the subcontractor needed by the
contra90r to comply wlth paragraph 5(c), above. The ont tractor will take such action with respect
to any $uch subcontract as may be directed by the Procurement Director as a means of enforcing
such p$ovisions, including the imposition of sanctions for non-compliance.
leaseg gad vise in writing, if you are agreeable to the aforementioned provision.
:I hereby agree in good faith ta cansider employing those empfoyees under the prede-or
!contract.
81 do not agree with the provisions set forth in this letter, and as such, I will hire employees as -. ;I see fit.
:I agree to consider those employees whose jobs may be lost as a result of a contract award -.
!to my company under the following condftions:
Ci of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Migmi Beach, Flertida 33 139, ww.mitimibeachfl.gov
PHUCUREMENT DIVISIC)N
Tel; 305.673.7490 . Fax: 786-394-4003
: May 12,201 1
j Mr. Ornar Quintanilla
Omarcid Cleaning Services, Inc.
426 SW @" Stteel
Miami, FI 33130 Sent Via e-mail: ornarciacs@.vahoo.~om
RE flTB) NO. 13-1 011 1 JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE
Dear Mr. Quintanilla:
It is the policy of the City of Miami Beach that the custodial companies awarded contracts shall in
good faith offer those employees (other than managerial and supenrisory employees) employed
under the predecessor contract whose employment will be terminated as a result of award af these
contracts or th~ expiration of the contracts under which the employees were hired, a right of first
refusal of emptoyment under this contract in positions for which employees are qualified.
The custodial companies shall determine the number of employees necessary for efficient
performance of this contract and may elect to employ fewer employees than the predecessor
custodial company cmploycd in connection with perfoman= of the work. It is the policy of the City
that all employees hired by the custodial companies who were employed under the predecessor
cantract should be retained for at least a 90-day transition period during which the custodial
company should refrain from discharging without cause any employee retained pursuant to this
subsection.
Please advise if you're awarded a contract for janitorial services, if you would be agreeable to the
following contract provision:
NONDISPLACEMENT OF QUALIFIED WORKERS
(a) Consistent with the efficient performance of this contract, the contractor and its
subcontractors shall, except as athewise provided herein, in good faith offer those employees
(other than managerial and supervisory employees) employed under the predecessor contract
whose employment will be terminated as a result of award of this cantract or the expiration df the
contract under which the employees were hlred, a right of first refusal of employment under this
contract in positions for which emplayees are qualified. The contractor and its subcantractors shall
determine the number af empfoyees necessary for efficient perFarrnanre of this contract and may
elect to employ fewer employees than the predecessor cantractor employed in connection with
performance of the work. Except as provided in paragraph (b) there shall be no employment
opening under this contract, and the contractor and any Subcontractors shall no? offer employment
under this contract, toany person prior to having complied fully with this obligation. The contractor
and its subcontractors shall make an express offer of employment to each employee as provided
herein and shall state the time within which the employee must accept such offer, but in no case
shall the period within which the employee must accept the offer of employment be less than
1 U days.
LVe ore cnmmi~cd b pr~b'iding ewe/lcnt pcrblit scrviw nod bn(Ply b all 40 liw, ?rk. and p/oy in our vibrant, tmpirxd, his~or;~ mmrntrnity.
(b) Notwithstanding the obligation under paragraph (a) above, the contractor and any
subcontractors (I) msy aymplay under this contract any employee who has worked for the contractor
or subcontractor for at least 3 months immediately preceding the wmrnencement of this contract
and who would otherwise face lay-off or discharge, (2) are not required to offers right of first refusal
to any ernployee(a) of the predecessor contractor who are not service employees within
the meaning of the Service Contract Act of 1965, as amended, 41 U.S.C. 357(b), and (3) are not
required to der a right of first refusal to any employse(s) of the predecessor contractor whem the
contractor or any of its subcontractors reasonably believes, based on the particular employee's past
performance, has failed to perform suitably on the job.
(c) The contractor shall, not less than 10 days beore completion of this contract, furnish the
Procurement Director a certified list of the names of all service employees working under this
contract and its subcontracts during the last month of contract performance. The list shall also
contain anniversary dates of employment of each service employee under this contract and its
predecessar contracts either with the current or predecessor ~ontractars or their subcontractors.
The Procurement Director will provide the list to the successor contractor, and the list shall be
provided an requcst to employees or their representatives.
Id) If it is determined by the City Manager, that the cantractor or its subcontractors are not
In compliance with tile requirements of this clause, appropriate sanctions may be imposed and
remedies invbked against the contractor or its subcontractors, as provided in the Miami Beach City
Code, or as oth~nnrise provided by law.
(e) In every subcontract entered into in order to perform services under this contract, the
contractor will include provisions that ensure that each subcontractor will honor the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (b) with respect to the employees of a predecessor subcontractor or
subcontractors working under this contract, as well as of a predecessor contractor and its
subcontractors. f he subcontract shall also include provisions to ensure that the subcontractor will
provide the contractor with the information about the employees d the subcontractor needed by the
contrac+or Lo comply with paragraph 5(c), above. The oantractor will take such action with respect
to any such subcontract as may be directed by the Procurement Director as a means of enforcing
such provisions, including the imposition d sanctions for nan-compliance.
Please advise in writing, if you are agreeable to the aforementioned provision.
Thank you,
L
Gus Lopez, CPPO
Director of Procurement
I hereby agree in good faith to consider employing those employees under the predecessor
contract. - I do not agree with the provisions set forth in this letter, and as such, I will hire employees as
1 see fit.
- I agree to consider those employees whose jobs may be lost as a result of a contract award
to my company under the fallowing conditions:
WFO~ cmmlt~d ro prnviding b~~:dk?nf pblic xrvIce and .mfety kr all wha lie, work, and phv in OW dvlbront, rrcpicol, hisbric ~~:am~n~.rnify,
Ci?y aof Miami Beach, 1700 Cuw;3i:ii~i.i Ccrter Drive, Miomi Beuch, Florida 33139. -~w.~i~inrnitisuchti.~ov
~ROGUREMEM DWlSli3k3
Tek 305.673.7490 , Fax: 786-394-4003
May 12,201 1
Mr. Cmig M. Saxner
Professional Building Services, Inc.
7027 W. Broward BIvd
Plantation, F133177 Sent Via e-mail: cr;;arc~~%isq~a&~~~&~1iidi1~~9sef~~ic:i?~ wfo
RE: (ITB) NO. 13-1011 1 JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE
Dear Mr. Saxner:
It is the policy of the City of Miami Beach that the custodial companies awarded contracts shall in
good faith offer those employees (other than managerial and supervisory employees) employed
under the predecessor contract whose employment will be terminated as a result of award of these
contracts or the expiration of the contracts under which the employees were hired, a right of first
refusal of employment under this contract in positions for which employees are qualified.
The custodial companies shall determine the number of employees necessary for efficient
performance of this contract and may elect to employ fewer employees than the predecessor
custodial company employed in connection with performance of the work. It is the policy of the City
that all employees hired by the custodial companies who were employed under the predecessor
contract should be retained for at least a 90-day transition period during which the custodial
company should refrain from discharging without cause any employee retained pursuant to this
subsection.
Please advise if you're awarded a contract for janitorial services, if you would be agreeable to the
following contract provision:
NONDISPLACEMENT OF QUALIFIED WORKERS
(a) Consistent with the efficient performance of this contract, the contractor and its
subcontractors shall, except as otherwise provided herein, in good faith offer those employees
(other than manageiial and supervisory employees) employed under the predecessor contract
whose employment will be terminated as a result of award of this contract or the expiration of the
contract under which the employees were hired, a right of first refusal of employment under this
contract in positions for which employees are qualified. The contractor and its subcontractors shall
determine the number of employees necessary for efficient performance of this contract and may
elect to employ fewer employees than the predecessor contractor employed in connection with
performance of the work. Except as provided in paragraph (b) there shall be no employment
opening under this contract, and the contractor and any subcontractors shall not offer employment
under this wntract, to any person prior to having complied fully with this obligation. The contractor
and its subcontractors shall make an express offer of employment to each employee as provided
herein and shall state the time within which the employee must accept such offer, but in no case
shall the period within which the employee must accept the offer of employment be less than
10 days.
(b) Notwithstanding the obligation under paragraph (a) above, the contractor and any
subcontractors (1) may employ under this contract any employee who has worked forthe contractor
or subcontractor for at least 3 months immediately preceding the commencement of this contract
and who would otherwise face lay-off or discharge, (2) are not required to offer a right of first refusal
to any employee(s) of the predecessor contractor who are not service employees within
the meaning of the Service Contrad Act of 1965, as amended, 41 U.S.C. 357(b), and (3) are not
required to offer a right of first refusal to any employee(s) of the predecessor contractor whom the
contractor or any of its subcontractors reasonably believes, based on the particular employee's past
performance, has failed to perform suitably on the job.
(c) The contractor shall, not less than 10 days before completion of this contract, furnish the
Procurement Director a certified list of the names of all service ernployees working under this
contract and its subcontracts during the last month of contract performance. The list shall also
contain anniversary dates of employment of each service employee under this contract and its
predecessor contracts either with the current or predecessor contractors or their subcontractors.
The Procurement Director will provide the list to the successor contractor, and the list shall be
provided on request to employees or their representatives.
(d) If it is determined by the City Manager, that the contractor or its subcontractors are not
in compliance with the requirements of this clause, appropriate sanctions may be imposed and
remedies invoked against the contractor or its subcontractors, as provided in the Miami Beach City
Code, or as otherwise provided by law.
(e) In every subcontract entered into in order to perform services under this contract, the
contractor will include provisions that ensure that each subcontractor will honor the requirements of
paragmphs (a) through (b) with respect to the employees of a predecessor subcontractor or
subcontractors working under this contract, as well as of a predecessor contractor and its
subcontractors. The subcontract shall also include provisions to ensure that the subcontractor will
provide the contractor with the information about the employees of the subcontractor needed by the
contractor to comply with paragraph 5(c), above. The contractor will take such action with respect
to any such subcontract as may be directed by the Procurement Director as a means of enforcing
such provisions, including the imposition of sanctions for non-compliance.
Please advise in writing, if you are agreeable to the aforementioned provision.
Thank you,
L
Gus Lopez., CPPO
Director of Procurement
J I hereby agree in good faith to consider employing those employees under the predecessor -
contract. - I do not agree with the provisions set forth in this letter, and as such, I will hire employees as
I see fit.
- I agree to consider those employees whose jobs may be lost as a result of B contract award
to my company under the following conditions:
Print Name - Title Dat& '
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convenfion Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miomibeachfl.gov
PROCUREMENT DIVISION
TeI: 305.673.7490 , Fax: 786-394-4003
May 12,201 1
Ms. Laura Thompson
ISS Facility Services, Inc.
9363 W. Sample Road
Coral Springs, FI 33065 Sent Via e-mail: laura.thompson@us.issworld.com
RE: (ITB) NO. 13-1011 1 JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE
Dear Ms. Thompson:
It is the policy of the City of Miami Beach that the custodial companies awarded contracts shall in
good faith offer those employees (other than managerial and supervisory employees) employed
under the predecessor contract whose employment will be terminated as a result of award of these
contracts or the expiration of the contracts under which the employees were hired, a right of first
refusal of employment under this contract in positions for which employees are qualified.
The custodial companies shall determine the number of employees necessary for efficient
performance of this contract and may elect to employ fewer employees than the predecessor
custodial company employed in connection with performance of the work. It is the policy of the City
that all employees hired by the custodial companies who were employed under the predecessor
contract should be retained for at least a 90-day transition period during which the custodial
company should refrain from discharging without cause any employee retained pursuant to this
subsection.
Please advise if you're awarded a contract for janitorial services, if you would be agreeable to the
following contract provision:
NONDISPLACEMENT OF QUALIFIED WORKERS
(a) Consistent with the efficient performance of this contract, the contractor and its
subcontractors shall, except as othewise provided herein, in good faith offer those employees
(other than managerial and supervisory employees) employed under the predecessor contract
whose employment will be terminated as a result of award of this contract or the expiration of the
contract under which the employees were hired, a right of first refusal of employment under this
contract in positions for which employees are qualified. The contractor and its subcontractors shall
determine the number of employees necessary for efficient performance of this contract and may
elect to employ fewer employees than the predecessor contractor employed in connection with
performance of the work. Except as provided in paragraph (b) there shall be no employment
opening under this contract, and the contractor and any subcontractors shall not offer employment
under this contract, to any person prior to having complied fully with this obligation. The contractor
and its subcontractors shall make an express offer of employment to each employee as provided
herein and shall state the time within which the employee must accept such offer, but in no case
shall the period within which the employee must accept the offer of employment be less than
10 days.
Vve are comrniited to povrdtng excellent pubitc sew,ce and sc& to all who hve, work, o,7d play m our v~bron!, tmp~cai, h,stor,c comrnonify
(b) Notwithstanding the obligation under paragraph (a) above, the contractor and any
subcontractors (1) may employ under this contract any employee who has worked for the contractor
or subcontractor for at least 3 months immediately preceding the commencement of this contract
and who would otherwise face lay-off or discharge, (2) are not required to offer a right of first refusal
to any employee(s) of the predecessor contractor who are not service employees within
the meaning of the Service Contract Act of 1965, as amended, 41 U.S.C. 357(b), and (3) are not
required to offer a right of first refusal to any employee(s) of the predecessor contractor whom the
contractor or any of its subcontractors reasonably believes, based on the particular employee's past
performance, has failed to perform suitably on the job.
(c) The contractor shall, not less than 10 days before completion of this contract, furnish the
Procurement Director a certified list of the names of all service employees working under this
contract and its subcontracts during the last month of contract performance. The list shall also
contain anniversary dates of employment of each service employee under this contract and its
predecessor contracts either with the current or predecessor contractors or their subcontractors.
The Procurement Director will provide the list to the successor contractor, and the list shall be
provided on request to employees or their representatives.
(d) If it is determined by the City Manager, that the contractor or its subcontractors are not
in compliance with the requirements of this clause, appropriate sanctions may be imposed and
remedies invoked against the contractor or its subcontractors, as provided in the Miami Beach City
Code, or as otherwise provided by law.
(e) In every subcontract entered into in order to perform services under this contract, the
contractor will include provisions that ensure that each subcontractor will honor the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (b) with respect to the employees of a predecessor subcontractor or
subcontractors working under this contract, as well as of a predecessor contractor and its
subcontractors. The subcontract shall also include provisions to ensure that the subcontractor will
provide the contractor with the information about the employees ofthe subcontractor needed by the
contractor to comply with paragraph 5(c), above. The contractor will take such action with respect
to any such subcontract as may be directed by the Procurement Director as a means of enforcing
such provisions, including the imposition of sanctions for non-compliance.
Please advise in writing, if you are agreeable to the aforementioned provision.
Thank you,
L
Gus Lopez, CPPO
Director of Procurement
a I hereby agree in good faith to consider employing those employees under the predecessor
contract. - I do not agree with the provisions set forth in this letter, and as such, I will hire employees as
I see fit.
- I agree to consider those empioyees whose jobs may be lost as a result of a contract award
to my company under the following conditions:
May 16,2011
rint Name - Title Date
C/ We ak?drnrnmt@d to provtdrng excelient puMtc servgce a~d safev to 01; vvho Cve, work, and Ploy rn our vrbronf tiop~col. hrstonc communtty
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Request For Approval To Reject All Qualifications Received Pursuant To Request For Qualifications (RFQ)
No. 54-0911 0, For The Provision Of Governmental Consulting Services At Miami-Dade County, Florida; And
Further Directing The Administration To Revise and Reissue The Request For Qualifications
Key Intended Outcome Supported: I Supports Multiple KlOs
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): Included in the top five changes that would make
Miami Beach a better place to live, work, play or visit, are Safety, Traffic, and Beach Erosion, eachofwhich
can be significantly impacted by legislative and funding actions by Miami-Dade County.
Issue: I Shall the City Commission reject all qualifications received pursuant to the RFQ?
ltem SummarylRecommendation:
Due to the significant potential positive or negative impacts on Miami Beach of issues under the authontyof
the County, and given the size and complexity of the Miami-Dade County government, the FY2010/11
budget proposal included funding for the hiring of a County lobbyist. On September 24, 2010, the
Procurement Division issued the RFQ to all registered Miami-Dade County, and City of Miami Beach
Lobbyists. More than 685 notices were mailed, which resulted in the receipt of qualifications from the
following firmslindividuals: 1) Gabrielle Redfern; 2) Olmedillo X5; 3) Rosario Kennedy & Associates, Corp.
in association with Washington Square Partners, Inc., and The Law Offices of N. Patrick Range II, PA.
After careful consideration of the Committee's recommendations, the City Manager exercised his due
diligence and recommends that the Mayor and City Commission reject all proposals received. This
recommendation is based on several factors, including the split votes from the Evaluation Committee
regarding rejection of bids and the ranking of respondents; the changes to County Government since the
RFQ was issued; and comments received about the Scope of Services included in the RFQ.
As this support remains necessary, especially in light of the changing County government climate, the
Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission reject all qualifications received pursuant
to the RFQ, and further recommends that the Mayor and City Commission direct the Administration to revise
and reissue the RFQ.
I REJECT ALL QUALIFICATIONS RECEIVED.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
Financial Impact Summjry:
//
Financial Information:
Agenda ltem B2.!3
Date 6- 1-11
Approved Account -- Amnt Source of
Funds:
OBPI
-
1
Total
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: J~nel,2011
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO REJECT ALL QUALIFICATIONS RECEIVED
PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) NO. 54-09/10, FOR THE
PROVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES AT MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND FURTHER DIRECTING THE ADMINISTRATION TO REVISE
AND REISSUE THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Reject all qualifications received pursuant to the RFQ and revise and reissue the RFQ.
ANALYSIS
Each year, the Administration develops, and the Mayor and City Commission approve, legislative
priorities for issues at the State and Federal levels. Additionally, the City contracts with lobbying
firms to provide State and Federal lobbying and governmental consulting services to the City. While
there are many issues of importance to the City at the State and Federal levels, there are many
important funding, local authority, and legislative issues decided by Miami-Dade County that have
significant impacts on the City of Miami Beach.
Due to the significant potential positive or negative impacts on Miami Beach of issues under the
authority of the County, and given the size and complexity of the Miami-Dade County government,
the FY2010/11 budget included funding for the hiring of a County lobbyist, in addition to the existing
State and Federal contract lobbyists currently employed by the City.
Some of the significant county issues (some of which have been resolved) that have had potential or
actual impact on the City include:
Beach Renourishment;
Consolidation of the municipal fire departments into the Miami-Dade Fire Department;
Operation of the South Beach Local;
Proposed amendments to the municipal share of the half-cent transit surtax;
General Obligation Bond Projects;
Miami Beach Convention Center;
Convention Development Tax Receipts;
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funding;
Water and Sewer Rates and Water and Sewer Connection Fees;
Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs)
The Mayor and City Commission, at its September 20, 201 0 meeting, authorized the issuance of the
RFQ with the following qualifications that the selected Lobbyist must possess:
a strong working knowledge of the legislative, administrative, and regulatory processes of Miami-
Dade County;
Commission Memorandum
Rejection of Qualifications Received Pursuant to RFQ for County Lobbying Services
May 11, 201 1
Page 2 of 4
a clear understanding of the City of Miami Beach and its needs;
a clear understanding of the many local issues facing municipalities;
a history of successful lobbying experience at the county level; and
a clear strategy for representing the City before the legislative and executive branches of Miami-
Dade County.
On September 24, 2010, the Procurement Division issued the RFQ to all registered Miami-Dade
County, and City of Miami Beach Lobbyists. More than 685 notices were mailed, which resulted in
the receipt of qualifications from the following firms/individuals:
Gabrielle Redfern
Olmedillo X5, Inc.
Rosario Kennedy & Associates, Corp. in association with Washington Square Partners, Inc., and
The Law Offices of N. Patrick Range 11, PA.
In light of the number of responses given the outreach undertaken, the Procurement Division
requested feedback from individuals and firms that obtained a copy of the RFQ and did not respond
to determine why they elected not to submit a proposal. The following primary reasons were
provided: the budgeted dollar amount of $70,000 for the extensive scope of services delineated in
the RFQ was not sufficient; prohibited lobbying activities (any person or entity retained as a lobbyists
by the City is prohibited from lobbying any city officer...); and, client disclosure rules (the RFQ
required a detailed description of comparable contracts to include information of the client, scope of
work, and total dollar value of the contract).
EVALUATION PROCESS
On February 3, 201 1, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 032-201 1, appointed the
following individuals to serve as Evaluation Committee (the
"Committee") members:
Judy Hoanshelt, Grants Manager
Maria Mayer, Leadership Academy Graduate
James Sutter, Internal Auditor
Jeremy White, Leadership Academy Graduate
Mark Wohl, Leadership Academy Graduate
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 3, 2011, the Committee convened and listened to presentations from all proposers;
conducted question and answer sessions; and deliberated. The Committee scored and ranked the
Proposers as follows:
FINAL RANKING
Low
Aggregate
2(9)
2(9)
3 ( 12 )
Jeremy
White
l(100)
3(40)
2(65 )
James
Sutter
2(83)
l(89)
3(71)
Proposer
Olmedillo X5,
Inc.
Rosario
Kennedy &
Associates,
Corp
Gabrielle
Redfern
Mark
Wohl
3(82)
2(85)
1 (94 )
Judy
Hoanshelt
2 (76)
l(88)
3 ( 66 )
Maria
Mayer
l(85)
2(82)
3(45)
Commission Memorandum
Rejection of Qualifications Received Pursuant to RFQ for County Lobbying Services
May I I, 201 I
Page 3 of 4
The following motions were made by the Committee:
Motion No. 1: Maria Mayer moved to reject all proposals and revise the RFQ with more flexibility to
increase the number of proposals; seconded by Mark Wohl; Voice vote: 2-3;
Opposed: Judy Hoanshelt, James Sutter, and Jeremy White. Motion fails.
Motion No. 2: Jeremy White moved to rank Olmedillo X5 as the top-ranked firm; no second
received.
Motion No. 3: Maria Mayer moved to rank Rosario Kennedy & Associates as the top-ranked firm;
seconded by James Sutter; Voice vote: 3-2; Opposed: Jeremy White and Mark
Wohl.
Motion No. 4: Maria Mayer moved to rank Olmedillo X5 as the second-ranked firm; seconded by
James Sutter; Voice vote: 4-1 ; Opposed: Mark Wohl.
Motion No. 5: Motion by Mark Wohl that whether the City selects Rosario Kennedy & Associates, or
Olmedillo X5, that Gabrielle Redfern be considered to be part of the team of the
selected Lobbyist.
CITY MANAGER'S DUE DlLLlGENCE
After careful consideration of the Committee's recommendations, the City Manager exercised his
due diligence and recommends that the Mayor and City Commission reject all proposals received.
This recommendation is based on several factors, including:
1. Evaluation Committee actions, such as the 2-3 split vote by the Committee to recommend
rejection of all proposals; the 2-2-1 first place final ranking for the three firms; and the fact
that the recommended firm was only recommended with a vote change in order to make a
recommendation after rejection was no longer an option;
There have been significant changes that have occurred at Miami-Dade County after the
recall election, and subsequent placement on the ballot of six (6) new charter questions; and
The fact that two (2) new County Commissioners were elected in November, there will be a
new County Mayor and new District 7 and 13 County Commissioners in the next few weeks,
and there is currently a new County Manager.
NEXT STEPS
The Administration recommends that, rather than engage a lobbyist to continuously monitor all
activity at the County, that the Request for Qualifications be revised and re-issued to identify a
lobbying firm that the City will contract with on a retainer basis, to serve in an "on-call" capacity to
advocate for the City's interests as necessary when issues that impact the City arise. The following
selection of a firm in response to the new RFQ, the Administration will negotiate a base retainer fee
as well as the additional fees for service with the selected firm.
Following are the proposed terms of the new RFQ:
Qualifications
The selected Proposer should possess at a minimum:
a strong working knowledge of the legislative, administrative, and regulatory processes of
Miami-Dade County;
a clear understanding of the City of Miami Beach and its needs;
a clear understanding of the many local issues facing municipalities;
a history of successful lobbying experience at the county level; and
Commission Memorandum
Rejection of Qualifications Received Pursuant to RFQ for County Lobbying Services
May 11,201 I
Page 4 of 4
Term -
The City intends to award a contract for a two (2) year period with two (2), one-year options to renew
at the city's sole discretion.
Services
The selected proposer shall provide governmental representation and consulting services on an as-
needed basis to be requested by the City, for various subjects and issues affecting the City of Miami
Beach, its residents andlor businesses.
CONCLUSION
As this support remains necessary, especially in light of the changing County government climate,
the Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission reject all qualifications
received pursuant to the RFQ, and further recommends that the Mayor and City Commission direct
the Administration to revise and reissue the RFQ.
J MGIH FIG UKC
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ORDINANCES
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 82 of the City Code, entitled "Public Property", by amending Article VI, entitled
"Naming of Public Facilities and Establishments of Monuments and Memorials", by amending Section 82-501 (c)(l)
thereof, to exempt the Miami Beach Botanical Garden from the provisions of said Article VI.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
1 Increase communitv ratina of cultural activities and ensure well maintained facilities. I
-supErtingp~ata (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
Approximately 73% of residents surveyed in the 2009 survey rank the availability of Miami Beach's cultural and
recreational programs as excellent and good.
Issue:
I Shall the Mayor and Commission approve an exemption to Chapter 82 Article VI relating to naming rights for I I the interior and exterior portions of the Botanical ~arden? I
Item SummarylRecommendation:
SECOND READING
On January 13, 2010, the City Commission approved the Basis of Design Report (BODR) for the Miami Beach
Botanical Garden, providing for the implementation of improvements in three (3) phases; totaling an estimated
$2,148,044. A fourth phase of the adopted Master Plan includes certain improvements not considered an integral part
of the immediate design plan, totaling an additional $358,488. In the absence of City funding for this phase, the
Conservancy has proposed to fund these elements through private donors, in exchange for naming rights
acknowledging the donors. On April 27, 201 1, the City's Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC),
approved a recommendation by the administration that would allow the Conservancy to award naming rights for
interior portions of the premises in exchange for monetary contributions from private donors to fund improvements set
forth in the BODR, which includes: 1) amending the above-referenced section of the City Code to exempt the
Botanical Garden from the provisions of the City's Naming Ordinance; and 2) in the event that the City Commission
approves such exemption from the Naming Ordinance, the Management Agreement should be amended, to establish
criteria and guidelines for naming interior portions of the facility. The proposed ordinance, if approved, would provide
that the naming of the interior sections of the Premises and improvements thereto specified in the BODR, would be
exempt from the process set forth in Article VI. Specifically, the naming of any interior portions of the Premises would
not be subject to committee review and approval, it could be named for someone living or dead, would not require a
referendum, and would not require a noticed public hearing to be held. The proposed ordinance amendment was
approved on first reading at the May 11,201 1 City Commission meeting. The Administration recommends approval of
the proposed ordinance on Second and Final Reading.
Advisory Board Recommendation: I Finance & Citywide Projects Committee: April 27, 201 1
I 1 I nla
Financial Impact Summary:
Financial Information:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Anna Parekh, extension 71 93 1
I Source of Funds: nla
Sig n-Offs:
7
I Amount I Account
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.rniarnibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
SECOND READING
June 1,201 1 PUBLIC HEARING DATE:
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 82 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED
"PUBLIC PROPERTY", BY AMENDING ARTICLE VI, ENTITLED "NAMING
OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ESTABLISHMENTS OF MONUMENTS AND
MEMORIALS", BY AMENDING SECTION 82-501(C)(1) THEREOF, TO
EXEMPT THE MIAMI BEACH BOTANICAL GARDEN FROM THE
PROVISIONS OF SAID ARTICLE VI, SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR
REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the ordinance.
BACKGROUND
On January 17, 2007, the Mayor and City Commission approved a new Management Agreement
with the Miami Beach Garden Conservancy for the operation of the Botanical Garden, with an initial
term of five (5) years, commencing on July 1, 2007, with an option, at the City's sole discretion, to
renew and extend the Agreement for an additional five (5) year term.
Since taking over the operations of the Botanical Garden in July, 1999, the Conservancy has
initiated extensive public outreach initiatives, educational programming, and has played an important
role in capital planning efforts including, but not limited to, recent upgrades to the facility's irrigation
system (with matching grant funds from the County). The Conservancy has also used its best efforts
to increase its publiclprivate funding contributions towards the operation of the facility, resulting in
City being able to reduce its annual contribution by 25% (from $200,500 in FY 01/02 to $152,475
through FY 09/10).
The City' annual contribution comprises approximately 43% of the Conservancy's income, with the
balance derived from grants, donations, memberships, event functions, and gift shop sales. It should
also be noted that the Administration has looked into the cost of absorbing the operation in-house.
Based on an estimate by the City's Parks Department, the City's cost to operate the facility,
providing the same level of programming and services, would be approximately $230,000 per year;
almost 51 % more than the City's current contribution to the Conservancy.
One of the Conservancy's primary goals is to achieve accreditation of the Miami Beach Botanical
Garden through the American Association of Museums (AAM). To this end, it has been working with
the City in defining the scope of capital improvements to achieve this goal. Originally, a total of $1.5
Million was allocated from the Series 2000 General Obligation Bonds to undertake the
improvements. In July, 2003, following an RFQ selection process, EDAW was selected to undertake
the planning and design of the facility. Contract issues between EDAW and the City led to EDAW's
eventual termination for convenience, and the project being put on hold until additional funds could
Botanical Garden - Exemption from Naming Ordinance
Page 2 of 3
be identified and/or the scope revisited. A total of $1,380,753 is currently available for design and
construction of this project from the Series 2000 General Obligation Bond and City Center RDA
funds. Approximately $381,247 have been expended or encumbered to date due to previous design
efforts.
On September 10, 2008, the City Commission authorized the execution of a professional services
agreement with RJI, in an amount not to exceed $125,000, for architectural, engineering, and
landscape architecture services for the master planning, design, bid and award, and construction
administration services, and an approved reimbursable allowance of $5,000; for a total not to exceed
amount of $130,000. On January 13, 2010, the City Commission approved the Basis of Design
Report (BODR) for the Miami Beach Botanical Garden, providing for the implementation of
improvements in three (3) phases; totaling an estimated $2,148,044.
A fourth phase of the adopted Master Plan includes certain improvements not considered an integral
part of the immediate design plan, totaling an additional $358,488, and include such items as a
future visitor center, a reflecting pool, refurbishing the existing fountain, adding an on-site rain water
collection system, and a shade structure over the patio for outdoor events. The Conservancy has
proposed to fund these elements through private donors, in exchange for naming rights
acknowledging the donors.
Chapter 82 Article VI of the City Code, "Naming of Public Facilities and Establishment of Monuments
and Memorials," sets forth the manner in which public facilities may be named,
monuments/memorials established and streets co-designated. However, on several occasions the
City has provided for an exemption from the requirements of the provisions of Chapter 82 Article VI;
these exemptions were granted for the Bass Museum of Art, the Miami City Ballet; and for the Altos
del Mar Sculpture Park. Additionally, the Miami Beach Garden Center and Conservancy (a.k.a. the
Botanical Garden) is exempt under the Ordinance, but only from the referendum requirements.
ANALYSIS
On April 27, 201 1, at a meeting of the City's Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC or
Committee), the administration recommended that in order to allow the Conservancy to award
naming rights for interior portions of the premises in exchange for monetary contributions from
private donors to fund improvements set forth in the BODR. As it has been done with other not-for-
profit entities (i.e. the Bass Museum, Miami City Ballet and the Altos del Mar Sculpture Park), the
City Commission could exempt the Miami Beach Botanical Garden from the provisions of the City's
Naming Ordinance (rather than just keeping the limited exemption, exempting it from the referendum
requirements). In the event that the City Commission approves such exemption from the Naming
Ordinance, the Management Agreement would also be amended to establish criteria and guidelines
for naming interior portions of the facility. Another agenda item has been included recommending an
amendment to the Management Agreement. It should be noted that naming rights provisions have
been incorporated into other management agreements, involving the Altos Del Mar Sculpture
Garden, the Miami Beach Convention Center and the Fillmore.
The recommendations were approved by the FCWPC.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
The proposed ordinance amendment would add an additional exemption to Section 82-501(c)
specifically relating to the Botanical Garden. This amendment, if approved on First Reading, would
provide that the naming of the interior sections of the Premises and improvements thereto specified
in the BODR, would be exempt from the process set forth in Article VI. Specifically, the naming of
any interior portions of the Premises would not be subject to committee review and approval, it could
be named for someone living or dead, would not require a referendum, and would not require a
noticed public hearing to be held. Such exemption would be subject to certain conditions, as set
255
Botanical Garden - Exemption from Naming Ordinance
Page 3 of 3
forth in the proposed ordinance as follows:
1. The Botanical Garden is occupied, operated and maintained by the Conservancy;
2. The Conservancy remains in good standing and free from default under the management
agreement;
3. The premises remains free and open to the general public; and
4. The exemption shall automatically terminate upon the termination of the Management
Agreement.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to the recommendation of the FCWPC, the Administration recommends approval of the
proposed ordinance on Second and Final Reading on June I, 2011. At the same time, the
Administration has submitted a separate resolution for approval by the City Commission,
recommending certain amendments to the Management Agreement between the City and the
, setting forth the terms and conditions by which the Conservancy may grant naming
ior portions of the Botanical Garden.
T:\AGENDAPOI 1\6-01-1 l\Botanical Garden Naming Ordinance Exemption Memo 2 Reading.docx
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 82 OF THE CITY CODE, ENTITLED "PUBLIC
PROPERTY", BY AMENDING ARTICLE VI, ENTITLED
"NAMING OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ESTABLISHMENTS
OF MONUMENTS AND MEMORIALS", BY AMENDING
SECTION 82-501(c), TO EXEMPT THE MIAMI BEACH
BOTANICAL GARDEN FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SAID
ARTICLE VI, SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
CONTAINED IN THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR
REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODlFlCTlON AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE VI OF CHAPTER 82 OF THE CITY CODE.
A. That Chapter 82, Article VI, Section 82-501(c) of the Miami Beach City Code is hereby
amended as follows:
CHAPTER 82
PUBLIC PROPERTY
ARTICLE VI. Naming of Public Facilities and Establishment of Monuments and
Memorials.
Set. 82-501. Generally.
(a) No public facility located in or owned by the city shall be named except in accordance
with the procedures set forth in this article.
(b) No monument or memorial shall be established within the city except in accordance with
the procedures set forth in this article.
(c) Effective upon adoption of this article, no street located in the city shall be hereafter
named, renamed, or co-named after any person or persons, living or deceased. The
Bass Museum of Art, the city-owned building, located at 2200 Liberty Avenue, Miami
Beach, Florida (the Miami City Ballet Building); and all or any portion(s) of &city-
owned property comprising the public cultural facility known as the "Altos Del Mar
Sculpture Park," located within a portion of Altos Del Mar Park, on Collins Avenue
between 76th and 77th Street, Miami Beach, Florida (the ADMSP Sculpture Park); and
all or any portion(s) of the city-owned propertv comprising the Miami Beach Botanical
Garden, located at 2000 Convention Center Drive, shall be exempt from the provisions of
this article.
The Miami City Ballet Building shall only be exempt for so long as:
(1) Said building is occupied, operated and maintained by Miami City Ballet,
Inc., a not-for-profit corporation;
(2) The building is used as the principal headquarters, administrative offices,
and studio and teaching facilities of the Miami City Ballet; and
(3) Miami City Ballet, Inc., remains in good standing and free from defaults under
that certain lease agreement for the Miami City Ballet Building between the
city, as landlord, and Miami City Ballet, Inc., as tenant.
The ADMSP Sculpture Park shall only be exempt from the provisions of this article for so
long as:
(1) The Sculpture Park is occupied, operated and maintained by Altos Del
Mar Sculpture Park, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation;
(2) The Sculpture Park remains free and open to the general public; and
(3) Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park, Inc., remains in good standing and free
from defaults under that certain management agreement between the city
and Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park, Inc., dated June 3, 2009.
The Miami Beach Botanical Garden shall only be exempt from the provisions of this
article for so long as:
/I ) The Miami Beach Botanical Garden is occupied, operated and maintained
by the Miami Beach Garden Conservancy, a not-for-profit corporation;
/2) The Miami Beach Botanical Garden remains free and open to the general
public: and
13) The Miami Beach Garden Conservancy remains in good standing and
free from defaults under that certain management aweement between
the city and the Miami Beach Garden Conservancy, dated July 1, 2007.
The exemption for the Miami City Ballet Building shall automatically terminate upon the
earlier of the expiration or other termination of the aforestated lease agreement between
2
the parties. The exemption for the ADMSP Sculpture Park shall automatically terminate
upon the earlier of the expiration or other termination of the aforestated management
agreement. The exemption for the Miami Beach Garden Conservancv shall
automaticallv terminate upon the earlier of the expiration or termination of the
aforestated manaqement aareement.
SECTION 2.
That Chapter 82, Article VI, Section 82-503(c)(3) is hereby deleted in its entirety as I follows:
Sec. 82-503. Naming of public facilities; co-naming of streets.
Exterior portion(s) of a public facility, or park.
(1 Where an exterior portion(s) of a public facility, or where a park is to be
named, the city commission may only consider a name approved by a
majority of the members of the committee.
Additionally, any name so approved by the city commission must be
approved by a five-sevenths vote and must be submitted to the
electorate of the city by referendum at the next regularly scheduled
election. The name selection shall be approved by a majority of the
electorate voting in the referendum. Notwithstanding any other provision
of this article, the referendum requirements of this section shall not apply
where any city owned facility, not already named for an individual or
individuals pursuant to subsection 82-503 (a)(4), is to be named or
renamed to include the name of the city and the function of the facility or
the current name of the facility.
I SECTION 3. REPEALER
All ordinances or parts in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4.
If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect
the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. CODIFICATION
It is the intention of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, and it is
hereby ordained that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made part of the
Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida. The sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or
relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section",
"article", or other appropriate word.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect on the day of ,2011.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2011
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
F:MTTOMGUR\RESOS-ORD\Botanical Garden - Naming of Public Facilities Ordinance (4-27-1 I).doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOH EXECUTION
L Date
CITY 0F.MIAMI BEACH . .I
M0T.ICE.PUBLIC HEARING *i I
%
NOTICE 16 HEREBY given that a second reading and public hearing will be he& by the Mayor and city ~immis~ion
of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, in the commission Chambers, 3rd floor, CkHall, 1700 Convention Genter Drive;
Miami Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, June 1,2011, to consider the following: - I
10:15 a.m.
Ordinance Amending Chapter 82 Of The Cii Code, Entitled "Public ProQerty," By Amending Article VI, Entitled
"Naming Of Public Facilities And Establishments Of Monuments And Me@rials", By Amending Section 82-501(C),
Conditions Contained In This Ordinance.
- =I
To Exempt The Miami Beach Botanical Garden From The Provisions Of Said .Article VI, Subject T6 The Tens And
Inquiries may be directed to @e RealEstate, Housing & Community Development Department (305) 673-7260. I
IWRESTED PARTIES are invited to appear at this meeting or be represented by an agent or to express their views in
wrdng addressed to the City Commission clothe Cii Clerk, 1700 Conventiok-center Orive, 1" Floor, Cii Hall, Miami
Beach, Florida 33139. Any of these items may be opened and continued and under such circumstances additional legal
notice would not be provided.
.. Robert E. Parkher, City Clerk
Ci of Miami Beach
Pursuant to Section 28E.0105, FL Statutes, the City hereby advises the public that: if a person decides to appeal
any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or &-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. ShiS notice does not constitute Gonsent by the Cii for the
introduction or admission of othetwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals
not otherwise allowed by law.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990;persons needing special accommodation to participate I
in this proceeding, or to request information on access fo~persons with disabilities, or to request this publication in
accessible format, or to request sign language interpreters, should contact the City Clerk's office at (305) 673-741 1,
no later than four days prior to the proceeding. If hearing impaired, contact the Cii Clerk's office via the Florida Relay
Service numbers, (800) 955-8771 0 or (800) 955-8770 (VOICE). AD # 657
2NE I THURSDAY, MAY 19,2011
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title: I Alton Road Historic District Buffer Overlay zoning district I
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Maintain strong growth management policies; Protect historic building stock
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
47.6% suggested the effort put forth by the City to regulate development is "about the right amount,"
nearly one-third, 29.6%, indicated "too little" effort is being put forth by the City in this area.
Issue:
Shall the Mayor and City Commission, in lieu of opening and continuing the first reading public
hearing, follow the Land Use and Development Committee suggestion to defer this item until such time
as the Committee has had a chance to discuss this item?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
I The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission defer the item to a future 1
date, pending discussion by the Land Use and ~evelo~ment Committee.
During the November 17, 2010 City Commission meeting, the Mayor and Commission continued
the first reading public hearing to the January 19, 2011 Commission meeting and referred the Alton
Road Historic Buffer Overlay District to the Land Use and Development Committee for further
discussion. On December 13,2010 the Land Use and Development Committee heard public testimony
and discussed the proposed ordinance; then they continued the discussion to their next meeting on
January 31, 201 1. The matter was continued at the January 31, 201 1, February 23, 201 1 and March
16, 201 1 meetings and is currently scheduled to be heard by the Committee at 5:00 p.m. time certain
on April 21, 201 1.
The proposed zoning overlay district will modify the existing CD-2 Commercial Medium Intensity
district that is adjacent to lower intensity RS-4 and RM-1 residential buildings in the Flamingo Park
historic district and the Palm View historic district on the east side of Alton Road between 6 St and
Dade Blvd. The overlay district regulations are intended to achieve a more compatible relationship of
scale and massing between the Alton Road corridor and the adjoining residential neighborhoods, to
promote mixed-use development that makes efficient use of parking, to minimize the concentration of
impacts from intense retail and restaurant development and to encourage smaller neighborhood-
oriented uses.
The proposed overlay district will eliminate the .5 FAR bonus for residential uses, regulate building
form through changes to height and setbacks, introduce certain restrictions on the size and location of
commercial uses, and regulate lots containing contributing buildings in the historic district.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
Plannina Board Action: November 17,2009 recommended approval as amended by a vote of 5 to 0
April 27,2010 recommended approval as amended by a vote of 5 to 0.
August 24, 2010 motion to recommend approval as amended failed by a vote of 3 to 2.
Financial Information:
I Source of Amount I Account I
Funds: Ill
I I
NIA I
values throughout the neighborhood by permitting appropriately scaled infill development and by
encouraging the development of smaller, locally oriented businesses.
u
OBPl
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Joyce Meyers, Planning Department
3 1 I
Total (
MIAMIBEACH
Financial Impact Summary: This ordinance is also expected to generally enhance property
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.miamibeachfl.gov
MEMO # COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June 1, 201 1
SUBJECT: FIRST READING PUBLIC HEARING - Alton Road Historic District Buffer
Overlay zoning district
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRICTS AND
REGULATIONS," ARTICLE Ill, "OVERLAY DISTRICTS," CREATING DIVISION
8 "ALTON ROAD - HISTORIC DISTRICT BUFFER OVERLAY," BY INCLUDING
SECTION 142-858 "LOCATION AND PURPOSE," AND SECTION 142-859
"DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS," INCLUDING AMONG OTHER PROVISIONS
REGULATIONS ON MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO; MAXIMUM BUILDING
HEIGHT; MINIMUM SETBACKS; BUILDING SEPARATION;-DEMOLITION OR
ADDITIONS TO CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN AN HISTORIC DISTRICT; AND
LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR LOCATION OF RETAIL USES,
RESTAURANTS, BARS, ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS, ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND SIMILAR USES; REQUIRING
CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OF SUCH USES IN EXCESS OF 20,000 SQ.
FT.; AND PROHIBITING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AND ENTERTAINMENT
ESTABLISHMENTS IN OPEN AREAS WITH EXCEPTIONS AS PRESCRIBED IN
THE ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; REPEALER;
SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission defer the item to a
future meeting, as per the discussion at the Land Use and Development Committee on May
18, 2011. The item will be fully renoticed before it returns to the Commission for first
reading.
BACKGROUND
In the Summer of 2006 the Historic Preservation Board initiated the westward expansion of
the Flamingo Park Local Historic District to the east right-of-way line of Alton Road between
6" Street and 14'h Street in order to protect the character of the adjacent National Register
Historic District as well as the historically significant but yet unprotected properties along this
stretch of Alton Road. It was noted by the board that recent commercial development trends
along Alton Road could significantly adversely impact the quality of life and historic integrity
of the National Register Historic District thereby undermining the cultural tourism appeal and
quality of life of the city.
Alfon Road Historic Disfricf Buffer Overlay
June I, 201 I
Page 2 of 8
At the same time the Historic Preservation Board requested the Planning Department to
initiate a major planning study of the Alton Road Corridor, including both sides of the road
between 5th Street and Michigan Avenue, which should include an analysis and evaluation
of existing uses and conditions, historically significant properties, permitted building heights,
allowable FAR, parking conditions and requirements, the efficacy of current zoning, and the
character of the public right-of-way with regard to pedestrian amenities, convenient means
of transit, and quality of landscape.
The board further requested that the Planning Department organize and advertise a series
of community planning workshops, inviting members of the Historic Preservation Board and
the Planning Board, in order to gain public input and insight from local business owners and
residents so that the Department might develop a comprehensive set of planning and zoning
recommendations for future development and preservation along the corridor that would
enable healthy future growth and development without overwhelming or adversely impacting
the historic character of the area.
On January 16, 2008, the Mayor and City Commission approved Ordinance No. 2008-3592,
expanding the boundaries of the Flamingo Park Historic District westward expansion to
Alton Road between 8 Street and 14 Street; and on January 28, 2009, the Mayor and City
Commission approved Ordinance No. 2008-3592, expanding the boundaries of the
Flamingo Park Historic District westward expansion to Alton Road between 6 Street and 8
Street
The Planning Department conducted an analysis of existing conditions, issues and
opportunities in the Alton Road corridor and held a community planning workshop on August
20, 2008 to receive community input on land use, zoning, business development, parking,
transit and pedestrianlbicycle amenities. On January 27, 2009, the Planning Department
presented preliminary findings and recommendations for the Alton Road Neighborhood
Planning Study to the Planning Board. On February 26, 2009, the Planning Department and
the Planning Board held a second community planning workshop on the Alton Road
Neighborhood Planning Study to receive community input. Both community planning
workshops were advertised by mailed notice to propertyowners, newspaper notice, and City
email newsletters.
On March 2, 2009, the Land Use and Development Committee adopted a motion directing
the Planning Department to prepare an ordinance that would rezone the east side of Alton
Road between 6 Street and 16 Street from the CD-2 district to the CD-1 district, and to
review the uses and to the extent that there is a floor area incentive for mixed-use buildings,
require that the additional FAR be set aside for affordable or workforce housing, and to refer
the item to the Planning Board. On March 18, 2009, the Mayor and City Commission
discussed the motion from the Land Use and Development Committee and clarified their
intent to consider other options, including an overlay district that would remove the floor area
ratio incentive for mixed-use projects.
During the Planning Board meetings on April 21, 2009, May 26, 2009 and August 25, 2009,
the Planning Department staff held additional detailed discussions with the Board on the
proposed zoning modifications for the east side of Alton Road in the Flamingo Park Historic
District. The proposed Alton Road- Historic District Buffer Overlay is the result of those
discussions.
Alton Road Historic District Buffer Overlay
June I, 201 1
Page 3 of 8
On October 27, 2009, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the proposed overlay
district and heard testimony from residents who were unhappy with some aspects of the
draft ordinance. The Planning Board continued the hearing to the November 17 meeting and
asked staff to meet with the concerned residents to try to resolve their issues. The Planning
Department held two meetings with the residents on October 30 and November 9, 2009.
The public hearing at the Planning Board meeting on November 17, 2009 resulted in several
additional amendments to the proposed ordinance. The Planning Board recommended
approval of the amended overlay district by a vote of 5 to 0.
Subsequently, the Administration made a determination that the amendments added to the
ordinance during the November 17'~ public hearing, specifically amendments dealing with
land use restrictions, may require a different type of notice to property owners than was
provided for the previous public hearings. To avoid any legal challenges, the overlay district
was brought back to the Planning Board in the same form as it was approved in November,
2009, with 30-day notice mailed to all property owners in and within 375 feet of the proposed
overlay district.
On February 25, 2010, the Land Use and Development Committee discussed the proposed
Alton Road Historic District Buffer Overlay. The Committee recommended that the ordinance
be approved, and indicated that it does not need to come back to them unless there is a
major material change made by the Planning Board.
On April 27, 2010, the Planning Board held a second public hearing on the proposed Alton
Road Historic District Buffer Overlay district after the required 30-day mailed notice. The
Planning Board voted 5 - 0 to recommend approval of the ordinance with an amendment
that deleted the "no variances" provision. Subsequently, at their meeting on May 25, 2010,
the Board voted 3 - 2 to reconsider their recommendation and to schedule the item for
rehearing.
On August 24, 2010, the Planning Board held a third public hearing on the proposed Alton
Road Historic District Buffer Overlay district after the required 30-day mailed notice. Based
on objections from commercial property owners who were not present during the first two
hearings, the Board voted separately on each of several amendments to the ordinance.
Individual amendments that were approved by the Planning Board have been incorporated
into the ordinance. However, a final vote to recommend approval of the entire ordinance, as
amended, failed by a vote of 3-2 (four affirmative votes are required to approve a request
before the board that requires City Commission approval).
On November 1, 201 0, the Administration hosted a meeting between attorneys representing
certain property owners who objected to the ordinance and representatives from the
neighborhoods in an attempt to forge a compromise on several limited points of
disagreement. As a result of that meeting, the Administration is proposing an alternate
version of the ordinance that we believe satisfies the most critical objections from both
sides; while at the same time it represents sound planning principles and the interests of the
city-at-large. A summary chart of the disputed issues and proposed changes to the
ordinance is enclosed as Attachment A, and each issue is discussed in the analysis below.
During the November 17, 2010 City Commission meeting, the Mayor and Commission
continued the first reading public hearing to the January 19, 201 1 Commission meeting and
referred the Alton Road Historic Buffer Overlay District to the Land Use and Development
Committee for further discussion. On December 13, 2010 the Land Use and Development
Alton Road Historic District Buffer Overlay
June I, 201 1
Page 4 of 8
Committee heard public testimony and discussed the proposed ordinance; then they
continued the discussion to their next meeting on January 31, 201 1. The matter was
continued at the meetings on January 31, 201 1, February 23, 201 1, March 16, 201 1 and
April 21, 201 1, and is currently scheduled to be heard by the Committee on May 18, 201 1.
The Flamingo Park Neighborhood Association has requested an additional continuance until
the July 20, 201 1 LUDC meeting.
ANALYSIS
The purpose of the Alton Road - Historic District Buffer Overlay District is to minimize the
impacts of development along Alton Road on residential properties located in the Flamingo
Park Historic District and the Palm View Historic District. Specifically the overlay district is
intended to apply to properties zoned CD-2 Commercial Medium Intensity that are adjacent
to lower intensity RS-4 and RM-1 residential buildings in designated local historic districts.
The overlay district regulations are intended to achieve a more compatible relationship of
scale and massing between the Alton Road corridor and the adjoining residential
neighborhoods.
The locations of the proposed overlay district are as follows (see also attached map):
Area 1 includes those properties fronting on the east side of Alton Road from 6 Street to I1
Street. Existing zoning is CD-2 adjacent to RM-1 in the Flamingo Park Historic
District.
Area 2 includes those properties fronting on the east side of Alton Road from 14 Street to 15
Street. Existing zoning is CD-2 adjacent to RS-4 in the Flamingo Park Historic
District.
Area 3 includes those properties fronting on the east side of Alton Road from 17 Street to
the Collins Canal, except for the corner property adjacent to 17 Street. Existing
zoning is CD-2 adjacent to RS-4 in the Palm View Historic District.
The proposed ordinance limits the floor area ratio (FAR) to a maximum of 1.5 by removing
the existing bonus of .5 FAR for mixed-use buildings. This will make new construction along
Alton Road more compatible in scale and intensity with the adjoining historic neighborhood
zoned RM-1, which has existing buildings that range from 0.5 to 1.25 FAR with a few
scattered sites over 1.25 FAR. During the planning process, various alternatives were
considered, including down-zoning from CD-2 to CD-1, which has a maximum FAR of 1.0
with a mixed-use bonus of .25 FAR. After much discussion and analysis, it was ultimately
decided that 1.5 FAR is suitable for Alton Road development. This is based on many
factors, including the importance of Alton Road as a commercial corridor and the existing
bus and potential future transit linkages (e.g. Bus Rapid Transit). From an urban design
viewpoint, the proposed overlay district forms a gradual stepping up of the intensity from
RM-1 on the residential neighborhood to the east, to a maximum of 1.5 FAR on the east
side of Alton Road, to a maximum of 2.0 FAR on the west side of Alton Road, to a maximum
of 2.25 FAR (2.75 for large lots) on the Bayfront in RM-3. However, it must be noted that
FAR alone does not define the building envelop that is necessary to assure compatibility
with the historic district. The height and setback regulations described below are also
necessary to achieve this goal.
Another alternative that was discussed during the planning process was to keep a FAR
bonus for residential uses in a mixed-use building, but to make the bonus an incentive to
Alfon Road Historic Disfricf Buffer Overlay
June I, 201 1
Page 5 of 8
provide affordable or workforce housing. The Planning Board did not support this
recommendation due to their consensus to limit FAR to a maximum of 1.5.
The maximum building height in the Planning Board recommended ordinance is 43 feet
along Alton Road and a maximum of 23 feet in the rear portion of the lots within 50 feet from
the rear property line for lots abutting an alley (Lenox Court) and within 60 feet from the RM-
1 district for blocks with no alley between 8 Street and 11 Street. The 23 feet height limit in
the rear of the lots is based upon maintaining consistency with the predominant 2-story
height of existing buildings in the RM-1 district. For lots adjoining single family districts, the
23 feet height limit will also ensure a compatible transition in the rear portion of the
commercial property. The administration has an alternative recommendation for maximum
building height of 50 feet along the front portion of the lots fronting Alton Road and 28 feet in
the rear portion of the lots. This change is based upon information supplied by property
owners concerning industry standards for minimum ceiling heights in new retail, restaurant
and office buildings. However, this recommendation is subject to building separation
requirements for larger site development (see below) to prevent monolithic buildings at 50
feet height.
The building height limitations in the proposed overlay district are coupled with rear yard
setbacks to achieve the appropriate buffer between the RM-IIRS-4 districts and the CD-2
district. Proposed minimum building setbacks in the rear yard are 25 feet for lots with no
alley and 5 feet for lots with an alley. The existing CD-2 and CD-1 zoning districts have a 5
feet minimum rear setback irrespective of whether there is an alley (20 feet width) to provide
adequate separation between the buildings.
The overlay district proposes a minimum 5 feet setback on the front and side facing a street.
This is necessary to provide adequate pedestrian circulation space to support alternative
modes of transportation and sustain a vibrant commercial district.
The overlay district as amended by the Planning Board has no minimum interior side yard
setback, nor does it have provisions for building separation, lot aggregation or view corridors
on larger lot assemblages. Instead, the Planning Board version of the ordinance contains
language requiring architectural treatments on the fa~ades of buildings to be reflective of the
50 feet wide lot development pattern that is predominant in the historic district. This could
be accomplished by such things as small variations in setbacks, window placement, or
vertical and horizontal design elements on the fa~ade, subject to design review. This was
the recommendation of the Planning Board in November 2009 following extensive workshop
discussions wherein the Planning Department staff had recommended various formulas for
requiring a complete physical separation between adjacent buildings on the upper stories
above ground level retail. The intent was to prevent a continuous wall of 40-50 feet tall
buildings that would be inconsistent with the small lot development pattern of the historic
residential neighborhoods. The current recommendation from the Administration is retain the
language developed by the Planning Board with the clarification of "east and west" facades,
and to add a paragraph requiring building separation under limited circumstances as follows:
"Any development greater than 43 feet in height on a lot with more than 150 linear feet of
frontage along Alton Road shall have a separation between all portions of the structure
above a height of 28 feet, so that there is a minimum I5 feet wide view corridor running from
east to west at least every 150 linear feet along the Alton Road corridor".
The overlay district contains 9 contributing buildings in the Flamingo Park Historic District.
Those contributing buildings are proposed to be subject to two of the same conditions
Alfon Road Historic District Buffer Overlay
June I, 201 1
Page 6 of 8
applied to historic buildings in the adjoining RM-1 zoning district. Those include a prohibition
on demolition of architecturally significant portions of the building and prohibition of building
within a historic courtyard.
Residents of the Flamingo Park neighborhood were concerned about impacts of noise and
traffic from intensive commercial uses. Therefore, the proposed overlay district modifies the
underlying CD-2 land uses in several ways. One of them is by prohibiting retail uses,
restaurants, bars, entertainment establishments and similar uses at any level above the
ground floor. An exception is provided for loft or mezzanine within the interior of a ground
floor commercial space, provided that the loft or mezzanine does not exceed one third of the
floor area of the store. Based upon objections from property owners, the current
Administration recommended ordinance deletes the language limiting the loft or mezzanine
to one third of the floor area, and replaces it with language permitting "a second floor within
a ground floor commercial space, if it functions as one single contiguous establishment and
is only accessible to the public through the contiguous ground floor commercial space." This
would allow two full floors inside any given retail store, similar to CB2 or Borders book
stores, but it would not allow multilevel shopping centers.
No alcoholic beverage establishment, entertainment establishment or restaurant may be
licensed as a main permitted or accessory use in any open area above the ground floor (any
area that is not included in the FAR calculations) or at ground level in any open area within
125 feet of a residential district, except that residents of a multifamily (apartment or
condominium) building or hotel guests may use these areas, which may include a pool or
other recreational amenities, for their individual, personal use with appropriate buffering as
determined by the Planning Department or applicable land use board with jurisdiction. No
variance to this provision would be permitted.
In accord with the objective of encouraging locally oriented retail and service uses that are
compatible in scale and character with the historic districts, the overlay district requires
conditional use approval for any individual retail, restaurant, bar, entertainment
establishment or similar establishment in excess of a certain size threshold. The Planning
Dept. conducted a detailed survey of businesses in the Alton Road corridor and determined
that a threshold of 5,000 sq. ft. generally separates businesses that primarily serve the
neighborhood population from businesses that primarily serve the entire city and beyond. To
provide a generous margin of error, staff doubled the recommended threshold to 10,000 sq.
ft. for conditional use approval. The Planning Board changed the conditional use threshold
from 10,000 sq. ft. to 20,000 sq. ft. by a 4-2 vote at their meeting on August 24, 2010, based
upon objections from property owners. The Administration's recommendation is to keep the
original threshold of 10,000 sq. ft. per establishment for conditional use approval based
upon the analysis conducted by the Planning Department.
A majority of the discussions during the community workshops and Planning Board
meetings centered upon the blocks between 6th and I lth Streets. However, it was noted
that there is an incompatible scale relationship between the CD-2 zoning district and
adjoining RS-4 single family zoning districts located in the 1400 block and the 1700 block.
Down-zoning to CD-I was considered for these two blocks, but the Planning Department
recommends that the proposed overlay district will provide a more effective buffer than CD-1
due to the height and setback regulations in the overlay district. At their August 24, 2010
meeting, the Planning Board voted 5-1 to remove lots 15 and 16 from the overlay district
(northeast corner of 17 Street and Alton Road).
Alton Road Historic District Buffer Overlay
June 1,201 1
Page 7 of 8
FISCAL IMPACT
In accordance with Charter section 5.02, which requires that the "City of Miami Beach shall
consider the long-term economic impact (at least 5 years) of proposed legislative actions,"
this shall confirm that the City Administration evaluated the long-term economic impact (at
least 5 years) of this proposed legislative action, and determined that there will be no
measurable impact on the City's budget. By nature, a zoning district amendment does not
have direct costs to the City, but it may affect long term revenue from property tax, sales tax
and other revenue streams. Although some property owners have argued that the proposed
overlay zoning will diminish their property values, the Administration believes that this is
claim is highly speculative, especially if the Administration's alternate ordinance is adopted.
The Administration's proposal would preserve all of the most valuable development rights on
each parcel, with the exception of removing the .5 bonus FAR for residential use mixed with
commercial uses. Since this is a bonus and not as-of-right floor area, it is difficult to say
whether any real development would be sacrificed. There are no existing buildings in the
district that have used this bonus. Counterbalancing any potential loss of development
rights on private property is the companion ordinance creating Parking District #5, which will
reduce minimum parking requirements thereby creating significant savings to private
property owners in the cost of providing parking spaces. This ordinance is also expected to
generally enhance property values throughout the neighborhood by permitting appropriately
scaled infill development and by encouraging the development of smaller, locally oriented
businesses.
PLANNING BOARD ACTION
November 17,2009 recommended approval as amended by a vote of 5 to 0
April 27, 2010 recommended approval as amended by a vote of 5 to 0.
August 24, 2010 motion to recommend approval as amended failed by a vote of 3 to 2.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission defer the item to a
future meeting, pending discussion at the Land Use and Development Committee on May
18, 201 1. The item will be fully renoticed before it returns to the Commission for first
T:\AGENDAU011\6-01-11Wlton Rd Historic Buffer Overlay memo.docx
Alfon Road Hisforic District Buffer Overlay
June I, 2011
Page 8 of 8
Proposed Alton Road Historic District Buffer Overlay
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
An Ordinance Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Amending Chapter 130,
"Off Street Parking", +To Expand The Boundaries Of The Existing Parking Districts; To Amend
Requirements For Parking Districts Nos. 2, 3 And 4," and Amending "Fee In Lieu Of Parking Program,"
From The Current 3% Of The One-Time Payment To A Lesser Percentage
Key Intended Outcome Supported: I Regulatory. Required by State Statutes I
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): While nearly half, 47.6%, suggested the effort
put forth by the City to regulate development is "about the right amount," nearly one-third, 29.6%, indicated
"too little" effort is being put forth by the City in this area.
Issue: - - - . - - -
Should the City Commission change the existing boundaries of existing parking districts and change the
yearly fee in lieu of providing the required parking to a lesser percentage (currently 3% of the one-time fee -
Item SummarylRecommendation:
First Reading
In certain specific cases a parking impact fee may be paid to the city in lieu of providing required parking.
Rather than a traditional "impact fee", it is really a "fee-in-lieu", which means that one has the option to
either provide the required parking either on-site or within a specified distance, or, pay a fee in lieu of
providing that parking. The fee is set by the City based upon the estimated cost of constructing one
parking space in a typical structured parking garage, and is adjusted from time to time to reflect changes in
the cost of land and construction. Currently the fee is $35,000 per space, which reflects the average cost
per space. Amending the boundaries of the parking districts would correct certain deficiencies in the
boundaries of the parking districts in order to encompass properties that should have been included and as
potential policy solutions to address the concerns of small businesses with respect to the fee-in-lieu.
Financial Impact Summary:
Charter section 5.02, requires consideration of the long-term economic impact (at least 5 years) of
proposed legislative actions. Amending the boundaries of Parking Districts #3 and #4 will eliminate
approximately seven (7) accounts, totaling approximately $44,000 in current annual billing, or $220,000
over 5 years. Reducing the annual fee from 3% to 2% of the one-time fee for the remaining accounts will
reduce the annual billing by one-third, or a reduction of approximately $200,000 to $250,000 per year, or
$800,000 to $1,000,000 over 5 years.
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Richard Lorber
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the proposed ordinance on first
reading; and set a second reading public hearing for the July 13, 201 1 meeting. Staff also recommends
that the Commission refer several related parking fee issues back to the Planning Board for further review
and recommendation.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
At its April 26, 201 1 meeting, the Planning Board, by a vote of 6-0 (one member absent), recommended
that the City Commission adopt the proposed ordinance. The Board also requested three other possible
amendments for the City Commission to refer after having discussed them.
Financial Information:
AMIBEACH
Source of
Funds:
El OBPl
1
2
Total
Amount Account
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June 1, 201 1
First Reading
SUBJECT: Parking district boundaries and Fees-in-Lieu of Parking
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 130, "OFF STREET PARKING", ARTICLE II,
"DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS", BY AMENDING SECTION 130-31,
"PARKING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED", TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES
OF THE EXISTING PARKING DISTRICTS; BY AMENDING SECTION 130-33,
"OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING DISTRICTS
NOS. 2,3 AND 4," TO AMEND REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO PARKING
DISTRICTS 2, 3, AND 4; AND BY AMENDING ARTICLE V, "FEE IN LlEU OF
PARKING PROGRAM," SECTION 130-132, "FEE CALCULATION", TO
REDUCE THE YEARLY FEE IN LlEU OF PARKING FROM THE CURRENT
THREE PERCENT OF THE ONE-TIME PAYMENT TO A LESSER
PERCENTAGE; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the proposed
ordinance on first reading and set a second reading public hearing for the July 13, 201 1
meeting.
BACKGROUD
A discussion regarding the City's most recent billing of Parking Impact Fees, and the
possibility of a moratorium due to present economic market conditions, was held by the
City Commission on September 15, 2010, at the request of Commissioner Wolfson.
After briefly discussing the matter, the issue was referred to the Finance and Citywide
Projects Committee. The Commission also expressed their desire for the City to hold off
on sending collection letters until the item is discussed at committee.
At the December 16, 2010 Finance and Citywide Projects Committee meeting, the
Committee discussed various staff recommendations, and requested staff return with
analysis on how other cities handle parking requirements, and recommendations on how
City Commission Memorandum
Parking district boundaries and fees in lieu of parking
June I, 2011 Paae 2
to reduce the parking requirement by providing valet service. The Committee approved
and referred the following initiatives directly to the Planning Board:
allowing a yearly fee to be paid for new construction
accept the modifications to the map for parking districts
reducing the percentage for the yearly fee from 3% to 2%
The Planning Board began discussing these matters at its March 22, 201 1 meeting but
requested that staff further refine the applicable proposals and return to the Board in
April.
During a discussion at the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee meeting of March
24, 2011, regarding recent billing of fees in-lieu of parking and the possibility of a
moratorium due to present economic market conditions and the effect on business in
North Beach, the Committee recommended bifurcating the following two initiatives to go
forward to the Planning Board:
modifications to the map for parking districts;
reducing the percentage for the yearly fee from 3% to 2%
The Committee requested that staff provide additional analysis of the available parking
that existing hotels currently have, and an estimate of the usage of such hotel parking,
prior to bringing the item allowing a yearly fee to be paid for new construction to the
Planning Board.
ANALYSIS
In certain specific cases a parking impact fee may be paid to the city in lieu of providing
required parking. Rather than a traditional "impact fee", it is really a "fee-in-lieu", which
means that one has the option to either provide the required parking either on-site or
within a specified distance, or, pay a fee in lieu of providing that parking.
The fee is set by the City based upon the estimated cost of constructing one parking
space in a typical structured parking garage, and is adjusted from time to time to reflect
changes in the cost of land and construction. In 2006, the City increased the fee to
$35,000 per space, which was estimated to be the amount it would cost the City to
construct one space; subsequent analysis of the parking garage projects reviewed by
the City has proven that amount to be justified, as the costs reflect an average cost per
space very close to this figure.
The rationale for the fee-in-lieu is that where a developer cannot provide parking on site,
and is unable to obtain off-site parking to satisfy the parking requirements, the funds
generated by these fees can be used by the City to provide public parking garages. The
City is divided into three districts, north, middle and south, and funds generated are
segregated into three accounts according to the district they are in.
In South Beach, the City has used these fees to help fund the Municipal Multipurpose
Center garage at 17'~ Street and Meridian Avenue. The Sunset Harbour garage, which is
located in the Mid-Beach parking impact fee district, is funded partially with these fees.
The proposed garage on 23rd Street is also located in the Mid-Beach account area.
There are funds in the account for North Beach which are expected to help fund the
future North Beach Town Center garage.
Cify Commission Memorandum
Parking district boundaries and fees in lieu of parking
June I, 201 1 Page 3
New construction of buildings must pay a one-time fee-in-lieu at the time of building
permit approval. However, for the intensification of an existing building from a less
intense use such as office or retail to a more intensive use such as restaurant, which
requires additional parking, a yearly fee payment option is offered, which is currently 3%
of the one-time fee, payable per year. The full fee is currently $35,000, and thus the
yearly fee would be $1,050 per year.
Intensification of existing buildings in our historic districts does not trigger any parking
requirements, so within historic districts there are very few yearly fee accounts. The
majority of yearly accounts are located in areas that are not in historic district, and are
not in areas of the City which have special parking reductions or parking districts.
(Lincoln Road, 41'' Street, and 71'' Street are "parking districts" which have no parking
requirements for retail or restaurant uses.) The attached graphic shows that there are
concentrations of yearly fee accounts along Alton Road, in Sunset Harbour, in South
Pointe, and in North Beach either along Collins Avenue south of 71'' Street or clustered
around the Normandy fountain. These concentrations are in areas that are neither
considered "parking districts" nor are designated as local historic districts. As such, the
intensification of uses within the existing buildings in these areas have required the
payment of the yearly fees, when adequate parking was not available on-site to
accommodate the increased parking requirements.
Amending the map for parking districts
The Planning Department has been looking at various potential policy solutions to
address the concerns of small businesses with respect to the fee-in-lieu. For example,
in one case brought to the Department's attention, a business that was on Alton Road at
41'' Street was required to pay the fee-in-lieu several years ago when they created a
restaurant and later added more seats in what was once a real estate office. While
parking is normally required for this type of intensification, all properties fronting on 41''
Street are part of "parking district #3 and as such, have no parking requirements for
retail or restaurants. However, this property, since it was on the curved portion of Alton
Road just adjacent to the south from 41'' Street, wasn't technically included in the
parking district. Staff suggests that the definition of this parking district could be easily
amended to include properties zoned CD-3 commercial high-intensity, located within
one block of 41St Street, and thereby include the five or six lots that are left out of the
parking district as currently defined. This would be very logical from a planning
standpoint and would not have a significant impact on the 41'' Street area.
Similar changes could be contemplated in the North Beach area, where 71'' Street is a
parking district, but the areas around Normandy Fountain or south of 71'' Street are not.
The concept of the parking district is linked to the presence of adequate public parking,
and as a public parking garage project is contemplated, the extension of the parking
district could also be explored. (The North Beach Town Center plan includes a modest
increase of the parking district #4). The proposed ordinance would extend the parking
district south along Collins Avenue and north to 75th Street (mostly already a historic
district).
The following modifications are suggested to the definitions of Parking Districts 3 and 4:
Parking district No. 3. Parking district No. 3 includes those properties in the CD-3
Commercial, High Intensity zonina district within one block north or south of
City Commission Memorandum
Parking district boundaries and fees in lieu of parking
June I, 201 I Page 4
Arthur Godfrey Road, from the east side of Alton Road to west side of Indian Creek
Waterway.
Parking district No. 4. Parking district No. 4 includes those properties within the CD-2
and CD-3 commercial districts with a lot line on 71st Street, or between 67th Street and
72"d Street, from the west side of Collins Avenue to the east side of Rue Notre Dame,
and those properties with a lot line on Normandy Drive from the west side of the Indian
Creek Waterway to the east side of Rue Notre Dame, and those properties in the CD-2
and MXE districts between 73 street and 75 Street.
Note also that an ordinance creating parking district #5 along the Alton Road corridor
between 5th Street and the Collins Canal is currently being contemplated as part of the
package of ordinances addressing the buffer zone between the commercial corridor and
the Flamingo Park historic neighborhood. This ordinance should eliminate several of the
yearly fee accounts along the corridor (although it should be noted that the entire Alton
Road zoning change initiative has remained on hold for several months as it undergoes
review by the Land Use and Development Committee). Finally, the Commission has
directed staff to explore revisions to the parking requirements to the Sunset Harbour
neighborhood, once the City's new parking garage project is open and operating in that
neighborhood (this is expected to be no sooner than 18 months from the present).
Staff believes that this proposed change to the boundaries of Parking Districts #3 and #4
is sound planning, and should not have a disproportionate impact on parking in the City
or the City's fiscal balance.
Lowering the percentage paid per year
For the intensification of an existing building from a less intense use such as office or
retail to a more intensive use such as restaurant, which requires additional parking, a
yearly fee payment option is offered, which is 3% of the one-time fee, payable per year.
The yearly fee is also an option for outdoor cafes associated with an indoor restaurant
use. Currently the full fee is $35,000, and thus, the yearly is $1,050 per year.
Planning Department staff has continued to explore the issue of the full fee and has
examined construction and land acquisition costs for recent City parking garage projects
(New World Symphony, Sunset Harbour, sth & Alton, 23" Street). Based on this data
staff believes that the $35,000 figure remains valid as representative of the City's total
average cost for land acquisition and construction of one parking space, which is how
the fee is determined as required by Code. However, for yearly accounts, the 3% of the
full fee per year is an arbitrary figure which has been revised on previous occasions. To
address the impacts of a short-term economic downturn, the City could consider an
amendment to this portion of the Code which reduces the percentage for the yearly fee
from 3% to a lower number. The table below indicates what the yearly fee would be
reduced to at various percentage levels.
Full fee Percentage
3% (current)
2.5%
2%
1.5%
Yearly fee
City Commission Memorandum
Parking districf boundaries and fees in lieu of parking
June I, 2011 Page 5
Staff believes that temporarily adjusting the annual percentage rate to 2% during
economic downturns is a preferable way to address such concerns, without causing
undue impact to the traffic and parking conditions in the City. The full fee would continue
to serve as a reference for the actual cost of building and providing parking for new
construction projects, acting as an incentive to consider actually providing the required
parking on site or within the close vicinity of the actual project.
PLANNING BOARD
At its April 26, 201 1 meeting, the Planning Board, by a vote of 6-0 (one member absent),
recommended that the City Commission adopt the proposed ordinance amending the
parking district boundaries and reducing the yearly fee-in lieu to 2%. The Board also
made a request to the City Commission for three other possible amendments, after
discussing these issues during the meeting. These are:
1. Expanding the tvpe of exemptions with the parking districts to include targeted or
strategic industries or businesses the City wishes to attract. Hotels might be
included in some of the parking districts, for example. Certain types of office
uses, especially those connected with the arts, culture and tourism may also be
considered for inclusion in the parking districts, thus encouraging expansion of
these key areas.
A limit on the amount of parkina that can be satisfied by paying a fee in-lieu of
providing the required parking either on site or within a specified distance should
be considered. While the fee in-lieu of parking provision is useful in areas where
area to provide parking is very constrained, such as on sites in local historic
districts which already contain existing historic buildings, the use of the fee in-lieu
to satisfy large amounts of required parking appears to be contrary to the initial
rationale for such a program. The City Commission may wish to consider
whether there should be a maximum cap on the use of the fee in-lieu, either in
absolute terms as a maximum number of spaces that can be paid for, or in
percentage terms, permitting only a maximum percentage of required parking to
be satisfied by paying the fee. For example, a proposal that permitted up to
twenty spaces to be satisfied by paying the fee, and permitting only fifty percent
of the required spaces over the maximum of twenty to be satisfied by paying the
fee, would permit smaller projects to go forward without parking when absolutely
necessary, but would ensure that larger projects provided at least some of the
required parking on site or within a specified distance.
3. The distance from a subiect site that required parking can be provided off site is
currently 500 feet, and 1200 feet for historic districts. The City Commission may
wish to consider expanding these distances, to for example, 750 feet and 1500
feet for historic districts. This may encourage a greater number of spaces to be
provided, by expanding the available sites on which parking may be located.
FISCAL IMPACT
In accordance with Charter section 5.02, which requires that the "City of Miami Beach
shall consider the long-term economic impact (at least 5 years) of proposed legislative
actions," this shall confirm that the City Administration evaluated the long-term economic
impact (at least 5 years) of this proposed legislative action, and determined that there
may be a measurable impact on the City's budget by enactment of the ordinance,
City Commission Memorandum
Parking district boundaries and fees in lieu of parking
June I. 2011 Paae 6
amending the boundaries of Parking Districts #3 and #4, and reducing the yearly fee in
lieu from 3% of the full fee ($35,000) or $1050, to the recommended 2% or $700.
Amending the boundaries of Parking Districts 3 and 4
Amending the boundaries of Parking Districts 3 and 4 will eliminate approximately seven
(7) accounts, totaling approximately $44,000 in current annual billing, or approximately 5
percent of the total. A five year fiscal impact would be approximately $220,000.
Reducing the annual fee from 3% to 2%
Reducing the annual fee from 3% to 2% of the one-time fee for the remaining accounts
will reduce the annual billing by one-third, or approximately $200,000 to $250,000 per
year. A five year fiscal impact would be approximately $800,000 to $1,000,000.
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS
After performing the above fiscal impact analysis, staff is concerned at the long term
reduction of this program from fees in-lieu of parking. These funds have been used in
the past to help defray the cost of constructing parking facilities, and recently the City
Commission expanded the type of projects which would qualify under this program.
Permanent Reduction or Temporary Reduction During Economic Downturns
Rather than a permanent reduction from 3% to 2%, an alternative model could be found,
which would limit the scope of the reduction. A possibility would be to make the
reduction a temporary discount that was only in effect for two or three years, during
times of economic downturn, but which would sunset upon the recovery of the economy
if the City Commission did not specifically vote to re-authorize it. Staff would
recommend this approach, with a suggested sunset date of October 1, 201 3.
Incentive for New Business Start-up
As an alternative to permanent fee reduction, a discount could be applied to new
businesses for the first few years of their operation, as a form of business start-up
incentive. After a set period of time (i.e. two to five years) during which the business
would be expected to grow and become successful, the discounted fee would expire and
the full amount would then be billed. A 50% reduction of annual parking impact fee for
the first three license years of a new business could help spur business growth.
Small Business Exemption
A large number of the annual parking fee accounts are for small businesses for a small
number of parking spaces. A small business exemption similar to the existing small
business exemption for Concurrency could be implemented. This would help to relieve
the burden on a large number of small businesses without a disproportionate fiscal
impact to the City. For example, an exemption for up to five parking spaces would
exempt almost 50 businesses, while only having an impact of approximately $44,000 per
year; an exemption for up to five parking spaces would exempt about 65 businesses,
while having an impact of approximately $84,000 per year. These figures are less than
the $200,000-$250,000 that the reduction of the fee from 3% to 2% is projected to have.
Other Pending Parking Fee Initiatives
As mentioned above, the Planning Board has suggested that the Commission also refer
back to them several related issues: amending the regulations for the Parking Districts,
limiting the total number of spaces that can be satisfied with fees, and expanding the
Cify Commission Memorandum
Parking disfricf boundaries and fees in lieu of parking
June I, 201 1 Page 7
distance for providing off-site parking. Staff recommends that these issues be referred
to the Planning Board along with the concept of new business start-up incentives. The
Finance Committee has also examined other proposed changes to the parking fee
regulations, including an annual fee or payment plan for the one-time fee, and possible
reductions for when valet service is provided.
Fee Collection and Applicability
Finally, when the proposal for an amendment to the Fee in-Lieu of Parking program was
first discussed by the Finance Department in October 201 0, staff was directed to hold off
on billing and collections until these issues could be addressed. As this ordinance is
now being considered for adoption, staffs suggest that the Commission authorize the
resumption of collections activity (albeit at the new reduced fee).
The Ordinance is written to be retroactive to October 1, 2010, the last fiscal year,
reflecting the policy direction of the Finance Committee. Although bills for FY 10-11
were sent out, very few were paid, and since October lSt, a number of accounts for new
businesses were initiated and paid at the existing rate; these would be credited the
discount either as a refund or credited to next year's billing. The Administration is also
seeking policy direction as to extending the applicability of this fee reduction ordinance
to previous years as well, should the Commission desire to direct such a policy be
incorporated into the Ordinance's applicability clause.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the proposed
ordinance on first reading; and set a second reading public hearing for the July 13, 201 1
meeting. The Administration also recommends that the Commission refer the above
referenced related parking fee issues back to the Planning Board for further review and
recommendation.
T:MGENDA\2011\6-01-11\2001 - parking dist boundaries & fee-in lieu memo rv rgl.docx
sto 10 spaces @ st0 10 spaces
Billed 2009 New for 2010
zta 5 spaces gD zto s spaces
----
Prepared by the Planning Depart 281', October 20 1 0
PROPOSED CHANGES TO PARKING DISTRICT #4
Parking district no. 4. Parking district no. 4 includes those properties within the CD-2 and
CD-3 commercial districts with a lot line on 71st Street, or between 67'h Street and 7znd
Street, from the west side of Collins Avenue to the east side of Rue Notre Dame, and
those properties with a lot line on Normandy Drive from the west side of the Indian Creek
Waterway to the east side of Rue Notre Dame, and those ~ro~erties in the CD-2 and
MXE districts between 73 street and 75 Street.
EXISTING PARKING DISTRICT #4
PROPOSED ADDITION TO DISTRICT
PARKING LOTS AND GARAGES
@ MIAMI BEACH &",ih,EE$%?&hicts
PROPOSED CHANGES TO PARKING DISTRICT #3
Parking district no. 3. Parking district no. 3 includes those properties in the CD-3
Commercial. Hiah lntensitv zonina district within one block north or south of a-bkhem
Arthur Godfrey Road, from the east side of Alton Road to west side of Indian Creek
Waterway.
EXISTING PARKING DISTRICT #3
PROPOSED ADDITION TO DISTRICT
PARKING LOTS AND GARAGES
Parking District Boundaries and Fee-in-Lieu of Parking
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 130, "OFF STREET PARKING", ARTICLE II,
"DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS", BY AMENDING SECTION 130-31, "PARKING
DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED", TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
EXISTING PARKING DISTRICTS; BY AMENDING SECTION 130-33, "OFF-
STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING DISTRICTS NOS. 2, 3
AND 4," TO AMEND REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO PARKING DISTRICTS
2, 3, AND 4; AND BY AMENDING ARTICLE V, "FEE IN LlEU OF PARKING
PROGRAM," SECTION 130-132, "FEE CALCULATION", REDUCING THE
YEARLY FEE IN LlEU OF PARKING FROM THE CURRENT THREE
PERCENT OF THE ONE-TIME PAYMENT TO A LESSER PERCENTAGE;
PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach has been examining the Fee in-Lieu-of Parking
program and its effect on the City's businesses during present economic market conditions;
and,
WHEREAS, as part of this discussion, the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee
referred several initiatives to the Planning Board; and,
WHEREAS, The initiatives include allowing a yearly fee to be paid for new construction,
consider modifications to the map for parking districts, and reducing the percentage for the
yearly fee from 3% to 2%; and,
WHEREAS, the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee recommended to bifurcate
the initiative to modify the map for parking districts and to reduce the percentage for the yearly
fee from 3% to 2% in order to address the impacts of the current economic downturn; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommended the modification of the parking districts
map and the reduction of the yearly fee from 3% to 2%; and
WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to accomplish the above
objective;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF
THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA.
SECTION 1. That Chapter 130, "Off Street Parking", Article II, "District Requirements", Section
130-31, "Parking Districts Established" of the Land Development Regulations of the Code of the
City of Miami Beach, Florida is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 130-31. - Parking districts established.
(a) For the purposes of establishing off-street parking requirements, the city shall be divided
into four parking districts.
Parking district no. I. Parking district No. I is that area not included in parking
districts Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Parking district No. 2. Parking district No. 2 includes those properties with a lot
line on Lincoln Road from the west side of Washington Avenue to the east side of
Alton Road and those properties north of Lincoln Road and south of 17th Street
from the west side of Washington Avenue to the east side of Lenox Court.
Parking district No. 3. Parking district No. 3 includes those properties in the CD-
3 Commercial, High Intensity zoning district within one block north or south of a
lot line on Arthur Godfrey Road, from the east side of Alton Road to west side of
Indian Creek Waterway.
Parking district No. 4. Parking district No. 4 includes those properties within the
CD-2 and CD-3 commercial districts with a lot line on 71st Street, or between
67th Street and 72nd Street, from the west side of Collins Avenue to the east
side of Rue Notre Dame, and those properties with a lot line on Normandy Drive
from the west side of the Indian Creek Waterway to the east side of Rue Notre
Dame, and those properties in the CD-2 and MXE districts between 73 street and
75 Street.
SECTION 2. That Chapter 130, "Off Street Parking", Article V, "Fee in Lieu of Parking
Program", Section 130-132, "Fee CalculationJ' of the Land Development Regulations of the
Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE V. - FEE IN LIEU OF PARKING PROGRAM
Sec. 130-132. - Fee calculation.
New construction. The fee in lieu of providing parking for new construction shall be
satisfied by a one-time payment at the time of issuance of a building permit of
$35,000.00 per parking space. The amount of such fee may be changed in accordance
with subsection (d) of this section.
Existing structures and outdoor cafes. When alteration or rehabilitation of a structure
results in an increased parking requirement, or an outdoor cafe is created or expanded,
the fee in lieu of providing parking shall be satisfied by one of the following:
(1) A one time payment as set forth in subsection (a) of this section.
A yearly payment in the amount of #wee twopercent of the payment required by
subsection (a) of this section which shall continue as long as the use exists. (The
amount of such payment may vary from year to year in accordance with the
determination set forth in subsection (d) of this section). However, in lieu of
continued yearly payments, a one-time redemption payment may be made at any
time of the full amount due pursuant to subsection (a) of this section minus the
amount of monev alreadv paid through vearlv pavments; such amount shall be
based upon the latest determination made pursuant to subsection (d) of this
section as of the time of the redemption payment rather than upon the amount
which would have been due if the fee had been paid at the time of issuance of
the building permit -&&
However, when new floor area is added to the
existing building, the impact fee shall be as set forth in subsection (a) of this
section.
Sec. 130-1 33. - Fee collection.
(a) New construction;
1. One time payment. For new construction the fee in lieu of providing parking shall be
paid in full at the time of application for the building permit. Such fee shall be
refunded if construction does not commence prior to expiration of the building permit.
Yearly Fee. For those which elect a yearly payment plan, the first fee-in-lieu
payment shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit and shall be applied
at the time the certificate of use is issued. If no building permit is needed, the first
payment shall be due at the time the occupational license or certificate of use,
whichever is earlier, is issued. The second payment shall be due June 1 following
the issuance of the occupational license or certificate of use, whichever is earlier,
and the amount due shall be prorated. Subsequent annual payments shall be paid in
full by June 1 as long as the use exists, the amount of the payment is set forth in
subsection 130-1 32(b)(2).
Existing structures. For existing structures and those which elect a yearly payment plan,
the first fee-in-lieu payment shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit and
shall be applied at the time the certificate of use is issued. If no building permit is
needed, the first payment shall be due at the time the occupational license or certificate
of use, whichever is earlier, is issued. The second payment shall be due June 1
following the issuance of the occupational license or certificate of use, whichever is
earlier, and the amount due shall be prorated. Subsequent annual payments shall be
paid in full by June 1 as long as the use exists, the amount of the payment is set forth in
subsection 130-1 32(b)(2).
Existing structures; one time redemption paymenf. For existing structures a one time
redemption payment may be made at any time and shall be in the amount determined by
application of the formula for one time payment as set forth in subsection 130-1 32(b)(2).
Late payments. For late payments monthly interest shall accrue on unpaid funds due to
the city under the fee-in-lieu program at the maximum rate permitted by law. Additionally,
a fee in the amount of two percent of the total due shall be imposed monthly to cover the
city's costs in administering collection procedures.
Failure to pay. Any participant in the fee-in-lieu program who has failed to pay the
required fee within three months of the date on which it is due shall be regarded as
having withdrawn from the program and shall be required to provide all parking spaces
required by these land development regulations or cease the use for which such spaces
were required. Failure to comply shall subject such participant to enforcement
procedures by the city and may result in fines of up to $250.00 per day and liens as
provided by law.
SECTION 3. CODIFICATION.
It is the intention of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, and it is
hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made part of the
Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or
relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "sectionJ1,
"article", or other appropriate word.
SECTION 4. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby
repealed.
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the
remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION 6. APPLICABILITY..
This Ordinance shall be retroactive to October I, 201 0.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ,2011.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
&FOR EXECUTION.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Verified by:
Richard Lorber, Al CP
Acting Planning Director
Underscore denotes new language
05/25/2011
f:\plan\$plb\draft ordinances\2001 - fee in lieu of parking\ordinance rev 5-1 9-201 1 .docx
4of4
RESOLUTIONS
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, Following A Duly Noticed
Public Hearing Accepting The Recommendation Of The Historic Preservation Board And Granting A Certificate Of
Appropriateness For The Demolition Of The 6th Street Restrooms, A Non-Contributing Facility Located At 599
( Ocean Drive. I
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Ensure well designed quality capital projects.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
85.1 % of South Beach residents surveyed in the 2009 Community Satisfaction Survey rated Overall Qualityof Lie
within the City of Miami Beach as excellent & good compared to 84.8% of residents in the City overall.
87.2% of residents surveyed in the 2009 Community Satisfaction Survey rated the appearance and maintenance of
the City's public buildings as good or excellent. Completing this Project will improve overall rating.
Issue:
Should the recommendation of the HPB granting a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the 6th Street
Restrooms located at 599 Ocean Drive be approved?
Item Summary1Recommendation:
I The 6"' Street restroom facilities, located within Lummus Park at the extension of 6"' Street, are in critical need of I
replacement. The existing facilities are deteriorated, and not adequate to serve the large volume of users of the
park, as well as visitors attending large City sponsored events in surrounding areas.
The 14~ Street restroom facilities, also located within Lummus Park and completed in 2005, were designed by
Bermello Ajamil & Partners (B&A). CIP requested a proposal from B&A for the design and const$tction
administration services of the 6th Street Restrooms, utilizing the documents previously produced for the 14 Street
Restroom facilities as a basis of design.
Since negotiations with B&A were not successful, CIP requested a proposal from Corzo, Castella, Carballo,
Thompson and Salman (C3TS),#iven their previous experience in the design of the beachfront restrooms locate$
on 21' Street, 3sth, 46th and 64 Streets. C3TS are also currently designing the new restroom facilities at 53
Street.
On January 19,201 1, a Notice to Proceed was issued to C3TS, via the Miami-Dade County School Board Contract
for: site adaptation drawings, construction documents, local and state permitting assistance, bidding assistance,
and construction administration services.
On April 12,201 1, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) voted to recommend that the request for the
Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the existing 6th Street Restrooms facility be granted.
Adopt the Resolution.
Advisory Board Recommendation: I Historic Preservation Board
Financial Information:
I source of Amount Account I
Funds:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
[ Thais Vieira x.2702
1
2
OBPl
DATE 6-I-II
I I
Total I
Financial Impact Summanr:
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June 1,201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, FOLLOWING A DULY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING
ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
BOARD AND GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE
DEMOLITION OF THE 6TH STREET RESTROOMS, A NON-CONTRIBUTING
FACILITY LOCATED AT 599 OCEAN DRIVE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution.
BACKGROUND:
The 6th Street restroom facilities, located within Lummus Park at the extension of 6th Street, are in critical
need of replacement. The existing facilities are deteriorated, and not adequate to serve the large volume
of users of the park, as well as visitors attending large City sponsored events in surrounding areas.
The 14'~ Street restroom facilities, also located within Lummus Park and completed in 2005, were
designed by Bermello Ajamil & Partners (B8Ak CIP requested a proposal from B8A for the design and
construction admin$tration services of the 6 Street Restrooms, utilizing the documents previously
produced for the 14 Street Restroom facilities as a basis of design.
Since negotiations with B&A were not successful, CIP requested a proposal from Corzo, Castella,
Carballo. Thompson and&Salman (C$TS)ihdue to tieir previous experience in the design of the beachfront
restrooms located on 2: Street, 35 , 46 and 64 Streets. C3TS are also currently designing the new
restroom facilities at 53 Street.
On January 19,201 1, a Notice to Proceed was issued to C3TS, via the Miami-Dade County School Board
Contract for: site adaptation drawings, construction documents, local and state permitting assistance,
bidding assistance, and construction administration services.
On April 12, 201 1, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) voted to recommend that the request for the
Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the existing 6th Street Restrooms facility be granted.
Following approval by the City Commission of this Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition, staff will
proceed to construction documents phase, and it is anticipated that construction will be completed in the
fall of 201 2.
CONCLUSION:
The Administration recommends that the City Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
demolitiofl the 6th Street Restrooms, a non-contributing facility located at 599 Ocean Drive.
T:\AGENDA\2011\6-01-11\6th Street Restrooms - Demolition - Memo.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA, FOLLOWING ADULY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING
ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
BOARD AND GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OFAPPROPRIATENESS FOR THE
DEMOLITION OF THE 6TH STREET RESTROOMS, A NON-CONTRIBUTING
FACILITY LOCATED AT 599 OCEAN DRIVE.
WHEREAS, the 6' Street restroom facilities, located within Lummus Park at the extension of
6th Street, are in critical need of replacement; and
WHEREAS, the existing facilities are deteriorated, and not adequate to serve the large
volume of users of the park, as well as visitors attending large City sponsored events in surrounding
areas; and
WHEREAS, the 14' Street restroom facilities, also located within Lummus Park and
completed in 2005, were designed by Bermello Ajamil & Partners (B&A); and
WHEREAS, CIP requested a proposal from B&A for the design and construction
administration services of the 6th Street Restrooms, utilizing the documents previously produced for
the I 4th Street Restroom facilities as a basis of design; and
WHEREAS, since negotiations with B&A were not successful, CIP requested a proposal
from Corzo, Castella, Carballo, Thompson and Salman (C3TS), given their previous experience in
the design of the beachfront restrooms located on 21'' Street, 35th, 46' and 64Ih Streets; and
WHEREAS, on January 19,201 1, a Notice to Proceed was issued to C3TS, via the Miami-
Dade County School Board Contract for: site adaptation drawings, construction documents, local
and state permitting assistance, bidding assistance, and construction administration services; and
WHEREAS, on April 12,201 1, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) voted to recommend
that the request for the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the existing 6th Street
Restrooms facility be granted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF
THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA, that, following a duly noticed public hearing, the Mayor
and City Commission hereby accept the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board and
grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the 6th Street Restrooms, located at 599
Ocean Drive.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ,2011.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Robert E. Parcher
T:\AGENDAUOI 1\6-01-11\6th Street Restrooms Demolition
Mayor
Matti Herrera Bower
Reso.doc
ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH:
4
,*r*x-s - - .- -a -+'
N~CE IS HERE~Y~~~~~J~~~ ibijblic hea$&will.& held by the or and City ~ommj~&io<$~ Ciof Miami
Beach, Florida, in the Commission Chambers, 3rd floor, City.Hall, 1-700 Convention Center ~nve;hiliami.Beach, a
Florid?, an ~ednesda~, Fn$l, 2011, at A;M. or s~on~thereafter as the matter may, be heard, Q
-, consider the followiin& * ,mi .L 3.
~hkcity Q @imi Beam i&e&ng a ~ertifiate -of ~b~ro~n~te'ness for ne demotion of an existing single *my
restroom facility located at399 Ocean Drivg, which is located within the Ocean DsiveICollins ~$enue Local
Historic D[$ct* .+ kh -2 - k 3
, ? P . .
Inquiries $ay be directkd fo &i&nning ~i~ar$ent.(305) 673-7550. x- elT? 8 >-,++ -
INTERESTED PARTIES.are invited to appear at i;s meeting or be represented by an agent or to express-their
'
views in writing addressed10 the City Commission c/o the City'Cleik, f700 Convention Center Drive, 1' F~oo~,,
Ci,Ka!!, Miami Beach, Florida 33139,Any of,$ese iteins qay be ppened and coritinued'and under such
circumstan%% additional legalnoftce would not be provided. - - . .a\ - Robert E. Parcher, City Clerk "
k is..c . ; :.-+ : ," -r;_c; ,,>r- .! - CiQ of ~iami Beach
** p.4,
to:~~&dri'286-,0105:,~~ Statutes, tRe City hereby advises the public that: if a person decides
decisionmade by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting ot its
hearing, such person-must ensure that a v$r"o,aiq~ecord~f the proceedings is made, which record includes
the testimYwia$ eyidence upgn which the3+peal, is "to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by
the~itjrfiof the intqduction or admission of otherwiseTnadmjssible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authoriie
challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by@w. -'" " #*. I
1 In accordance wlth the Americans w~th D~sabilrties Act of 1990, persons needing special accommodat~on to
participate in this proceedin.gprto request ~nfoimdtion pn access for persons with disabllltles, or to request th~s
publication In accessibfe format, or to request,slgn Iyguage interpreters, should contact the City Clerk's offic~
%t($05) 673~74tii-n$~$er~~f9uf meedin^. in^. If hearing impaired, contaot the Olty Clerk's
')¶b \..o.Y_,..
'i)fficevia~the-~oddaRl&~8e~~hu r+ ( QJ~&$~&W) or (800) 955-8770 0(0@E).~AD$659ar. '. r; *
>.,a 3 ,>-\ 7%r7*,J>k X.A . . . ' - ; 1. . ' 7, .
- - C' 7,*. *%,* *,, -- .',>?>., ' : ': t."--,-<* : s, ,:-' .a--*' L ?.. - v L
OFFICE OF THE ClTY ATTORNEY
JOSE SMITH, ClTY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
Jose Smith, City Att
Jorge Gonzalez, Cit
June 1,201 1
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, FOLLOWING A DULY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING
AND PURSUANT TO A 517THS VOTE, GRANTING A WAIVER OF A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 2-1 1.1 (c) OF THE MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CODE OF ETHICS ORDINANCE,
FOR MR. RANDALL HILLIARD, WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE CITY'S
CONVENTION CENTER ADVISORY BOARD AND ALSO A PRINCIPAL OF
WASHINGTON SQUARE PARTNERS, INC., WHICH ENTITY, IN
CONJUNCTION WlTH ROSARIO KENNEDY AND ASSOCIATES, CORP. AND
THE LAW OFFICES OF N. PATRICK RANGE II, P.A. (THE PROPOSAL TEAM),
SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
QUALIFICATIONS NO. 54-09/10 FOR GOVERNMENTAL CONSULTING
SERVICES AT MAMI-DADE COUNTY FLORIDA (THE RFQ); FINDING THAT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-11.1(~)(6) OF THE COUNTY CODE, THE
AFORESTATED CONFLICT OF INTEREST MAY BE WAIVED IN ORDER TO
AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE WlTH THE PROPOSAL
TEAM AND, IF SUCCESSFUL, AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND ClTY CLERK
TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH SAID TEAM, AS: 1) THE AFORESTATED
PROPOSAL IN RESPONSE TO THE RFQ WAS SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO
AN OPEN-TO-ALL SEALED COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS; AND 2) THE
AWARD OF THE PROPOSED RFQ AND ENSUING CONTRACT IS IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY.
At its regular meeting on May 1 'l, 201 1, the City Commission considered a Consent Agenda
item, with the administrative recommendation requesting approval to reject all proposals
received pursuant to the above referenced RFQ for the provision of governmental consulting
services at Miami-Dade County. The item was separated for discussion by Commissioner
Gongora, who-as an alternative to the Administration's recommendation to reject-made a
motion that the City Commission award a contract to the proposal team of Rosario Kennedy and
Associates, Corp.
Following the Commissioner's motion, Chief Deputy City Attorney Raul Aguila advised the City
Commission that one of Ms. Kennedy's proposal team members, Randall Hilliard, might have a
conflict of interest. Mr. Hilliard, who is a principal of Washington Square Partners, Inc. (one of
Agenda Item mg
Date 6- 1- 11
the entities named in Ms. Kennedy's proposal team), currently serves as a member of the City's
Convention Center Advisory Board. The Miami-Dade Conflict of lnterest and Code of Ethics
Ordinance (which also applies to the City), at Section 2-11.l(c), generally prohibits
governmental personnel, individually or through a firm, from entering into contracts or
transacting business with their own government. A limited exception is made for advisory board
members under Section 2-1 1. I (c)(3).
Additionally, the advisory board member is required to seek a conflict of interest opinion from
the Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics and Public Trust (the Ethics Commission) prior
to submittal of a bid. In this case, and notwithstanding language in the RFQ which advised
proposers that they were required to comply with all applicable laws, including the County's
Conflict of lnterest and Code of Ethics Ordinance (See RFQ at Section VI(H)), Mr. Hilliard failed
to seeWobtain the required conflict of interest opinion from the Ethics Commission prior to
submittal of the Kennedy team's proposal to the City. Therefore, the Ethics Commission was
not afforded a timely opportunity to opine on whether or not Mr. Hilliard has a conflict of interest
in this matter.
The subject Agenda item was deferred so that the proper legal requirements could be met,
should the City Commission decide to proceed to award a contract pursuant to the RFQ to the
Kennedy team. In light of the aforestated facts, the City Attorney's Office recommends that,
should the City Commission now elect to authorize the City Administration to enter into
negotiations with the proposal team of Rosario Kennedy and Associates Corp. (and, if
successful, enter into a contract with that firm), it should adhere to the procedures under
Section 2-11.l(c)(6) of the County Code , which permits the City Commission to waive the
conflict of interest prohibition under Section 2-11.l(c), for advisory board members, for a
particular transaction, subject to the following:
1. after a duly noticed public hearing (which has already been advertised for today's
meeting);
2. upon a 517th~ vote; and
3. after finding that the response to the bid (or, in this case, the RFQ) in question was
submitted pursuant to an open-to-all sealed competitive bidding process, and that the
resulting transaction would be in the best interest of the City.
It should be noted that, notwithstanding the City Commission's waiver of the aforestated conflict
of interest, Mr. Hilliard could still be subject to sanctions and discipline by the Ethics
Commission (should it wish to pursue this matter against him), since he did not follow the proper
procedure under the County Code (i.e. requiring that he request an opinion from the
Commission PRIOR to the Kennedy team submitting its proposal).
F:WTTOWGUR\RESOS-ORD\MEMOS\Randy Hillard -Waiver of Conflict (5-18-1 l).doc
MIAMIBEACH -
CITY OF MiAMl BEACH
NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS MEREBY~~V~~ that a public hearing will be held by the Mayor and Gity Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, in the
Commission Chambers, 3rd floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, June 1,2011, to consider
the following: I ! 1ff:20 a.m.
A public hearing of the Mayor and City Gommission of the City of M~ami Beach, FJorida, to consider granting a wsiver, by 517"s vote, of a.
conflict or interest under Section 2-1 1 .I (c) of the Miami-Dade County Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance, for Mr. Randall Hilliard,
who is a member of the City's Convention Center Advisory Board and also a prindipal of Washington Square Partners, Inc., which entity, in
conjunction with Rosario Kennedy and Associates, Corp. and the Law Offices of N. Patrick Range II, FA., submitted a proposal in response to
City of Miami Beach Request for Qualifications No. 54-09/10 for Governmental Consulting Services at Miami-Dade County, Florida (the RFQ);
finding that, pursuant to Section 211 1 .l(c)(6) of the County Code the aforestated conflict of interest may be waived, and a contract pursuant to
the RFQ awarded to Rosarlo Kennedy and Associates, Corp. as the 1) aforestated proposal in response to the RFQ was submitted pursuant
to an open-to-all sealed competitive bidding procesT and (2) the award of the proposed RFQ and ensuing contract is in the best interest of i me city
I Inquiries may be directed to the Legal Department (305) 673-7470.
/ INTERESTED PARTIES are invited to aGear at this meeting or be represented by an agent or to express their views-in writing addressed tr
the City Commission c/o the City Clerk, 1700 Convention Center Dtive, 1" Floor, City Hall, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. Any of these item
may be opened and continued and under such circumstances additional legal notice would not be provided.
Robert E. Parcher, City Clerk
City,of Miami Beach I
Pursuant to Section 286.0105, FL Statutes, the City hereby advises the public that: if a person decidesto appeal any decision made by tt
City Commission with respect to any matter considered at its meeting or its hearing, such person must ensure that a verbatim record of tt
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and ev~dence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitu
consent by the City for the introduction or admission of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges
appeals not otherwise allowed by law.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing spec~al accommodation to participate in this proceeding,
to request information on access for persons with disabilities, or to-request this publication in access~ble format, or to request sign langua
Interpreters, should contact the City Clerk's office at (305) 673-7411, no later than four days prior to the proceeding. If hearing impairr
-contact the City Clerk's office via the Florida Relay Service numbers, (800) 955-8771 0 or (800) 955-8770 (VOICE). AD # 6%
THURSDAY, MAY 19,2011 1 19NE
RESOLUTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED
R7 - Resolutions
R7C A Resolution Approving The Substantive Terms Of An Agreement Between The City
And Coca Cola For An Exclusive Non-Alcoholic Beverage Municipal Marketing
Partnership For Vending And Dispensing In Certain City-Owned Properties, With Said
Proposed Agreement Having An Initial Term Of Ten (10) Years; Authorizing The City
Manager And City Attorney's Office To Negotiate And Draft The Final Agreement, Based
Upon The Approved Terms (As Further Referenced In The Term Sheet Attached As
Exhibit "A To This Resolution); And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute
The Final Agreement; Provided, However, That In The Event That The Final Negotiated
Agreement Includes Any Term Or Terms Which Substantially Deviate From The
Approved Substantive Terms (As Referenced In The Attached Term Sheet), Or Contain
New And/or Additional Terms Which, In The City Manager And City Attorney's Opinion,
Materially Alter The Proposed Transaction (As Referenced In The Approved Term
Sheet), Then Requiring That The Final Negotiated Agreement To Be Brought To The
City Commission For Its Consideration.
(City Manager's Ofice)
(Memorandum, Resolution & Agreement to be Submitted in Supplemental)
Agenda Item R7C
Date 6-1- 11
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution to Execute a Joint Participation Agreement with Miami-Dade County for Road lmpact Fee (RIF) Funds; and
to re-appropriate $1 8,211 of People's Transportation Plan funding for land acquisition.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Enhance mobility throughout the City.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
Transportation remains one of the most significant areas to address from the 2009 Community Satisfaction Survey
results (often mentioned as a Key Quality of Life Issue). 24% of residents rated traffic flow as excellent or good, and
Issue:
The Administration recommends approving the resolution to execute a Joint Participation Agreement with Miami-Dade
County for Road Impact Fee (RIF) funds: and to re-appropriate $1 8,211 of People's Transportation Plan funding for land I acquisition.
Item SummarylRecommendation:
The West Avenue Bridge Project (Project) proposes to construct a new bridge over the Collins Canal at West Avenue. In
2008, the City conducted a planning-level traffic analysis and feasibility study, which investigated all traffic movements
associated with this proposed bridge. The results of the study determined that the proposed bridge would help alleviate
traffic congestion along Alton Road and along 1 7th Street, and would improve transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mobility and
safety. The proposed bridge would provide a more direct connection to the Sunset Neighborhoods and reduce the
potential for safety conflicts at the intersections of Dade Boulevard and Bay Road.
The Project is partially federally funded, which triggered the need for complying with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and the completion of a Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study. At the April 13,201 1 City
Commission meeting, the Administration executed the Professional Services Agreement for the PD&E phase. The City
has secured Miami-Dade County (County) District 8 Road lmpact Fee (RIF) funds in the amount of $3,011,000 for land
acquisition and construction. In order to receive the RIF funds, the City is required to enter into a Joint Participation
Agreement (JPA) with the County. Provided the City executes the JPA, it will be taken to the County lnfrastructural Land-
use Committee, the County Small Business Development Committee, and then the Board of County Commissioners for
final execution. The total cost for the land acquisition is $1,635,000. Currently, there is $1,616,789 appropriated for land
acquisition from Pay-As-You-Go Funds and the People's Transportation Plan (PTP). $18,211 needs to be re-
appropriated from the Right of Way Improvement Capital Project. All costs will be reimbursed by County RIF Funds
upon the issuance of the Notice to Proceed for the construction of the bridge.
THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION TO EXECUTE A JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FOR ROAD IMPACT FEE (RIF) FUNDS; AND TO
RE-APPROPRIATE $18,211 FROM PTP FUNDS FOR LAND ACQUISITION.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
Financial Information:
3
Total
Funds: 1
2
I I I
Financial lmpact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Rick Saltrick, Acting City Engineer, x.6565
Account I source of
AGENDA ITEM R7D
Amount
$1 8,211
DATE 6-1-11
187-2670-069357
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, w.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager n4
DATE: June 1, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAY0 D CTY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPR dv G AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
ClTY CLERK TO EXECUTE A JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH MIAMI-
DADE COUNTY FOR ROAD IMPACT FEE FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,011,000
FOR THE WEST AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT, OF WHICH $1,635,000 WILL BE
USED FOR LAND ACQUISITION AND $1,376,000 WILL BE USED FOR
CONSTRUCTION COSTS; AND FURTHER APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING RE-
APPROPRIATING $18,211 OF PEOPLE'S TRANSPORTATION PLAN FUNDING
FOR LAND ACQUISITION.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends approving the resolution to execute a joint participation
agreement with Miami-Dade County for Road Impact Fee (RIF) funds; and to re-appropriate
$1 8,211 from PTP funds for land acquisition.
FUNDING
The total cost for the land acquisition is $1,635,000. Currently, there is $1,616,789 appropriated
for land acquisition from Pay-As-You-Go Funds and the People's Transportation Plan (PTP).
$18,211 needs to be re-appropriated from the Right of Way Improvement Capital Project. All
costs will be reimbursed by County RIF Funds upon the issuance of the Notice to Proceed for
the construction of the bridge.
BACKGROUND
The West Avenue Bridge Project (Project) proposes to construct a new bridge over the Collins
Canal at West Avenue. The proposed cross section of the bridge consists of two travel lanes, bi-
directional bike lanes, and a sidewalk on each side of the road.
In 2008, the City conducted a planning-level traffic analysis and feasibility study, which
investigated all traffic movements associated with this proposed bridge. This traffic study
evaluated the most viable options for a fixed crossing and the potential costs associated with
the construction of a preferred alternative. The traffic analysis evaluated the impacts to the
surrounding neighborhood by routing some of the traffic from Alton Road, a major arterial
roadway, to West Avenue, an urban collector roadway.
The results of the study determined that the proposed bridge would help alleviate traffic
congestion along Alton Road and along 17'~ Street and would improve transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian mobility and safety. The proposed bridge would also provide a more direct
connection to the Sunset Neighborhoods and reduce the potential for safety conflicts at the
intersections of Dade Boulevard and Bay Road.
Commission Memorandum -Joint Participation Agreement for West Avenue Bridge
June 1,2011
Page 2 of 4
The Project is partially federally funded, which triggered the need for complying with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the completion of a Project Development and
Environment (PD&E) Study. The first step in the NEPA process is to complete the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Screen
for the Project. In April 2009, the City and the FDOT initiated the ETDM Programming Screen
for the Project. This provided an opportunity for various government agencies and the public to
provide early input on the potential environmental, social, and economic impacts of the
proposed bridge. It also provided guidance on the types of environmental and engineering
studies that will be required for the Project and established the Class of Action Determination. In
October 2009, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approved a Categorical Exclusion
Type II Class of Action Determination.
The City will manage the next phases of the project, which will be the PD&E Study and right-of-
way (ROW) acquisition. The City will retain the services of a consultant that specializes in PD&E
Studies for new bridges through the City's Request for Qualifications (RFQ) procurement
process. On August 17, 201 0, RFQ 48-0911 0 was issued to retain the services of a consultant
that specializes in PD&E Studies for new bridges.
At the November 17, 2010 City Commission meeting, the Administration was authorized to enter
into negotiations with the top-ranked firm, Gannett Fleming. City staff conducted an extensive
negotiation process with Gannett Fleming and, based on the negotiated man-hours and hourly
rates, the final cost for the PD&E Study is $697,989, which is less than the $719,921 previously
appropriated in federal funding for this phase. At the April 13, 201 1 City Commission meeting,
the Administration executed the Professional Services Agreement for the PD&E phase.
On July 14, 2010, the Mayor and City Commission approved the Purchase and Sale Agreement
and Development Agreement on First Reading and set the public hearing for the Second (and
final) Reading. On September 15, 2010 the Mayor and City Commission approved the Purchase
and Sale Agreement and Development Agreement (on Second Reading). The land has to be
purchased by September 201 1.
The first task in the PD&E Study is data collection for the study area. Once the data collection is
completed, the Consultant will conduct an alternatives analysis, where several alternative bridge
concepts will be developed. The alternatives analysis will be comprised of the technical
engineering and environmental analyses identified during the ETDM Programming Screen. The
potential environmental, social, cultural, and physical impacts associated with each alternative
will be assessed. The engineering analysis will include the development of conceptual plans
that show a typical cross section and plan view of the alternatives overlaid on aerial
photographs. It will also include a traffic analysis as well as geotechnical, drainage, and bridge
hydraulic reports. The environmental analysis will include cultural resource, essential fish
habitat, and endangered species biological assessments, as well as other environmental
evaluations and reports. Based on the alternatives analysis and public input, an evaluation
matrix will be used to eliminate the least desirable alternatives and select a single-preferred
alternative that meets the purpose and need of the project, along with the no-build alternative.
The community will be involved throughout the PD&E process through the implementation of a
Public Involvement Plan (PIP). Residents, business owners, and other stakeholders will have
several opportunities to review project information and participate in the decision making
process. The public will be invited to attend public meetings throughout the study to review and
comment on the alternative conceptual designs of the Project. At the end of the PD&E process,
a public hearing is held to provide an official public forum where all impacted stakeholders can
express their concerns, opinions, and comments regarding the Project.
Commission Memorandum -Joint Participation Agreement for West Avenue Bridge
June 1,201 I
Page 3 of 4
After the comments from the public hearing have been addressed, the analyses conducted
throughout the PD&E process and all public input are compiled into a Project Development
Summary Report (PDSR). The PDSR is submitted to the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) for Location and Design Concept Acceptance. Once this acceptance is received, the
study phase of the project will be complete. The Scope of Services is included in the
Professional Services Agreement which has been approved by Administration on April 13, 201 1.
It is estimated that the entire PD&E process will be completed within eighteen (18) months. The
phases that follow the study phase include the design and construction of the approved
conceptual improvements. The project schedule is summarized below.
ANALYSIS
A preliminary estimated budgetary opinion of the West Avenue Bridge Project, including the
PD&E Study, architecturallengineering services, construction, and the costs associated with
land acquisition for the bridge ROW, is approximately $5,391,510.
Table 1. West Avenue Bridge Project Estimated Cost
Item
ROW Land Acquisition
-
Engineering
Subtotal
Design Contingency
Total Plannina and Desian Phase
--
Subtotal Construction Phase I $2,108,846
Proposed
$1,635,000
$561,352
$1,281,293
$1 58,068
$1,439,361
Construction Phase
Construction
PE & CEI
Planning and Design Phase
$1,975,000
$1 33,846
Contingency
Total Construction Phase
Grand Tatal
PD&E
$208,303
$2,317,149
$5,391,510
$719,921
Commission Memorandum -Joint Participation Agreement for West Avenue Bridge
June 1,2011
Page 4 of 4
West Avenue Bridge Project Funding Source
Construction Phase
I Countv RIF Funds I $1,376,000
- -
Amount
$1,635,000
Item
ROW Land Acquisition
Construction
PE & CEI
I
Grand Total I $5,391,510 1
Funding Source
County RIF Funds
The City has received a total of $1,281,293 in FHPP funding for planning and design. The City
has also allocated People's Transportation Plan (PTP) funds in the amount of $747,720. The
City has secured Miami-Dade County (County) District 8 Road Impact Fee (RIF) funds in the
amount of $3,011,000 for the Project, leaving an unfunded balance of $193,429, which can be
paid for with future year PTP or Concurrency funds.
*Note: The ROW Land Acquisition will be reimbursed from the County RIF Funds
Planning and Design Phase
City PTP Funds
City PTP Funds
$2,108,846
$208,303
$2,317,149
Subtotal Construction Phase
In order to receive the RIF funds, the City is required to enter into a Joint Participation
Agreement (JPA) with the County (Attachment A). Provided the City executes the JPA, it will be
taken to the County lnfrastructural Land-use Committee on July 13, 201 1 and then to the Board
of County Commissioners for final execution on August 2, 201 1. Also, pursuant to Section 6 of
the JPA, the City must comply with applicable County regulations administered by the County
Department of Small Business Development (SBD). The Project will also be presented at the
County SBD Review Committee, and the date of this presentation has yet to be determined.
$602,559
$1 33,846
Contingency
CONCLUSION
$71 9,921
$561,352
$1,281,293
$1 58,068
$1,439,361
PD&E
Engineering
Subtotal
City PTP Funds
The Administration recommends approving the resolution to execute a joint participation
agreement with Miami-Dade County for Road Impact Fee (RIF) funds; and to re-appropriate
$18,211 from PTP funds for land acquisition.
FHPP Funds
FHPP Funds
FHPP Funds
Total Construction Phase
Attachments:
Design Contingency City PTP Funds
Total Planning and Design Phase
A. Joint Participation Agreement
JMG/DRB/FHB/HDC/
T:WGENDA\2011\6-01-1 I\West Ave. Bridge PD&E Study- MEMO - 6-1-201 1 .docx
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FOR ROAD IMPACT FEE FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $3,011,000 FOR THE WEST AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT, OF
WHICH $1,635,000 WlLL BE USED FOR LAND ACQUISITION AND
$1,376,000 WlLL BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS; AND FURTHER
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING RE-APPROPRIATING $18,211 OF
PEOPLE'S TRANSPORTATION PLAN FUNDING FOR LAND ACQUISITION.
WHEREAS, the West Avenue Bridge Project (Project) proposes to construct a new
bridge over the Collins Canal at West Avenue in order to help alleviate traffic congestion along
Alton Road and along 17'~ Street; improve transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mobility and safety;
provide a more direct connection to the Sunset Neighborhoods; and reduce the potential for
safety conflicts at the intersections of Dade Boulevard and Bay Road; and
WHEREAS, the Project is partially federally funded, which triggered the need for
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the completion of a Project
Development and Environment (PD&E) Study; and
WHEREAS, at the November 17, 2010, the City Commission approved Resolution No.
2010-27548, authorizing the Administration to enter into negotiations with Gannett Fleming; as
the top ranked firm pursuant to Request for Proposal No. 48-09/10, for Qualifications for the
Project Development and Environment Study (PD & E) for the West Avenue Bridge Project RFQ
#48-09/10; and
WHEREAS, City staff conducted an extensive negotiation process with Gannett Fleming
and, based on the negotiated man-hours and hourly rates, the final cost for the PD&E Study is
$697,989 (which is less than the $71 9,921 available in federal funding for this phase); and
WHEREAS, the City has also secured Miami-Dade County (County) District 8 Road
Impact Fee (RIF) funds, in the amount of $3,011,000, for the Project; and
WHEREAS, total cost for the land acquisition is $1,635,000. Currently, there is
$1,616,789 appropriated for land acquisition from Pay-As-You-Go Funds and the People's
Transportation Plan (PTP); and
WHEREAS, $18,211 needs to be re-appropriated from the Right of Way Improvement
Capital Project for land acquisition; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive the RIF funds, the City is required to enter into a Joint
Participation Agreement (JPA) with the County; and
WHEREAS, provided the City executes the JPA, it will be taken to the County
lnfrastructural Land-use Committee, the Small Business Development Review Committee, and
then the Board of County Commissioners for final execution; and
WHEREAS, all costs will be reimbursed by County RIF Funds upon the issuance of the
Notice to Proceed for the construction of the bridge.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION
OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission approve
and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Joint Participation Agreement with
Miami-Dade County for Road Impact Fee (RIF) Funds, in the amount of $3,011,000, for the
West Avenue Bridge Project, of which $1,635,000 will be used for land acquisition, and
$1,376,000 will be used for construction costs; and further approving and authorizing re-
appropriating $1 8,211 of People's Transportation Plan funding for land acquisition.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 201 1.
ATTEST:
ClTY CLERK MAYOR
T:\AGENDAQOI 1\6-01 -1 I\West Ave Bridge PDE - RESO 6-1-201 1 .doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOH EXECUTION
JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
WEST AVENUE BRIDGE PROJECT
This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 201 1, by and
between the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, a municipal corporation of the STATE
OF FLORIDA, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, a
political subdivision of the STATE OF FLORIDA, hereinafter referred to as the "County".
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, both parties herein wish to facilitate a bridge project in MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY, hereinafter referred to as the "Project" described as follows:
The planning, design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction
of a new bridge along West Avenue over the Collins Canal, from 17'~ Street to
Dade Boulevard, with travel lanes, bike lanes, and a sidewalk on each side of the
road; and
WHEREAS, the County wishes to utilize the resources of the City to plan, design
and engineer, acquire right-of-way, contract, and construct the Project, subject to the
terms and conditions of this Agreement,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and covenants contained
herein, the parties agree:
I. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY:
I .I. PIannincifDesian: The City shall complete, at its sole expense, the planning,
design and engineering, construction plans, technical specifications, special
provisions, pay items and cost estimates for the Project, in accordance with
standard Florida Department of Transportation, County, andlor City, as
applicable, design criteria, to the satisfaction of the County's Public Works
Director or their designee. The City's design consultant shall be made
available to the County at the City's expense, to review shop drawings and
perform required post-design services limited to Project design.
Permits and Approvals: During the course of the design, the City shall
obtain all necessary permits, and utility adjustments, and coordinate the
review of construction documents by utilities and permitting agencies. The
City shall make all necessary adjustments as required for approval and/or
permitting by those agencies. The City shall obtain all necessary permits,
and utility adjustments for the Project in accordance with applicable state,
federal, and local laws and ordinances. The City shall not pay for any permits
required by the Miami-Dade County Public Works Department.
Right-of-way: The City shall acquire any right-of-way that is required to
complete the construction of the Project; which, in this case, as contemplated
by the City, means the purchase and acquisition of a perpetual non-revocable
easement (as further described in the proceeding paragraph). The parties
agree that eligible costs for right-of-way acquisition will be limited to direct
costs associated with the City's acquisition of the aforestated easement and
will not include any soft costs associated with the acquisition process.
The City has approved and entered into a Purchase and Sale
Agreement, with the Housing Authority of the City of Miami Beach (HACMB)
for the City's purchase of a perpetual, non-revocable easement over certain
HACMB property to develop the Project. The parties agree that the County
shall not disburse any funds to the City for the purchase of the easement until
the Notice to Proceed for construction of the Project has been issued by the
City.
1.4. Public Information and Involvement: The City will implement a Public
lnvolvement Plan (PIP) during the design and construction of the Project to
provide information to property owners, tenants, and area residents which will
include but not be limited to: public meetings, Project documentation and
flyers, business signs, directional parking signs, and schedules for major work
to be performed in the area. Appropriate investigation of the Project
stakeholders will be used to develop the goals and objectives to implement
the PIP. The City shall submit a copy of the PIP to the County Public Works
Director for review and concurrence.
Projects that exceed $1,000,000 in construction costs shall comply with
the process and guidelines for the preparation and implementation of PIP'S as
established by Implementing Order 10-13.
1.5. Publicity: By the acceptance of these funds, the City agrees that the Project
elements funded by this Agreement shall recognize and adequately reference
the County as a funding source. The City shall ensure that all publicity, public
relations, advertisements and signs recognizes and references the County for
the support of all contracted activities. This is to include, but is not limited to,
all posted signs, pamphlets, wall plaques, cornerstones, dedications, notices,
flyers, brochures, news releases, media packages, promotions, and
stationery. The use of the official County logo is permissible for the publicity
purposes stated herein. The City shall submit sample or mock up of such
publicity or materials to the County for review and approval. The City shall
ensure that all media representatives, when inquiring about the activities
funded by this Agreement, are informed that the County is one of the funding
sources.
1.6. Accounting: The City shall at all times maintain separate accounting for the
costs of the Project so those costs may be independently verified and audited
by the County, at the request and cost of the County. The City agrees to
permit the County auditors to inspect the books, records and accounts of the
Project for three (3) years after completion of the Project. These records shall
be made available to the County for inspection within five (5) business days
upon written receipt of a written request from the County.
1.7. Construction: The City shall procure the services of a licensed contractor,
holding an engineering contractor's license, to construct the Project. The City
may award the construction contract through any available lawful means
which, in the City's sole discretion and judgment the City deems affords the
most competitive price for construction of the Project, and which may include,
but is not limited to:, invitation to bid, request for proposais, the award of a
change order on an existing City contract(s), the extension of unit-prices
provided in connection with prior competitive bid awards, or such other
process as the City may determine, in its sole judgment and discretion.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, the City shall comply with all
applicable County contract compliance and oversight measures relating to the
expenditure of County funds, in accordance with Section 6 of this Agreement.
Prior to the initiating the process to solicit a licensed contractor to construct
the Project, the City will contact the County's Public Works Contracts and
Specifications Section to ensure this compliance.
The construction contract shall also contain a requirement that the
contractar(s) provide a payment and performance bond at least in the amount
and form required by state law naming the County and City as co-obligees or
joint contracting public entities. The construction contract shall contain a
contingency amount to address unforeseen conditions and owner required
changes, which shall not exceed ten percent (1 0%) of the base amount of the
contract, unless otherwise approved by designated representatives of the
County and City. The commitment for the expenditures of any contingency
funds shall not be made by the City without the prior written approval of the
County Public Works Director.
Subsequent to the evaluation of bids or proposals by the City and the
City's determination of the most advantageous bid or proposal, the City shall
provide said evaluation to the County Public Works Director for review and
approval. Final commitment of County funds for construction of the Project
shall occur upon approval of the contract award recommendation by the
County Public Works Director. The County agrees that the selection,
retention and discharge of such contractor shall be the responsibility of the
City.
1.8. Claims and Change Orders: The City shall notify the County Public Works
Director in writing, when claims or change orders arise. The City shall also
invite the County to participate in negotiations of these claims and change
orders. The County shall review and make a determination or approval of all
change orders or supplemental agreements, permits, modifications of plans,
or other requests for approvals submitted by the City.
1.9. Construction Administration and Inspection: The City shall exercise all
responsibilities of the owner under the construction contract, including
construction administration and inspections. The City may delegate this
function to an authorized agent or construction engineering inspection
consultant. The County's inspector shall have an oversight role in the routine
daily inspections. In the case of a disagreement over the interpretation of the
plans, the County Public Works Director, or designee, shall have final
authority subsequent to an independent final inspection by the County. The
City's designated representative and the County's designated representative
shall jointly perform the inspection of the Project which immediately precedes
substantial completion. The City shall certify upon completion that the Project
has been constructed pursuant to the design plans, specifications, and
approved change orders. Final payment to the City shall be subject to the
final acceptance of the Project by the County Public Works Director or
designee.
Maintenance: The City shall be solely responsible for maintenance upon
completion of the Project.
2. RESPONSIBILJTIES OF COUNTY:
2.1. Funding Amount, Reimbursement of Proiect Costs: The Project is
currently estimated to cost $5,491,521 (this amount includes 10%
contingency for design and construction). The County agrees to provide
funds up to $3,011,000 for eligible costs, as defined herein, incurred by the
City for the right-of-way acquisition and construction of the Project. The
County shall disburse to the City funds for the Project in the manner set forth
in this Section. The County shall incur no liability for any costs in excess of
said funding amount unless there has been a duly authorized increase
approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
2.2. Countv Pavrnents of Proiect Costs: The County funds provided for eligible
costs as defined herein, incurred for the right-of-way acquisition and
construction of the Project are specified below:
Fundina Amount Fundina Source County Fiscal Year of
Commitment
$ 3,011,000 Road Impact Fee District 8 20 10-20 1 1
2.3. Proiect Cost Adjustments: The amount contributed by the County is based
on the current estimated costs of the Project. The parties recognize that
adjustments to the above-referenced cost may be required in the future and
that, at the option of the parties, amendments may be entered into to revise
the funds available for the Project. Provided that there is no increase in the
amount of County funds required, as stated in Section 2.1, amendments may
be executed by the City Manager and the County Mayor or County Mayor's
designee without the need for approval by the City Commission and County
Commission. Otherwise, further funding commitments shall be subject to the
approvals of the parties' respective governing boards.
3. ELIGIBLE COSTS: The parties agree that only the below identified costs that may
be incurred by the City that are directly related to the Project are eligible for
reimbursement, provided adequate documentation accompanies the reimbursement
request in the form of approved invoices, verified payment requests, documented
journal entries, and/or check vouchers. For purposes of this Agreement, eligible
costs are further defined as those pertaining to the Project elements that are the
standard items normally provided for by the County in County roadway projects, and
not the enhancement of standard items, or the incorporation of items which are in
addition to those standard items. The County shall not be assumed to be liable to
provide reimbursement for the design, construction or maintenance of such items
that do not conform to this section of the Agreement. If enhancements to standard
items are constructed in this Project, the City may request County reimbursement
only to a maximum amount corresponding to that which would be expended in
providing the normal standard version of that item for a project of the same scope.
The parties further agree that eligible costs will not include fees for construction
management, construction inspections, and project management.
4. SCHEDULE AND MANNER OF REIMBURSEMENTS: Upon execution of the
Agreement, the City shall furnish the County with a copy of the estimated budget for
the Project, and will similarly furnish the County with any and all revisions thereto.
At the time of construction contract award for this Project, the City shall submit the
Estimated Quarterly Construction Payout Schedule for the Project to the County
Public Works Director. Quarterly disbursement of County funds to the City shall be
based upon City invoices with certified copies of paid contractor estimates attached
and shall not include any other charges. The quarterly submittal for invoice shall
also include a certified copy of payment to sub-contracted firms.
5. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: The parties shall comply with applicable federal, state
and local laws, codes, ordinances, rules and regulations in performing their
respective duties, responsibilities, and obligations pursuant to this Agreement and
with all applicable laws relating to the Project. The parties shall not unlawfully
discriminate in the performance of their respective duties under this Agreement.
6. BUSINESS PROGRAM COMPLIANCE AND OVERSIGHT: Whenever County
funds are used, the City agrees to comply with applicable County regulations
including but not limited to the Community Small Business Enterprise (CSBE)
Program, Community Business Enterprise (CBE) Program, the Community
Workforce Program (CWP), and the Responsible Wages and Benefits Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 90-143). Specifically, the City agrees to abide by the applicable
contract measure recomrnendation(s) established by the Department of Business
Development Project Worksheet for the participation of specified business entities
andlor trades, and for CWP requirements, as administered by the County's
Department of Small Business Development (SBD). SBD shall have the right to
oversee and perform compliance monitoring, including but not limited to, the right to
audit and to require reports and documentation related to the Code.
7. INDEMNIFICATION: To the extent authorized by Florida law, the City hereby
agrees to indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the County to the extent of all
the limitations included with Section 5768.28, Florida Statutes, from all claims,
demands, liabilities and suits of any nature whatsoever arising out of, because of or
due to the breach of this Agreement by the City, its agents or employees. It is
specifically understood and agreed that this indemnification clause does not cover or
indemnify the County for its negligence or breach of contract.
To the extent authorized by Florida law, the County hereby agrees to
indemnify, defend, save and hold harmless the City to the extent of all the limitations
included in Section $768.28, Florida Statutes, from all claims, demands, liabilities
and suits of any nature whatsoever arising out of, because of or due to the breach of
this Agreement by the County, its agents or employees. It is specifically understood
and agreed that this indemnification clause does not cover or indemnify the City for
its negligence or breach of contract.
In the event of breach or non-performance by the persons selected by the
City to perform the work, the City shall, upon written request by the County, assign
to the County any and all of its rights under the affected contract for purposes of the
County's prosecution of claims, actions or causes of action resulting from such
breach or non-performance unless the City pursues such claims, actions or causes
of action through arbitration, administrative proceeding or lawsuit. The City agrees
to cooperate fully with the County in the prosecution of any such claim or action.
Any damage recovered by the County which is attributable to an expenditure by the
City shall be returned to the City by the County, within sixty (60) business days of
receipt.
8: DISPUTE RESOLUTION, APPLfCABLE LAW: The parties shall resolve any
disputes, controversies or claims between them arising out of this Agreement in
accordance with the "Florida Governmental Conflict Resolution Act", Chapter 464,
Florida Statutes, as amended. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the
State of Florida. Venue in any proceedings shall be in Miami-Dade, Florida.
9. ENTIRE AGREEMENT, AMENDMENTS: This document incorporates and includes
all prior negotiations, correspondence, conversations, agreements and
understandings applicable to the matters contained herein and the parties agree that
there are no commitments, agreements, or understandings concerning the subject
matter of this agreement that are not contained in this document. Accordingly, the
parties agree that no deviation from the terms hereof shall be predicated upon any
prior representations or agreements, whether oral or written. It is further agreed that
no modification, amendment or alteration in the terms contained herein shall be
effective unless set forth in writing in accordance with this section. No modification,
amendment or alteration in the terms or conditions contained herein shall be
effective unless contained in a written document prepared with the same or similar
formality as this Agreement and executed by the parties.
1O.JOfNT PREPARATION: The parties acknowledge that they have sought and
received whatever competent advice and counsel as was necessary for them to form
a fufl and complete understanding of all rights and obligations herein and that the
preparation of this Agreement has been their joint effort. The language agreed to
expresses their mutual intent and the resulting document shall not, solely as a
matter of judicial construction, be construed more severely against one of the parties
from the other.
11.SEVERANCE: In the event a portion of this Agreement is found to be invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue to be
effective unless the City or County elect to terminate this Agreement. An election to
terminate this Agreement based upon this provision shall be made within seven (7)
business days after the finding by the court becomes final.
12.NOTICES: Any and afl notices required to be given under this Agreement shall be
sent by first class mail, addressed as follows:
To the County:
Attention: Esther L. Calas, P.E.
Director, Miami-Dade County Public Works Department
I I I NW First Street, Suite 1640
Miami, Florida 33128
(305) 375-2960
To the City:
Attention:
Attention:
Jorge M. Gonzalez
City Manager
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 331 39
(305) 673-701 0
And
Fred H. Beckmann, P.E.
Director, Public Works Department
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 331 39
(305) 673-7080
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto set their hands and official seals the
day and year first above written.
ATTEST:
HARVEY RUVIN
CLERK OF THE BOARD
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BY ITS BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSJONERS
BY: BY:
Deputy Clerk County Mayor or County Mayor's Designee
Approved by County Attorney
as to form and legal sufficiency
County Attorney
ATTEST: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a municipal
corporation of the State of Florida
BY: BY:
Robert Parcher Matti Herrera Bower
City Clerk Mayor
(Affix City Seal)
Approved by City Attorney
as to form and legal sufficiency
City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
fl FOH PECUTION
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title: I A Resolution to Adopt the City Traffic Calming Manual and to execute an lnterlocal Agency Agreement with Miami-Dade I
Key Intended Outcome Supported: I Enhance mobility throughout the City.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
Transportation remains one of the most significant areas to address from the 2009 Community Satisfaction Survey
results (often mentioned as a Key Quality of Life Issue). 24% of residents rated traffic flow as excellent or good, and 37%
as poor. 35% of residents rated the availability of pedestrian trails and bicycle pathsllanes as excellent or good, and
Issue:
Should the City Commission approve the resolution to adopt the City Traffic Calming Manual and to execute lnterlocal
Agency Agreement with Miami-Dade County?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
I The Administration has been workina with the Countv for over a vear on the a~~roval of the Citv Traffic Calming Manual I
(TCM) and the associated lntergov&nmental end^ ~~reemeilt (IAA). On Jbly 22, 2010, the County's public Works
Director submitted a letter to the City granting authority to the City to follow the guidelines of the City's TCM when
performing traffic studies. In the meantime, the City has been working to finalize the IAA that will grant the City its
respective limited authority, pursuant to Section 2-96.1 of the Miami-Dade County Code.
The TCM and the IAA were both presented to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee on April 27, 201 1. The
members of the Committee recommended approval of both the TCM and IAA.
The County's granting of authority to the City to employ the City's TCM does not relinquish the County's standing
jurisdiction over all traffic engineering countywide. The current agreement states that the City may measure, analyze and
develop traffic calming measures, while the County will be the final authority in their approval. The City would be
responsible for incurring all costs associated with the implementation of traffic calming devices.
The currently agreed process with the County establishes that the City would take requests from the residents for traffic
calming measures. The City would then conduct an engineering analysis to determine if the installation of traffic calming
devices is warranted. If warranted, the City would develop engineering plans and seek approval from the Miami Beach
Fire and Police Departments. The City would then have to obtain County approval of the plans prior to the installation of
any traffic calming devices. The County would assure that the review process would be expedited to the City within ten
(10) working days after submittal. The County reserves the right to deny approval of any Traffic Calming Package.
THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE CITY TRAFFIC
CALMING MANUAL AND TO EXECUTE INTERLOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY.
Advisory Board Recommendation: 1 Neighborhoods and Community Affairs Committee approved on May 25, 2010 and Finance and Citywide Projects I I Committee approved on April 27,201 1. 1
Financial Information:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Richar&Saltrick, PE, Acting City Engineer, x.6565
Source of
Funds:
I I
OBPl
P MIAMIBEACH F
- I
'Total
-I
Financial Impact Summary:
Amount Account
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.miarnibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJEC
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
/
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
June 1,201 1
T: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOILAD CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH TRAFFIC
CALMING MANUAL(TCM); FURTHER APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCY
AGREEMENT (IAA) WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-
96.1 OF THE COUNTY CODE FOR THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE
OF TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES AND THEIR RELATED TRAFFIC CONTROL
SIGNS ON THE CITY'S LOCAL MUNICIPAL STREETS PURSUANT TO THE
CITY'S TRAFFIC CALMING MANUAL.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends approving the resolution to adopt the City Traffic Calming
Manual and to execute an Interlocal Agency Agreement with Miami-Dade County.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Administration has been working with the County for over a year on the approval of the City
Traffic Calming Manual (TCM) and the associated Intergovernmental Agency Agreement (IAA)
(Attachments A & B, respectively). On July 22, 2010, the County's Public Works Director
submitted a letter to the City granting authority to the City to follow the guidelines of the City's
TCM when performing traffic studies (Attachment C). In the meantime, the City has been
working to finalize the IAA that will grant the City its respective authority, pursuant to Section 2-
96.1 of the Miami-Dade County Code.
The TCM and the IAA were both presented to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee on
April 27, 201 1. The Committee recommended approval of the TCM and the IAA.
The County's granting of authority to the City to employ the City's TCM does not relinquish the
County's standing jurisdiction over all traffic engineering countywide. The current agreement
spells out that even though the City would be granted the authority to measure, analyze, and
develop traffic calming measures, the County would still be the final authority in the approval of
any traffic calming measures proposed by the City. The City would be responsible for incurring
all costs associated with the implementation of traffic calming devices.
The currently agreed process with the County establishes that the City would take requests from
the residents for traffic calming measures, the City would then conduct an engineering analysis
to determine if the installation of traffic calming devices is warranted or not, the City would then
develop the respective engineering plans, and subsequently seek approval from the Miami
Beach Fire and Police Departments. The City would then have to obtain County review and
approval of the plans prior to the installation of any traffic calming devices. The County, on the
other hand, would assure that the review process would be expedited to the City within ten (10)
working days after submittal.
Commission Memorandum - Traffic Calming Manual And The lnfergovemmental Agency Agreement
June I, 201 I
Page 2 of 4
BACKGROUND
The City has established criteria that determine the need for traffic calming that is consistent
and compatible with the guidelines established by the County for traffic calming. However, the
City only uses three (3) basic parameters to determine if traffic calming is warranted: speed,
volume, and number of accidents per year during the last three years. The County employs
additional criteria. A comparative review (County vs. City) is provided in a table (Attachment D),
which illustrates that traffic calming is triggered at lower thresholds when using the City's
methodology as opposed to the County's.
An example of the differences between the City and County criteria is the traffic calming
analysis for 51'' Street between Alton Road and Pine Tree Drive. The County had initially
denied the request for the installation of traffic calming devices along this street based on its
criteria. By applying the criteria established within the City TCM, City staff determined that the
street met the requirements for the installation of speed cushions. Once the City TCM and IAA
are approved, the engineering drawings together with the analysis will be submitted to the
County for review and approval.
The City attempted to get the County to agree that complete traffic calming packages submitted
to the County will not be denied. Instead, the County would provide review comments and return
the package to the City for rework. The County did not agree to incorporate this condition into
the IAA. Therefore, the County still reserves the right to deny approval of any traffic calming
packages.
ANALYSIS
Once the City TCM becomes formally adopted by the County via the IAA, the City will then be
able to follow its own process to determine if traffic calming devices are warranted. Through this
formal approval, the County would allow the City to follow its procedures, which are more
concordant with the daily operation and configuration of the City's street system, through an
evaluation process that places a specific value to traffic volumes, and speeds that exceed the
posted speed limit. City staff will continue to work with the County on refinements to the TCM as
it is implemented. As an example, some of the issues currently being contemplated for
refinements are acceptable types of traffic calming devices for various City street classifications.
The Administration provided updates on the City's Traffic Calming Program to the
Neighborhoods and Community Affairs Committee (NCAC) on May 25, 2010 and on August 31,
2010. At its August 31, 2010 meeting, the members of the NCAC moved to recommend
approval of the TCM and referred it to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee for a
review of its financial impacts. On April 27, 201 1, the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee
recommended approval of the TCM and IAA.
By adopting the City's TCM and entering into an IAA, the City will be responsible for all
planning, engineering, installation and maintenance of traffic calming measures along with their
associated financial impacts. The costs associated to the implementation of traffic calming
Citywide will need to be gauged on a yearly basis and programmed into the City's yearly Capital
Budget. An example of the approximate cost for the installation of speed cushions is provided in
the breakdown below. The following example delineates the breakdown of the approximate cost
for the installation of speed cushions at nine (9) locations on Sunset Islands 3 and 4:
Commission Memorandum - Traffic Calming Manual And The lntergo~emmental Agency Agreement
June I, 201 1
Page 3 of 4
Planning and Engineering
Speed Cushions
Signs
Construction (JOC Contractor)
Total Cost
$ 6,000
$14,000
$ 1,400
$1 8,000
$39,400 or about $4,380 per speed cushion location
The City also retained the services of The Corradino Group to conduct an evaluation of the
potential costs of implementing the TCM. The analysis identified potential locations for traffic
calming and estimated an average cost for the application of traffic calming at the identified
locations.
An examination of the federal functional classification map identified certain local streets that
may be eligible for and potentially require traffic calming, since federally classified arterial
roadways are not eligible for traffic calming pursuant to the TCM and the City's arrangement
with the County. The processes and procedures for traffic calming provided in the TCM, which
include factors such as assumed traffic speeds and volumes, were also taken into
consideration. However, the identified locations are concept in nature and would require formal
evaluation to determine if traffic calming is warranted.
The conceptual locations were assigned the average cost per typical traffic calming device and
the potential total cost of implementing the TCM was estimated to be $2,347,794. However,
since all locations must be warranted based on the processes and procedures in the TCM, a
more conservative cost estimate was developed by assuming that forty percent (40%) of the
conceptual locations would actually warrant traffic calming. It was further assumed that out of
the forty percent (40%) of conceptual locations, thirty percent (30%) of the locations would
receive speed cushions and ten (10%) would receive more complex treatments. Although a
variety of traffic calming techniques and treatments could be implemented, it is anticipated that
the majority of the warranted locations would receive speed cushions. More complex
treatments, such as traffic circles and medians, may also be used, but with less frequency due
to their cost, size, and right-of-way requirements.
The average cost of speed cushions, including design, engineering, construction, and
contingency, is estimated to be $5,000 per speed cushion. The average cost of more complex
treatments, such as traffic circles, bulb-outs, diverters and medians, is estimated to be $30,000
per treatment. (At this time, the County is not approving concrete speed bumps.) This resulted
in a conservative estimated cost of $950,000 for the implementation of the TCM. The TCM
stipulates that in order for the City to implement traffic calming, the affected area must agree to
pay for one half of the device(s) purchase costs. Based on this requirement, the final cost to the
City is estimated to be $475,000.
A list of traffic calming requests will be reviewed yearly as part of the capital budget process and
will compete with other Peoples Transportation Plan and Concurrency Mitigation funded
improvements. It is anticipated that the City will commit approximately $50,000 per year for
traffic calming.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends approving the resolution to adopt the City Traffic Calming
Manual and to execute an Interlocal Agency Agreement with Miami-Dade County.
Commission Memorandum - Traffic Calming Manual And The lnfergovemmental Agency Agreement
June I, 201 1
Page 4 of 4
Attachments:
A. City of Miami Beach Traffic Calming Manual
B. Intergovernmental Agency Agreement
C. Letter of approval from County Public Works Director
D. Table 1 including Traffic Calming Eligibility Comparison for Residential Local Streets
JMGIDRBIFHBIHDCI&
T:WGENDA\2011\6-01-1 l\Traffic Calming Manual- MEMO -6-01-201 1 .docx
Attachment A
City of Miami Beach
Traffic Calming Manual
FINAL REVISION
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
ON JULY 22,2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................. 4
METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 5
TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS AND PROCEDURE ........................................................ 8
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 13
Appendix A - Project Application
Appendix B - Summary of Traffic Calming Devices' Characteristics
Appendix C - References
Appendix D - City of Miami Beach Functional Classification Map
INTRODUCTION
"Traffic calming involves changes in street alignment, installation of barriers, and other
physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and/or cut-through volumes, in the interest
of street safety, livability, and other public purposes". I
The City of Miami Beach (City) through the Department of Public Works,
Transportation Division has developed the City of Miami Beach Traffic Calming
Manual (the Manual) to address traffic concerns in the local and residential streets in
order to preserve and maintain the particular characteristics of its neighborhoods.
The growth of Miami Beach has increased the traffic using the local network, thus
impacting the local and residential streets. Speeding and cut-through traffic often occur
through residential neighborhoods affecting livability and safety. The Traffic Calming
Manual has been conceived as a tool to address these issues.
As a guideline to implement traffic calming measures, the Manual provides the process
and procedures to study a problematic local street and/or area within the City's
boundaries. State and County roads are not eligible for City consideration of traffic
calming measures.
Based on the research of different traffic calming practices within the United States (see
Appendix C), the Street Closure/Traffic Flow Modification Study2, and the results of
traffic counts performed on several streets in Miami Beach, specific thresholds were
developed to implement traffic calming measures according to the City's unique
characteristics.
The Manual also provides guidelines for the installation of different traffic calming
measures that may be used in a traffic calming project, analyzing the effects on speed
and volume each would have, as well as their preliminary costs.
City staff and residents will identify traffic problems in their neighborhoods and will
create a traffic calming project with solutions that are acceptable and appropriate.
The methodology and procedure documented in this manual is implemented and
revised as to fit in the City of Miami Beach.
Institute of Transportation Engineers.
2 Dade County Public Works Department and Metropolitan Planning Organization
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Traffic calming is the application of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative
effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Traffic calming may be a component of a neighborhood
traffic plan.
GOAL:
Ensure the development of a safe, efficient and integrated transportation system in the
City of Miami Beach that promotes neighborhood livability using adequate technical
planning and traffic engineering practices.
OBJECTIVES:
The main objectives of traffic calming include:
Restoration of communities affected by speeding traffic
Discouragement of the use of local residential streets by heavy vehicles and cut-
through traffic
e Improvement of the quality of life a street may afford in a neighborhood
Improvement of roadway safety and reduction of accidents
Improvement in safety and convenience specifically for vulnerable road users,
such as bicyclists and pedestrians
Changes to the attitude of many drivers towards speed and a tangible
demonstration that streets are for people as well as for traffic
Reduction in noise and disturbance
METHODOLOGY
TRAFFIC CALMING POLICIES
Specific points to consider in the design of traffic calming measures include:
Streets that are classified as arterial or higher shall not be considered under these
traffic calming guidelines. A map showing the streets classified as arterials in the
City is included in Appendix D of this document. These road classifications are
intended to be the primary means by which traffic travels in our community.
However, a properly sized roundabout, where appropriate as a capacity
treatment and where physical space is available, may be usable in lieu of a traffic
signal and they provide calming as a corollary effect. In the case of Alton Road
and in coordination with FDOT, the City has installed speed radar boards with
the purpose of alerting drivers on how fast they are driving above the speed
limit. The devices are effective in that they catch the drivers' attention,
prompting them to reduce the speed of the vehicle they would be driving.
For collector streets, pedestrian refuge islands, roundabouts and entrance
treatments (specially an entrance to a neighborhood) are some options to try as
traffic calming measures for these types of streets.
For local streets, speed cushions would be the preferred traffic calming
treatment. Speed cushions provide a vertical hump for passenger vehicles but
leave beveled gaps for wide-tracked vehicles such as fire trucks and school
buses. Chicanes, traffic circles and speed tables are additional techniques
available for local streets.
If the request affects local streets within the City, then the City will coordinate
the review with agencies potentially affected by the traffic flow
modification(s)/street closure(s), which may include, but not be limited to the
following entities:
City of Miami Beach Fire Department.
Miami-Dade County Fire & Rescue (MDFR).
City of Miami Beach Police Department.
Miami-Dade County Police Department (MDPD).
Miami-Dade County Planning and Zoning Department (MDP&Z).
Miami-Dade County Public Schools (MDCPS) .
Miami-Dade Transit (MDT).
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
Miami-Dade County PWD.
These reviews shall be relevant to the agency reviewing the proposed traffic flow
modification(s)/street closures(s). The scope of the traffic review shall be
determined on a case-by-case basis by Miami-Dade County PWD.
The City representative shall review all comments brought forth by the
aforementioned entities. The City under the following conditions shall deny the
application for traffic flow modification(s)/street closure(s):
Comments made by any entity revealed concerns that cannot be
resolved.
The proposed locations for extenuating circumstances do not meet
all criteria outlined under this process or applicable State laws.
Emergency vehicles access must be preserved. Fire and Police Departments are
involved from the beginning.
The cut-through traffic should be routed back to collector and arterial roadways.
The City's Public Works Department shall look at the redistribution of traffic in
adjacent streets. The impacts on adjacent streets and arterials shall be measured,
so that unintended or adverse shifts in traffic do not occur.
Buses need to be able to negotiate traffic calming features safely, without undue
discomfort to passengers and at a reasonable operating speed.
Bicyclist and pedestrian access must be accommodated. Provision for pedestrians
and bicyclists should be of a high quality to promote the shift from the private
car to more sustainable modes of transport. Adequate widths and carefully
considered routes and priorities coupled with arrangements to make access for
disabled people as easy as possible are required.
The City Public Works Department may recommend employing different traffic
calming devices according to neighborhood's characteristics. Final decision will
depend on consensus with the community and the County Public Works
Department.
TRAFFIC CALMING TECHNIQUES
PHYSICAL: In general, wider roads encourage higher automobile speeds. Many traffic-
calming techniques are therefore designed to physically change the width of the street.
If motorists can see far into the distance, their speed may increase. The interruptions of
sight lines through changes in the road's direction, or breaking the road into smaller
visual units using techniques such as chicanes and roundabouts, cause the drivers to
slow down.
PSYCHOLOGICAL: Traffic calming may also be achieved by changing the
psychological feel of the street. Streets using different surface types, vertical
landscaping or narrowed lanes create the appropriate space for a relaxed, pedestrian-
friendly atmosphere. These psychological changes give motorist cues that they are no
longer on a major roadway, but are in a different environment that is shared with
people.
There is an extensive menu of treatments that may be part of a traffic calming strategy.
Such treatments include:
DEFLECTING PATHS: Deflecting the vehicle path causes the driver to reduce
speed and be more attentive to the task of driving. Deflection is done through
changing the route of the automobile. Some measures apply at mid-block
locations, while others are most appropriate for intersections.
DIVERTING TRAVEL ROUTES: Diverting the driver's route increases travel
time and encourages the driver to use another route. Traffic diverters, street
closures, one-way streets, median closures and turning movement restrictions
are examples of a diversion. Another example is to install signage to ensure that
Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and other 'through' traffic choose suitable routes
that reduce the environmental impact of their journeys.
CHANGES TO PAVEMENT SURFACE: Changing the pavement surface
demands attention from drivers, and reduces the speed for comfortable driving
(the "design" speed). Speed humps, brick pavers and special pavement materials
are among the most frequent approaches to changing the pavement surface.
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES: Traffic control devices, where warranted, can be
used to regulate traffic patterns.
ENFORCEMENT: Intensified enforcement of traffic regulations can calm traffic,
generally, by reminding drivers of posted speed limits and by enforcing the observance
of STOP signs. Police officers are the usual source of intensified enforcement, but
neighborhood volunteers can also be very effective in assisting in an enforcement effort.
EDUCATION: The City of Miami Beach will make a conscious effort to initiate and
maintain an educational program on traffic calming and safety within the city.
TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS AND PROCEDURE
The following flow-chart documents the traffic calming evaluation and installation
process from application to post installation. In order to avoid duplication, County and
City will coordinate from the beginning as requests are received. Throughout the
process, the County's Public Works Department will be kept informed.
Warranted?
Application submitted by
property owners
4
City Public Works Department (PWD)
review and initial public meeting
I I
4 4
Speedlvolume
study conducted
Submit study results to County
PWD for review
Consistency checks (with local
plans/programs/policies)
I I I b
@ 1 Preliminary traffic calming plan prepared by ------------------, City PWD I
Report back to
Community
Plan submitted to Fire, Police, and County PWD as well as other
agencies if needed for review and comments
@ I Approved?
Public meeting conducted h
@ 1 Approved?
ix ..@ I Ballots sent
to residents I
Ballots received &
submitted by residents
Plan prioritized and
im~lemented
1. COMPLETE AND SUBMIT PROTECT APPLICATION: A preliminary traffic
calming study can be initiated by a resident complaint, the request of a
neighborhood association, or a Commissioner's request. A resident or
neighborhood association requesting traffic calming must complete and submit an
Application and Petition for Traffic Calming to the City's Public Works Department.
The Petition for Traffic Calming must have signatures from a minimum of 50% of
residents for the section of the street affected. The application and petition are
included in Appendix A of this document. An initial meeting with the residents that
submitted the request and surrounding area may be conducted to explain the
process the City follows to evaluate applications and to collect their input.
2. EVALUATE APPLICATION: City staff shall identify the study area, collect
preliminary data (the City's Public Works Department will perform speed and
volume studies and collect accident reports), and complete the evaluation of the
traffic calming request.
Speed and traffic volumes are the first criteria used to gauge whether a traffic
calming study area warrants further research for possible development and
implementation of a traffic calming plan. The tables below show the thresholds
established for Miami Beach regarding speed and volume:
* The 85" percentile speed is defined as "the speed that is exceeded by 15% of the motorists surveyed
Points
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
The second criterion establishes the number of accidents per year during the last
three years along the street as a warrant for traffic calming study.
volume 24 hr.
500 - 750 veh.
751 - 1,100 veh.
1,101 - 1,700 veh.
1,701 - 2300 veh.
More than 2,300 veh.
points 1 No. of accidents
I
1.5 4 or more
i. Any street that ranks 2.5 or higher is eligible for traffic calming. The
neighborhood street would require 213 voter approval from residents and is
subject to final roadway design. The County has 100% required approval from
property owners adjacent to the proposed site where speed humps as well as
other calming devices will be installed. Due to the curvature of the roadway,
and other unique design characteristics, some streets may not be suitable for any
or all of the traffic calming tools available.
ii. Any street that ranks 2.0 will be studied by the City's Transportation Division to
determine if other measures may be helpful in addressing concerns.
The following items may be considered, but not limited, as part of the study:
1. Location of school, pedestrian oriented facility (i.g. elderly housing) or
community facility (i.g. park) located on the subject street or within an
established walking area.
2. Driveway density.
3. Presence/absence of sidewalks.
After review of the above study, the City's Transportation Division would be
able to recommend various alternate solutions if the street does not fully qualify
for the installation of traffic calming devices.
iii. Any street that scores less than a 2.0 and is determined to not be an appropriate
location based on the study completed will not be eligible for re-evaluation for
twelve (12) months after the speed/volume study is conducted. After two (2)
years of testing, if the street does not qualify for traffic calming, the project is
ineligible for re-testing for twenty-four (24) months.
3. CHECK FOR CONSISTENCY WITH CITY AND MPO PLANS AND PROGRAMS:
Every effort will be made to ensure that any proposed physical traffic modifications will
be consistent with City and County short and long range transportation plans and
programs. However, this may require recommendations to change the priority of
previously adopted plans and programs in order to more rapidly improve the efficiency
of the arterial network near the affected neighborhood. In addition, every effort will be
made to ensure that any physical traffic modifications are consistent with land
use/ zoning.
4. SUBMIT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDY AND DATA COLLECTED TO
COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: The results of the traffic engineering
study together with the data collected will be submitted to the County Public Works
Department for their review in anticipation to the preparation and submittal of the
trGfic calming plan.
5. PREPARE THE DRAFT TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN: The City Public Works
Department will develop a preliminary traffic calming plan for the warranted street.
The plan will include the locations for the following existing conditions: driveways,
bike lanes, inlets, manholes, light poles, stop signs, and any other traffic calming
proposed for the subject street. The plan will also specify the area that is affected.
6. SUBMIT PLAN FOR APPROVAL: The plan will be submitted to the Fire
Department, Police Department and County Public Works Department for review and
comments. The plan may be revised to address any concern expressed by these
agencies, as well as other agencies if needed. The County will submit a response to the
City within ten (10) working days from submittal to the County's Public Works
Department.
7. CONDUCT NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOP: If the area of concern meets the
minimum criteria outlined in this document, City staff will schedule a neighborhood
workshop meeting with residents to review the results of preliminary studies and to
receive comments on the preliminary design of the traffic calming plan.
Citizen participation is an essential ingredient in the development and implementation
of a successful neighborhood traffic plan. Neighborhood residents offer insight into the
nature and extent of traffic and safety problems. Residents must also live day to day
with any devices constructed. These residents are most directly affected by the
problems and potential mitigating measures, and they are frequently the source of
innovative solutions. The following are two levels of community involvement:
A. Participatory programs involving interested citizens.
B. Outreach programs attempting to communicate with the silent citizens,
normally the vast majority of residents.
Implementation of an effective traffic calming program, which incorporates resident
participation, will provide many benefits to the community. Benefits include effective
transportation management, community safety, and an enhanced quality of life.
8 & 9. RESIDENTS APPROVAL: Once the study is complete and a neighborhood
meeting has been held, a ballot will be sent to each affected property owner. Approval
of at least two-thirds (2/3) of the received ballots from the affected property owners is
needed to proceed with the traffic calming plan. The County requires 100% approval
from property owners adjacent to the proposed site where speed humps, as well as
other calming devices, will be installed.
10. PRIORITIZE AND IMPLEMENT PROTECT: Projects are prioritized Citywide
based on the point score determined in Step 2, Request Evaluation. Projects will be
listed and assigned resources quarterly. Once assigned, the project will remain listed
even if subsequent projects become listed with higher scores. The highest-ranking
projects are undertaken first. The number of projects initiated each year depends on
City resources. The City notifies all project requesters of the status of their request after
project approval. The City also notifies the appropriate neighborhood associations or
homeowner associations of the status of the neighborhood projects within their
neighborhood and asks for their comments.
City staff will finalize the design and implementation process for the proposed traffic
calming devices. Specific techniques may be installed as a "test site", while others will
be installed permanently. "Test sites" will be monitored and evaluated for effectiveness.
After a period of evaluation, measurable objectives and performance measures will be
established on a case by case basis. It is noted that the City's and County's Traffic
Engineering Standards will be consulted for adherence in relation to any proposed
traffic calming measures.
CRITERIA FOR PILOT TRAFFIC CALMING PROTECTS
1. Street must be local.
2. Street may not be a locally designated arterial or collector.
3. Street may not have any commercial land uses.
4. The affected area mustcomply with the petition requirements for support of
projects as contained within the City Traffic Calming Manual.
5. The project must be found by the City Public Works Department not to present
any risk or hazard similar to the findings that must be made for a City or County
approved traffic calming project or installation.
6. The affected area has agreed to pay for one half of the device(s) purchase costs.
7. Speed cushions, of a design approved by the County and City Public Works
Departments, will be the primary traffic calming device approved for use in
these projects. The City will follow the traffic calming process outlined in the
Miami Beach Traffic Calming Manual for evaluation and prior to installation of
speed cushions. Other traffic calming measures shall be considered upon review
by the City and subsequent approval by the County.
8. Immediately following the installation of the project, City staff will begin an
evaluation of the project's effectiveness. This evaluation includes, but is not
limited to, field observations, traffic counts, speed studies and other data
collection (as needed). If the project has not met the objectives during the
evaluation period, staff will notify the community's representatives. City staff
and community representatives may then decide to make modifications to the
current plan. These modifications may include the implementation of additional
or different techniques, or the removal of the traffic calming devices.
9. In the event the devices are found to be ineffective after the evaluation process
(minimum of three months after installation), the City's Public Works Director
will send a letter to the affected property owners to let them know of this
recommendation and collect the resident's input prior to removal. Removal
may also be initiated by a petition request from 50% of the residents in the
affected area.
SPEED CUSHIONS
If speed cushions are warranted, they can be constructed of either rubber, concrete, or
asphalt material. In general, - rubber speed cushions offer the following advantages: -
Easy to install.
Preformed shapes ensure uniform design at even location.
The unique shape of a speed cushion is difficult, if not impossible, to mold
with asphalt.
Easy to remove if the device does not prove to be effective.
Easy to remove and re-install in case the road need to be resurfaced.
Relatively easy to maintain. If a piece gets - damaged, - it gets - replaced verv
easily. *v
drivers of the presence of the speed cushion.
Relatively low cost.
Made of recycled rubber, which is environmentally friendly.
Rubber speed cushions are highly - - durable, can last for a long - time and offer high -
resistance to weather and other environmental effects, especially in the climate of
South Florida. Asphalt speed cushions, on the contrarv, have not been developed
within the United States on a basis to fully understand their performance.
Asphalt speed cushions would not offer the same design - features of the rubber speed
cushions. The typical cross section of the rubber speed cushion has design -
characteristics that would be verv difficult to mimic on an asphalt cushion. This
would be the clearest disadvantage - in Wing - to construct an asphalt cushion and still
expect it to perform as well as the rubber speed cushion. It is therefore recommended
to utilize rubber instead of asphalt speed cushions as the preferred installation for
these types of devices in the City of Miami Beach.
SUMMARY
The City of Miami Beach Traffic Calming Manual is a guide to assist the residents and
City staff in addressing their concerns about undesirable traffic issues in our
neighborhoods. Traffic calming is by no means the answer to all situations. However it
has proven in numerous cities around the country to improve safety and livability in a
neighborhood.
The Traffic Calming Manual provides a methodology for members of our community to
request a traffic management study. The City Public Works Department will conduct
the study and will make recommendations to mitigate the traffic impact in that
particular location. Cooperative work between residents, business, other interested
parties and City staff will allow finding acceptable and appropriate solutions to every
problem. As traffic calming measures must respond to traffic patterns changes, traffic
management studies have to be done periodically to evaluate the effectiveness of the
adopted measure.
The Traffic Calming Manual will be updated as needed after initial approval by the
County and as the City implements the criteria established as part of this Manual.
Nothing contained herein should be construed to alter or supersede applicable rules,
codes, or regulations of Miami-Dade County.
APPENDIX A
PROJECT APPLICATION
TODAY'S DATE:
ASSOCIATION: CONTACT NAME:
LOCAL ADDRESS:
HOME PHONE: WORK PHONE:
WHICH NEIGHBORHOOD STREET(S) ARE OF CONCERN?
WHAT TRAFFIC OR SAFETY CONCERNS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED? (Check all that apply)
0 Speeding [7 Reckless driving
0 Cut-through vehicles Noise
17 Vehicles not obey traffic control devices (stop sign, signal.. .)
Other:
PETITION FOR TRAFFIC CALMING
The petition for traffic calming must have signatures from a minimum of 50% of
property owners for the section of the street affected.
Location:
Name (print) Address Signature -
RETURN COMPLETED APPLICATION AND PETITION TO:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
ATTENTION: Xavier Falconi
APPENDIX B
Summary of Traffic Calming Devices' Characteristics3
Traffic calming measures can be separated into two groups based on the main impact intended:
0 Volume control measures are primarily used to address cut-through traffic problems by
blocking certain movements, thereby diverting traffic to streets better able to handle it.
Speed control measures are primarily used to address speeding problems by changing
vertical alignment, changing horizontal alignment, or narrowing the roadway. The
distinction between the two types of measures is not as clear as their names suggest,
since speed control measures frequently divert traffic to alternate routes, and volume
control measures usually slow traffic.
1 1 'peed 1 Noise
Reductions Reductions
Speed I Humps/Speed
Textured Minor I pavements I I Yes I change
Possible I Possible / ~ncrease - -
Cushions
Raised
Crosswalks
Minor Traffic Circles Unclear 1 1 Minor 1 change
Chokers/Bump- 1 Rare 1 Minor 1 Minor 1 outs change
No effect
I Bike Lanes / No / Yes I No effect
No
I I I
No effect
Short Medians I No
I Closures I Yes I Yes I No effect
Yes I NO effect
Chicaneshateral
Shifts
I Diverters / Possible I Possible I No effect
No
"TrafficCalming.org" website
Realigned
Intersections
Emergency 1
Possible
& Service I Cost Effectiveness
No effect
Unlikely
Access
I 1 Moderate ($2-$5K) problems
Possible
No effect 1 Moderate ($4K)
No effect
(varies) No effect I Moderate to High bome
----,.---:-I.m ($10-$30K W/O ROW
Moderate to High
CuIlsulrlLs ' cost)
I
No effect
Moderate
($10-$20 per
No effect
approach)
Moderate ($5-$15K)
No effect
Some
constraints I Moderate ($5-$15K)
Moderate to High
(varies)
No effect
Some
constraints
Moderate ($5-$10K)
Moderate to High
($10-$3OK)
Some
constraints
High (varies) with
possible ROW costs
Advantages
relatively
inexpensive
B relatively easy for
bicycles to cross if
designed
appropriately
very effective in
slowing travel
speeds.
improve safety for
both pedestrians
and vehicles
If designed well,
they can have
positive aesthetic
value
They are effective
in reducing speeds,
though not to the
extent of Speed
Humps
Disadvantages
a cause a "rough ride"
for all drivers, and
can cause severe
pain for people
with certain skeletal
disabilities
a force large vehicles,
such as emergency
vehicles and those
with rigid
suspensions, to
travel at slower
speeds
may increase noise
andairpollution
a can be expensive
a Their impacts on
drainage needs to
be considered
a They may increase
noise and air
pollution
Effectiveness
For a 12-foot hump:
Average of 22% decrease in
the 85th percentile travel
speeds, or from an average of
35.0 to 27.4 miles per hour;
(from a sample of 179 sites).
Average of 11 % decrease in
accidents, or from an average
of 2.7 to 2.4 accidents per year
(from a sample of 49 sites).
For a 14-foot hump:
Average of 23% decrease in
the 85th percentile travel
speeds, or from an average of
33.3 to 25.6 miles per hour
(from a sample of 15 sites).
Average of 41 % decrease in
accidents, or from an average
of 4.4 to 2.6 accidents per year
(from a sample of 5 sites)
For a 22-foot Speed Table (the
most similar device for which
data is available):
Average of 18% decrease in
the 85th percentile travel
speeds, or from an average of
36.7 to 30.1 miles per hour;
(from a sample of 58 sites).
a Average of 45% decrease in
accidents, or from an average
of 6.7 to 3.7 accidents per
year (from a sample of 8
sites).
rextured
Pavements
rraffic Circles
can reduce vehicle
speeds over an
extended length
If designed well,
they can have
positive aesthetic
value
Placed at an
intersection, they
can calm two
streets at once
very effective in
moderating speeds
and improving
safety
If designed well,
they can have
positive aesthetic
value
Placed at an
intersection, they
can calm two
streets at once
generally
expensive, varying
by materials used
If used on a
crosswalk, they can
make crossings
more difficult for
wheelchair users
and the visually
impaired
a difficult for large
vehicles (such as
fire trucks) to
circumnavigate
a must be designed
so that the
circulating lane
does not encroach
on the crosswalks
a may require the
elimination of
some on-street
parking
a Landscaping must
be maintained,
either by the
residents or by the
municipality
a No data has been compiled
on the effects of textured
pavements
a Average of 11 % decrease in
the 85th percentile travel
speeds, or from an average of
34.1 to 30.2 miles per hour
(from a sample of 45 sites)
a Including a large sample
from Seattle, an average of
73% decrease in accidents, or
from an average of 2.2 to 0.6
accidents per year (from a
sample of 130 sites)
a Excluding the large sample
from Seattle, an average of
29% decrease in accidents, or
from an average of 5.9 to 4.2
accidents per year (from a
sample of 17 sites)
Chokers
Short Median
(Center Island
Narrowings)
Bike Lanes
Chicanes
easily negotiable by
large vehicles (such
as fire trucks)
If designed well/
they can have
positive aesthetic
value
reduce both speeds
and volumes
increase pedestrian
safety
If designed well,
they can have
positive aesthetic
value
reduce traffic
volumes
Discourage high
speeds by forcing
horizontal
deflection
Easily negotiable
by large vehicles
such as fire trucks,
except under heavy
traffic conditions
Their effect on
vehicle speeds is
limited by the
absence of any
vertical or
horizontal
deflection
may require
bicyclists to briefly
merge with
vehicular traffic
may require the
elimination of
some on-street
parking
Their speed-
reduction effect is
somewhat limited
by the absence of
any vertical or
horizontal
deflection
may require
elimination of
some on-street
parking
Must be designed
carefully to
discourage drivers
from deviating out
of the appropriate
late
Curb realignment
and landscaping
can be costly
May require the
elimination of
some on-street
parking
Average of 7% decrease in
the 85th percentile travel
speeds, or from an average of
34.9 to 32.3 miles per hour
(combined average for
various narrowing measures,
taken from a sample of 7
sites)
Average of 7% decrease in
the 85th percentile travel
speeds, or from an average of
34.9 to 32.3 miles per hour
(combined average for
various narrowing measures,
taken from a sample of 7
sites)
No data has been compiled
on the effects of chicanes
Closures
o Average of 44% decrease in
traffic volume, or a decrease
of 671 vehicles per day (from
a sample of 19 sites)
Average of 35% decrease in
traffic volume, or a decrease
of 501 vehicles per day (from
a sample of 27 sites)
No data has been compiled
on the effects of realigned
intersections
Require legal
procedures for
street closures
Cause circuitous
routes for local
residents and
emergency services
May be expensive
May limit access to
businesses
Cause circuitous
routes for local
residents and
emergency services
May be expensive
May require
reconstruction of
corner curbs
The curb
realignment can be
costly
They may require
some additional
ROW to cut the
corner
Diverters
Realigned
Intersections
Full closures are
able to maintain
pedestrian and
bicycle access
Very effective in
reducing traffic
volume
Do not require a
closure, only a
redirection of
existing streets
Able to maintain
full pedestrian and
bicycle access
Reduce traffic
volumes
May reduce speeds
and improve safety
at a T-intersection
that is commonly
ignored by
motorists
APPENDIX C
References
Broward County Neighborhood Traffic Management Manual. Broward County @ 13-14).
Highway Capacity Manual. The Transportation Research Board, 2000.
Guide to Neighborhood Master Plans - Traffic Planning Manual. City of Fort Lauderdale (p 15)
City of Fort Lauderdale Speed Hump Installation Policy, December 30,2002.
Traffic Calming Manual. City of Sarasota, September 2003.
Traffic Calming Guide for Local Residential Streets. Richmond, Virgmia, October 2002.
City of Coral Springs Traffic Calming Manual. Coral Springs, Florida, June 2002.
Ewing, Reid, Ph,D., Brown, Steven J., P.E. and Hoyt, Aaron. Traffic Calming Practice Revisited.
ITE Journal. Institute of Transportation Engineers, November 2005.
Street Closure / Traffic Flow Modification Study. Dade County Public Works Department and
Metropolitan Planning Organization, July 1996.
Appendix D
Federal Functional Classification
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AGREEMENT
TO PERFORM TRAFFIC ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS
THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AGREEMENT TO PERFORM TRAFFIC
ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS (Agreement), made and entered into this day of , 2011,
by and between the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, a municipal corporation of the STATE
OF FLORIDA ("City"), and MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the STATE OF
FLORIDA ("County").
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2-96.1 of the County Code, all traffic control and traffic
engineering services in the County are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the County; and
WHEREAS, Section 2-96.1 of the County Code provides the County Manager or hislher
designee with the authority, in hislher sole discretion, to enter into an intergovernmental agency
agreement to permit an adequately equipped municipal agency to assume certain traffic control
functions; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to assume the installation and maintenance responsibilities
of certain traffic engineering functions pertaining to traffic calming measures on its local
municipal streets that are operated and maintained by the City within its boundaries, and not on
County or State streets within the City's boundaries ("local municipal streets"); and
WHEREAS, the City will utilize the City of Miami Beach Traffic Calming Manual, Revised
July 22, 2010 ("City's Manual"), as the guide to implement traffic calming measures in the City
and to provide the process and procedures to study problematic streets or areas within the
City's boundaries (copy attached hereto as Exhibit "A and incorporated herein by reference);
and
WHEREAS, the County has determined that the City is both equipped and able to
perform the traffic calming functions as herein specified on its local municipal streets; and
WHEREAS, the City has, by proper resolution attached hereto as Exhibit "B and by
reference made a part hereof, authorized its officer to enter into this Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, the City and the County agree as follows:
1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by reference.
2. The City is authorized to install and maintain traffic calming devices and their
related traffic control signs on its local municipal streets as provided in this Agreement. Specific
locations of the traffic calming devices, and traffic signs related thereto, will be determined by
the City, through its City Manager or hislher designee, on a case by case basis, pursuant to the
City's Manual. Any such traffic calming devices may be installed on local municipal streets only
after an appropriate trafic engineering study has been performed, and sealed and signed
studies, reports, and design plans by Florida licensed professional engineers have been
reviewed and have received written approval by the City, through its City Manager or hislher
designee, and then submitted to the Public Works Department of the County for its review and
written approval. The County will provide review and notify of approval within ten (10) business
days after receiving all the necessary related reports, plans, and studies from the City.
3. The City shall attach a decal to the back of any sign panels which the City installs
pursuant to Paragraph 2 above, indicating ownership and date of installation.
4. The City assumes sole and complete responsibility for the maintenance of all
such traffic control devices and signs that are installed by the City on local municipal streets
pursuant to Paragraph 2 above.
5. The City assumes sole and complete liability for any accidents and injuries which
may, or are alleged to, occur or arise out of the installation, operation, or maintenance of traffic
control devices and signs that are installed by the City on local municipal streets, and hereby
indemnifies and saves harmless the County from any and all claims of negligence as a result of
the installation, operation or maintenance of said devices and signs.
6. Notwithstanding Paragraphs 4 and 5 above, or any other term contained in this
Agreement, nothing shall be deemed to be a waiver of either the City or the County's immunity
or limitation of liability as provided pursuant to Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, as may be
amended from time to time.
7. All traffic control devices and signs installed by the City in accordance with this
Agreement shall conform to the applicable requirements established by the following
publications in their current form (i.e., as of the effective date of the Agreement on page 1
hereof):
Florida Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for
Road and Bridge Construction.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Administration ( Edition 2009), including latest revisions.
Standard Highway Signs, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
Miami-Dade County Public Works Manual (available from the
Public Works Department, Reproduction Services, I1 1 NW 1
Street, Suite 1604, Miami, FL 331 28).
City of Miami Beach Traffic Calming Manual, Revised July 22,
201 0.
8. For installation of traffic calming devices and signs, the City may either, at the
City Manager or hislher designee's option and discretion, 1) hire a County licensed and qualified
contractor or 2) perform the work in-house by the City's Public Works crew (or such other
appropriate Department or Division of the City).
The City shall be responsible for keeping records of any and all installations and
repairs of traffic calming devices and signs installed pursuant to this Agreement, and shall
furnish pertinent documents as and when said records may be requested by the County,
Either the City or the County may, in their respective sole and complete
discretion, terminate this Agreement, with or without cause and/or convenience of the
terminating party, upon twenty (20) business days written notice; provided, however, the City
shall continue to maintain, repair, and be responsible for any traffic calming devices and signs
installed by the City while this Agreement was in effect. Prior to the termination of this
Agreement, however, the City may elect to remove any one or all traffic calming devices and/or
traffic control signs installed by the City; provided the City shall restore the roadway and area in
which the traffic calming device(s) was located to the condition that existed before the City's
installation.
11. Any notice or communication concerning this Agreement between the City and
County shall be in writing and delivered by hand-delivery, registered mail, or Federal Express.
Notices hereunder shall be deemed received on the date of receipt. Such notices and
communications, until and unless changed by notice in writing, shall be addressed as follows:
TO COUNTY:
TO CITY:
Miami-Dade County
Public Works Department
Attn: Director
Stephen P. Clark Center
11 1 NW IS' Street, 1 6'h Floor
Miami, Florida 33128
City of Miami Beach
Public Works Department
Attn: Director
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Any dispute between the City and the County as a result of, or arising out of, this
Agreement, shall be resolved by the County Mayor or Mayor's designee, whose decision as to
any such dispute shall be final and conclusive of the matter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the County have set their hands the day and year
above written.
Attest:
HARVEY RUVIN, CLERK
By:
County Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
Assistant County Attorney
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
By:
County Manager
Attest:
ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH
ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH
By:
City Clerk
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
City Attorney
By:
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
F:\ATTO\TURN\AGREEMNT\Traffic Calming Interlocal Agreement - FINAL VERSION 05-25-1 1 .docx
City of Miami Beach
Trdfic Calming Manual
FINAL REVISION
REVIEMIED AND APPROVED BY
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
ON JULY 22,2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION. ................................................................................................................. 3
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................... 4
METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 5
TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS AND PROCEDURE ........................................................ 8
SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 13
Appendix A - Project Application
Appendix B - Summary of Traffic Cdming Devices' Characteristics
Appendix C - References
Appendix D - City of Miami Beach Functional Classification Map
INTRODUCTION
"Traffic calming involves changes in street alignment, installation of barriers, and other
physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and/or cut-through volumes, in the interest
of street safety, livability, and other public purposes".
The City of Miami Beach (City) through the Department of Public Works,
Transportation Division has developed the City of Miami Beach Traffic Calming
Manual (the Manual) to address traffic concerns in the local and residential streets in
order to preserve and maintain the particular characteristics of its neighborhoods.
The growth of Miami Beach has increased the traffic using the local network, thus
impacting the local and residential streets. Speeding and cut-through traffic often occur
through residential neighborhoods affecting livability and safety. The Traffic Calming
Manual has been conceived as a tool to address these issues.
As a guideline to implement traffic calming measures, the Manual provides the process
and procedures to study a problematic local street and/or area within the City's
boundaries. State and County roads are not eligible for City consideration of traffic
calming measures.
Based on the research of different traffic calming practices within the United States (see
Appendix C), the Street Closure/Traffic Flow Modification Study2, and the results of
traffic counts performed on several streets in Miami Beach, specific thresholds were
developed to implement traffic calming measures according to the City's unique
characteristics.
The Manual also provides guidelines for the installation of different traffic calming
measures that may be used in a traffic calming project, analyzing the effects on speed
and volume each would have, as well as their preliminary costs.
City staff and residents will identify traffic problems in their neighborhoods and will
create a traffic calming project with solutions that are acceptable and appropriate.
The methodology and procedure documented in this manual is implemented and
revised as to fit in the City of Miami Beach.
1 Institute of Transportation Engineers.
2 Dade County Public Works Department and Metropolitan Planning Organization
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Traffic calming is the application of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative
effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for
pedestrians and bicyclists. Traffic calming may be a component of a neighborhood
traffic plan.
GOAL:
Ensure the development of a safe, efficient and integrated transportation system in the
City of Miami Beach that promotes neighborhood livability using adequate technical
planning and traffic engineering practices.
OBJECTIVES:
The main objectives of traffic calming include:
Restoration of communities affected by speeding traffic
Discouragement of the use of local residential streets by heavy vehicles and cut-
through traffic
Improvement of the quality of life a street may afford in a neighborhood
Improvement of roadway safety and reduction of accidents
Improvement in safety and convenience specifically for vulnerable road users,
such as bicyclists and pedestrians
Changes to the attitude of many drivers towards speed and a tangible
demonstration that streets are for people as well as for traffic
a Reduction in noise and disturbance
METHODOLOGY
TRAFFIC CALMING POLICIES
Specific points to consider in the design of traffic calming measures include:
Streets that are classified as arterial or higher shall not be considered under these
traffic calming guidelines. A map showing the streets classified as arterials in the
City is included in Appendix D of this document. These road classifications are
intended to be the primary means by which traffic travels in our community.
However, a properly sized roundabout, where appropriate as a capacity
treatment and where physical space is available, may be usable in lieu of a traffic
signal and they provide calming as a corollary effect. In the case of Alton Road
and in coordination with FDOT, the City has installed speed radar boards with
the purpose of alerting drivers on how fast they are driving above the speed
limit. The devices are effective in that they catch the drivers' attention,
prompting them to reduce the speed of the vehicle they would be driving.
For collector streets, pedestrian refuge islands, roundabouts and entrance
treatments (specially an entrance to a neighborhood) are some options to try as
traffic calming measures for these types of streets.
For local streets, speed cushions would be the preferred traffic calming
treatment. Speed cushions provide a vertical hump for passenger vehicles but
leave beveled gaps for wide-tracked vehicles such as fire trucks and school
buses. Chicanes, traffic circles and speed tables are additional techniques
available for local streets.
a If the request affects local streets within the City, then the City will coordinate
the review with agencies potentially affected by the traffic flow
modification(s)/street closure(s), which may include, but not be limited to the
following entities:
City of Miami Beach Fire Department.
* Miami-Dade County Fire & Rescue (MDFR).
* City of Miami Beach Police Department.
Miami-Dade County Police Department (MDPD).
Miami-Dade County Planning and Zoning Department (MDP&Z).
Miami-Dade County Public Schools (MDCPS).
* Miami-Dade Transit (MDT).
* Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
Miami-Dade County PWD.
These reviews shall be relevant to the agency reviewing the proposed traffic flow
modification(s)/street closures(s). The scope of the traffic review shall be
determined on a case-by-case basis by Miami-Dade County P'C/VD.
The City representative shall review all comments brought forth by the
aforementioned entities. The City under the following conditions shall deny the
application for traffic flow modification(s)/street closure(s):
Comments made by any entity revealed concerns that cannot be
resolved.
The proposed locations for extenuating circumstances do not meet
all criteria outlined under this process or applicable State laws.
Emergency vehicles access must be preserved. Fire and Police Departments are
involved from the beginning.
The cut-through traffic should be routed back to collector and arterial roadways.
0 The City's Public Works Department shall look at the redistribution of traffic in
adjacent streets. The impacts on adjacent streets and arterials shall be measured,
so that unintended or adverse shifts in traffic do not occur.
Buses need to be able to negotiate traffic calming features safely, without undue
discomfort to passengers and at a reasonable operating speed.
Bicyclist and pedestrian access must be accommodated. Provision for pedestrians
and bicyclists should be of a high quality to promote the shift from the private
car to more sustainable modes of transport. Adequate widths and carefully
considered routes and priorities coupled with arrangements to make access for
disabled people as easy as possible are required.
The City Public Works Department may recommend employing different traffic
calming devices according to neighborhood's characteristics. Final decision will
depend on consensus with the community and the County Public Works
Department.
TRAFFIC CALMING TECHNIQUES
PHYSICAL: In general, wider roads encourage higher automobile speeds. Many traffic-
calming techniques are therefore designed to physically change the width of the street.
If motorists can see far into the distance, their speed may increase. The interruptions of
sight lines through changes in the road's direction, or breaking the road into smaller
visual units using techniques such as chicanes and roundabouts, cause the drivers to
slow down.
PSYCHOLOGICAL: Traffic calming may also be achieved by changing the
psychological feel of the street. Streets using different surface types, vertical
landscaping or narrowed lanes create the appropriate space for a relaxed, pedestrian-
friendly atmosphere. These psychological changes give motorist cues that they are no
longer on a major roadway, but- are in a different environment that is shared with
people.
There is an extensive menu of treatments that may be part of a traffic calming strategy.
Such treatments include:
DEFLECTING PATHS: Deflecting the vehicle path causes the driver to reduce
speed and be more attentive to the task of driving. Deflection is done through
changing the route of the automobile. Some measures apply at mid-block
locations, while others are most appropriate for intersections.
DIVERTING TRAVEL ROUTES: Diverting the driver's route increases travel
time and encourages the driver to use another route. Traffic diverters, street
closures, one-way streets, median closures and turning movement restrictions
are examples of a diversion. Another example is to install signage to ensure that
Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and other 'through' traffic choose suitable routes
that reduce the environmental impact of their journeys.
* CHANGES TO PAVEMENT SURFACE: Changing the pavement surface
demands attention from drivers, and reduces the speed for comfortable driving
(the "design" speed). Speed humps, brick pavers and special pavement materials
are among the most frequent approaches to changing the pavement surface.
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES: Traffic control devices, where warranted, can be
used to regulate traffic patterns.
ENFORCEMENT: Intensified enforcement of traffic regulations can calm traffic,
generally, by reminding drivers of posted speed limits and by enforcing the observance
of STOP signs. Police officers are the usual source of intensified enforcement, but
neighborhood volunteers can also be very effective in assisting in an enforcement effort.
EDUCATION: The City of Miami Beach will make a conscious effort to initiate and
maintain an educational program on traffic calming and safety within the city.
TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS AND PROCEDURE
The following flow-chart documents the traffic calming evaluation and installation
process from application to post installation. In order to avoid duplication, County and
City will coordinate from the beginning as requests are received. Throughout the
process, the County's Public Works Department will be kept informed.
Application submitted by
property owners
I Warranted? I
City Public Works Department (PWD)
review and initial public meeting
I I
4 4
I
I
I
Report back to
b Community
Speedlvolume
study conducted
Submit study results to County
PWD for review
Consistency checks (with local
plans/programs/policies)
Preliminary traffic calming plan prepared by
City PWD I
I
I
I
I +
Plan submitted to Fire, Police, and County PWD as well as other
agencies if needed for review and comments
@ 1 Approved?
1 Public mletinting conducted
@ 1 Approved?
Ballots sent
to residents I
Ballots received &
submitted by residents
Plan prioritized and
1. COMPLETE AND SUBMIT PROTECT APPLICATION: A preliminary traffic
calming study can be initiated by a resident complaint, the request of a
neighborhood association, or a Commissioner's request. A resident or
neighborhood association requesting traffic calming must complete and submit an
Application and Petition for Traffic Calming to the City's Public Works Department.
The Petition for Traffic Calming must have signatures from a minimum of 50% of
residents for the section of the street affected. The application and petition are
included in Appendix A of this document. An initial meeting with the residents that
submitted the request and surrounding area may be conducted to explain the
process the City follows to evaluate applications and to collect their input.
2. EVALUATE APPLICATION: City staff shall identify the study area, collect
preliminary data (the City's Public Works Department will perform speed and
volume studies and collect accident reports), and complete the evaluation of the
traffic calming request.
Speed and traffic volumes are the first criteria used to gauge whether a traffic
calming study area warrants further research for possible development and
implementation of a traffic calming plan. The tables below show the thresholds
established for Miami Beach regarding speed and volume:
* The ~5~ percentile speed is defined as "the speed that is exceeded by 15% of the motorists surveyed"
Points
0.5
1 .O
1.5
2.0
2.5
The second criterion establishes the number of accidents per year during the last
three years along the street as a warrant for traffic calming study.
volume 24 hr.
500 - 750 veh.
751 - 1,100 veh.
1,101 - 1,700 veh.
1,701 - 2300 veh.
More than 2,300 veh.
Points
0.5
1.0
1.5
No. of accidents
1-2
3
4 or more
i. Any street that ranks 2.5 or higher is eligible for traffic calming. The
neighborhood street would require 2/3 voter approval from residents and is
subject to final roadway design. The County has 100% required approval from
property owners adjacent to the proposed site where speed humps as well as
other calming devices will be installed. Due to the curvature of the roadway,
and other unique design characteristics, some streets may not be suitable for any
or all of the traffic calming tools available.
ii. Any street that ranks 2.0 will be studied by the City's Transportation Division to
determine if other measures may be helpful in addressing concerns.
The following items may be considered, but not limited, as part of the study:
1. Location of school, pedestrian oriented facility (i.g. elderly housing) or
community facility (i.g. park) located on the subject street or within an
established walking area.
2. Driveway density.
3. Presence/ absence of sidewalks.
After review of the above study, the City's Transportation Division would be
able to recommend various alternate solutions if the street does not fully qualify
for the installation of traffic calming devices.
iii. Any street that scores less than a 2.0 and is determined to not be an appropriate
location based on the study completed will not be eligible for re-evaluation for
twelve (12) months after the speed/volume shzdy is conducted. After two (2)
years of testing, if the street does not qualify for traffic calming, the project is
ineligible for re-testing for twenty-four (24) months.
3. CHECK FOR CONSISTENCY WITH CITY AND MPO PLANS AND PROGRAMS:
Every effort will be made to ensure that any proposed physical traffic modifications will
be consistent with City and County short and long range transportation plans and
programs. However, this may require recommendations to change the priority of
previously adopted plans and programs in order to more rapidly improve the efficiency
of the arterial network near the affected neighborhood. In addition, every effort will be
made to ensure that any physical traffic modifications are consistent with land
use/zoning.
4. SUBMIT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDY AND DATA COLLECTED TO
COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: The results of the traffic engineering
study together with the data collected will be submitted to the County Public Works
~e~art&nt for their review in anticipation to the preparation and submittal of the
traffic calming plan.
5. PREPARE THE DRAFT TRAFFIC CALMING PLAN: The City Public Works
Department will develop a preliminary traffic calming plan for the warranted street.
The plan will include the locations for the following existing conditions: driveways,
bike lanes, inlets, manholes, light poles, stop signs, and any other traffic calming
proposed for the subject street. The plan will also specify the area that is affected.
6. SUBMIT PLAN FOR APPROVAL: The plan will be submitted to the Fire
Department, Police Department and County Public Works Department for review and
comments. The plan may be revised to address any concern expressed by these
agencies, as well as other agencies if needed. The County will submit a response to the
City within ten (10) working days from submittal to the County's Public Works
Department.
7. CONDUCT NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOP: If the area of concern meets the
minimum criteria outlined in this document, City staff will schedule a neighborhood
workshop meeting with residents to review the results of preliminary studies and to
receive comments on the preliminary design of the traffic calming plan.
Citizen participation is an essential ingredient in the development and implementation
of a successful neighborhood traffic plan. Neighborhood residents offer insight into the
nature and extent of traffic and safety problems. Residents must also live day to day
with any devices constructed. These residents are most directly affected by the
problems and potential mitigating measures, and they are frequently the source of
innovative solutions. The following are two levels of community involvement:
A. Participatory programs involving interested citizens.
B. Outreach programs attempting to communicate with the silent citizens,
normally the vast majority of residents.
Implementation of an effective traffic calming program, which incorporates resident
participation, will provide many benefits to the community. Benefits include effective
transportation management, community safety, and an enhanced quality of life.
8 & 9. RESIDENTS APPROVAL: Once the study is complete and a neighborhood
meeting has been held, a ballot will be sent to each affected property owner. Approval
of at least two-thirds (213) of the received ballots from the affected property owners is
needed to proceed with the traffic calming plan. The County requires 100% approval
from property owners adjacent to the proposed site where speed humps, as well as
other calming devices, will be installed.
20. PRIORITIZEAND IMPLEMENT PROTECT: Projects are prioritized Citywide
based on the point score determined in Step 2, Request Evaluation. Projects will be
listed and assigned resources quarterly. Once assigned, the project will remain listed
even if subsequent projects become listed with higher scores. The highest-ranking
projects are undertaken first. The number of projects initiated each year depends on
City resources. The City notifies all project requesters of the status of their request after
project approval. The City also notifies the appropriate neighborhood associations or
homeowner associations of the status of the neighborhood projects within their
neighborhood and asks for their comments.
City staff will finalize the design and implementation process for the proposed traffic
calming devices. Specific techniques may be installed as a "test site", while others will
be installed permanently. "Test sites" will be monitored and evaluated for effectiveness.
After a period of evaluation, measurable objectives and performance measures will be
established on a case by case basis. It is noted that the City's and County's Traffic
Engineering Standards will be consulted for adherence in relation to any proposed
traffic calming measures.
CRITERIA FOR PILOT TRAFFIC CALMING PROTECTS
1. Street must be local.
2. Street may not be a locally designated arterial or collector.
3. Street may not have any commercial land uses.
4. The affected area must comply with the petition requirements for support of
projects as contained within the City Traffic Calming Manual.
5. The project must be found by the City Public Works Department not to present
any risk or hazard similar to the findings that must be made for a City or County
approved traffic calming project or installation.
6. The affected area has agreed to pay for one half of the device(s) purchase costs.
7. Speed cushions, of a design approved by the County and City Public Works
Departments, will be the primary traffic calming device approved for use in
these projects. The City will follow the traffic calming process outlined in the
Miami Beach Traffic Calming Manual for evaluation and prior to installation of
speed cushions. Other traffic calming measures sh& be considered upon review
by the City and subsequent approval by the County.
8. Immediately following the installation of the project, City staff will begin an
evaluation of the project's effectiveness. This evaluation includes, but is not
limited to, field observations, traffic counts, speed studies and other data
collection (as needed). If the project has not met the objectives during the
evaluation period, staff will notify the community's representatives. City staff
and community representatives may then decide to make modifications to the
current plan. These modifications may include the implementation of additional
or different techniques, or the removal of the traffic calming devices.
9. In the event the devices are found to be ineffective after the evaluation process
(minimum of three months after installation), the City's Public Works Director
will send a letter to the affected property owners to let them know of this
recommendation and collect the resident's input prior to removal. Removal
may also be initiated by a petition request from 50% of the residents in the
affected area.
SPEED CUSHIONS
If speed cushions are warranted, they can be constructed of either rubber, concrete, or
asphalt material. In general, - rubber speed cushions offer the following - advantages: -
Easy to install.
Preformed shapes ensure uniform design - at every location.
The unique shape - of a speed cushion is difficult, if not impossible, to mold
with asphalt.
Easy to remove if the device does not prove to be effective.
Easv to remove and re-install in case the road need to be resurfaced.
Relatively easv to maintain. If a piece gets - damaged, - it gets replaced verv
easily.
Rubber speed cushions also include embedded striping that aids in alertinp;
drivers of the presence of the speed cushion.
Relatively low cost.
Made of recycled rubber, which is environmentallv friendly.
Rubber speed cushions are highly - durable, can last for a long - time and offer high
resistance to weather and other environmental effects, especiallv in the climate of
South Florida. Asphalt speed cushions, on the contrarv, have not been developed
within the United States on a basis to fully understand their performance.
Asphalt - speed cushions would not offer the same design features of the rubber speed
cushions. The tvpical cross section of the rubber speed cushion has design
characteristics that would be verv difficult to mimic on an asphalt cushion. This
would be the clearest disadvantage - in twing to construct an asphalt cushion and still
expect it to perform as well as the rubber speed cushion. It is therefore recommended
to utilize rubber instead of asphalt - speed cushions as the preferred installation for
these types of devices in the City of Miami Beach.
SUMMARY
The City of Miami Beach Traffic Calming Manual is a guide to assist the residents and
City staff in addressing their concerns about undesirable traffic issues in our
neighborhoods. Traffic calming is by no means the answer to all situations. However it
has proven in numerous cities around the country to improve safety and livability in a
neighborhood.
The Traffic Calming Manual provides a methodology for members of our community to
request a traffic management study. The City Public Works Department will conduct
the study and will make recommendations to mitigate the traffic impact in that
particular location. Cooperative work between residents, business, other interested
parties and City staff will allow finding acceptable and appropriate solutions to every
problem. As traffic calming measures must respond to traffic patterns changes, traffic
management studies have to be done periodically to evaluate the effectiveness of the
adopted measure.
The Traffic Calming Manual will be updated as needed after initial approval by the
County and as the City implements the criteria established as part of this Manual.
Nothing contained herein should be construed to alter or supersede applicable rules,
codes, or regulations of Miami-Dade County.
APPENDIX A
PROJECT APPLICATION
TODAY'S DATE:
ASSOCIATION: CONTACT NAME:
LOCAL ADDRESS:
HOME PHONE: WORK PHONE:
WHICH NEIGHBORHOOD STREET(S) ARE OF CONCERN?
WHAT TRAFFIC OR SAFETY CONCERNS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED? (Check all that apply)
Speeding O Reckless driving
Cut-through vehicles Noise
Vehicles not obey traffic control devices (stop sign, signal. . .)
Other:
PETITION FOR TRAFFIC CALMING
The petition for traffic calming must have signatures from a minimum of 50% of
property owners for the section of the street affected.
Location:
Name (print) Address Signature
RETURN COMPLETED APPLICATION AND PETITION TO:
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
ATTENTION: Xavier Falconi
APPENDIX B
Summary of Traffic Calming Devices' Characteristics3
Traffic calming measures can be separated into two groups based on the main impact intended:
Volume control measures are primarily used to address cut-through traffic problems by
blocking certain movements, thereby diverting traffic to streets better able to handle it.
Speed control measures are primarily used to address speeding problems by changing
vertical alignment, changing horizontal alignment, or narrowing the roadway. The
distinction between the two types of measures is not as clear as their names suggest,
since speed control measures frequently divert traffic to alternate routes, and volume
control measures usually slow traffic.
''TrafficCalmjng.org" website
Cost Effectiveness
Moderate ($2-$5K)
Moderate ($4K)
Moderate to High
(varies)
Moderate to High
($10-$30K w/ o ROW
cost)
Moderate
($10-$20 per
approach)
Moderate ($5-$15K)
Moderate to High
(varies)
Moderate ($5-$10K)
Moderate to High
($10-$3OK)
Moderate ($5-$15K)
High (varies) with
possible ROW costs
Emergency
& Service
Access
Some
problems
No effect
No effect
Some
constraints
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
Some
constraints
Some
constraints
Some
conshaints
Speed
Humps/Speed
Cushions
Raised
Crosswalks
Textured
Pavements
Traffic Circles
Chokers/Bump-
outs
Short Medians
Bike Lanes
Chicanesbateral
Shifts
Closures
Diverters
Realigned
Intersections
Volume
Reductions
Possible
No effect
Unlikely
Unclear
Rare
No
No
No
Yes
Possible
Unlikely
Speed
Reductions
Possible
No
Yes
Minor
Minor
Yes
Yes
Possible
Yes
Possible
Possible
Noise
Increase
No effect
Minor
change
Minor
change
Minor
change
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
Effectiveness
For a 12-foot hump:
Average of 22% decrease in
the 85th percentile travel
speeds, or from an average of
35.0 to 27.4 miles per hour;
(from a sample of 179 sites).
Average of 11 % decrease in
accidents, or from an average
of 2.7 to 2.4 accidents per year
(from a sample of 49 sites).
For a 14-foot hump:
Average of 23 % decrease in
the 85th percentile travel
speeds, or from an average of
33.3 to 25.6 miles per hour
(from a sample of 15 sites).
Average of 41 % decrease in
accidents, or from an average
of 4.4 to 2.6 accidents per year
(from a sample of 5 sites)
For a 22-foot Speed Table (the
most similar device for which
data is available):
Average of 18% decrease in
the 85th percentile travel
speeds, or from an average of
36.7 to 30.1 miles per hour;
(from a sample of 58 sites).
Average of 45 % decrease in
accidents, or from an average
of 6.7 to 3.7 accidents per
year (from a sample of 8
sites).
Disadvantages
o cause a "rough ride"
for all drivers, and
can cause severe
pain for people
with certain skeletal
disabilities
force large vehicles,
such as emergency
vehicles and those
with rigid
suspensions, to
travel at slower
speeds
may increase noise
and air pollution
can be expensive
Their impacts on
drainage needs to
be considered
They may increase
noise and air
pollution
Measure
Speed Hump
Raised
Crosswalks
Advantages
relatively
inexpensive
relatively easy for
bicycles to cross if
designed
appropriately
very effective in
slowing travel
speeds.
0 improve safety for
both pedestrians
and vehicles
If designed well,
they can have
positive aesthetic
value
They are effective
in reducing speeds,
though not to the
extent of Speed
Humps
Textured
Pavements
Traffic Circles
can reduce vehicle
speeds over an
extended length
If designed well,
they can have
positive aesthetic
value
Placed at an
intersection, they
can calm two
streets at once
very effective in
moderating speeds
and improving
safety
If designed well,
they can have
positive aesthetic
value
Placed at an
intersection, they
can calm two
streets at once
generally No data has been compiled
expensive, varying on the effects of textured
by materials used pavements
If used on a
crosswalk, they can
make crossings
more difficult for
wheelchair users
and the visually
impaired
difficult for large Average of 11% decrease in
vehicles (such as the 85th percentile travel
fire trucks) to speeds, or from an average of
circumnavigate 34.1 to 30.2 miles per hour
must be designed (from a sample of 45 sites)
so that the Including a large sample
circulating lane from Seattle, an average of
does not encroach 73% decrease in accidents, or
on the crosswalks from an average of 2.2 to 0.6
0 may require the accidents per year (from a
elimination of sample of 130 sites)
some on-street Excluding the large sample
parking from Seattle, an average of
e Landscaping must 29% decrease in accidents, or
be maintained, from an average of 5.9 to 4.2
either by the accidents per year (from a
residents or by the sample of 17 sites)
municipality
Chokers easily negotiable by * Their effect on 0 Average of 7% decrease in
large vehicles (such vehicle speeds is the 85th percentile travel
as fire trucks) limited by the speeds, or from an average of
If designed well, absence of any 34.9 to 32.3 miles per hour
they can have vertical or (combined average for
positive aesthetic horizontal various narrowing measures,
value deflection taken from a sample of 7
reduce both speeds may require sites)
and volumes bicyclists to briefly
merge with
vehicular traffic
may require the
elimination of
some on-street
parking
Short Median increase pedestrian . Their speed- • Average of 7% decrease in
(Center Island safety reduction effect is the 85th percentile travel
Narrowings) If designed well, somewhat lFtnited speeds, or from an average of
they can have by the absence of 34.9 to 32.3 miles per hour
positive aesthetic any vertical or (combined average for
value horizontal various narrowing measures,
reduce traffic deflection taken from a sample of 7
volumes may require sites)
elimination of
some on-street
parking
Bike Lanes
Discourage high * Must be designed No data has been compiled
speeds by forcing carefully to on the effects of chicanes
horizontal discourage drivers
deflection from deviating out
* Easily negotiable of the appropriate
by large vehicles late
such as fire trucks, Curb realignment
except under heavy and landscaping
traffic conditions can be costly
May require the
elimination of
some on-street
parking
Chicanes
Closures
Diverters
Realigned
Intersections
Full closures are
able to maintain
pedestrian and
bicycle access
* Very effective in
reducing traffic
volume
Do not require a
closure, only a
redirection of
existing streets
Able to maintain
full pedestrian and
bicycle access
o Reduce traffic
volumes
May reduce speeds
and improve safety
at a T-intersection
that is commonly
ignored by
motorists
Require legal
procedures for
street closures
Cause circuitous
routes for local
residents and
emergency services
May be expensive
May limit access to
businesses
Cause circuitous
routes for local
residents and
emergency services
May be expensive
May require
reconstruction of
corner curbs
* The curb
realignment can be
costly
They may require
some additional
ROW to cut the
corner
Average of 44% decrease in
traffic volume, or a decrease
of 671 vehicles per day (from
a sample of 19 sites)
Average of 35% decrease in
traffic volume, or a decrease
of 501 vehicles per day (from
a sample of 27 sites)
No data has been compiled
on the effects of realigned
intersections
APPENDIX C
References
Broward County Neighborhood Traffic Management Manual. Broward County (p 13-14).
Highway Capacity Manual. The Transportation Research Board, 2000.
Guide to Neighborhood Master Plans - Traffic Planning Manual. City of Fort Lauderdale (p 15)
City of Fort Lauderdale Speed Hump Installation Policy, December 30,2002.
Traffic Calming Manual. City of Sarasota, September 2003.
Traffic Calming Guide for Local Residential Streets. Richmond, Virginia, October 2002.
City of Coral Springs Traffic Calming Manual. Coral Springs, Florida, June 2002.
Ewing, Reid, Ph.D., Brown, Steven J., P.E. and Hoyt, Aaron. Traffic Calming Practice Revisited.
ITE Journal. Institute of Transportation Engineers, November 2005.
Street Closure / Traffic Flow Modification Study. Dade County Public Works Department and
Metropolitan Planning Organization, July 1996.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF
THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE ClTY
OF MIAMI BEACH TRAFFIC CALMING MANUAL AND
FURTHER APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE ClTY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-96.1 OF THE COUNTY CODE FOR
THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC
CALMING DEVICES AND THEIR RELATED TRAFFIC
CONTROL SIGNS ON THE CITY'S LOCAL MUNICIPAL
STREETS PURSUANT TO THE CITY'S TRAFFIC CALMING
MANUAL.
WHEREAS, the Administration has been working with Miami-Dade County ("County") on
the approval of the City of Miami Beach Traffic Calming Manual ("TCM") and the associated
Intergovernmental Agency Agreement ("IAA"); and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 2010, the County's Public Works Director submitted a letter to
the City of Miami Beach ("City") granting authority to the City to follow the guidelines of the
City's TCM when performing traffic studies; and
WHEREAS, the City has established criteria that determine the need for traffic calming
that are consistent and compatible with the guidelines established by the County for traffic
calming; and
WHEREAS, by adopting the City's TCM and entering into an IAA, the City will be
responsible for all planning, engineering, installation, and maintenance of traffic calming devices
and their associated financial impacts; and
WHEREAS, the average costs of traffic calming devices are estimated to be $5,000 per
speed cushion and $30,000 per each traffic circle, bulb-out, diverter or median; resulting in an
estimated cost of $950,000 for the implementation of the TCM; and
WHEREAS, the TCM stipulates that in order for the City to implement traffic calming, a
minimum of (213) of two-thirds of the responding residents in the affected area must agree to
pay for one half of the devices' purchase costs. Thus, the final cost to the City is estimated to be
$475,000. Potential funding sources include Concurrency Mitigation funds and People's
Transportation Plan funds; and
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2011, the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee
recommended approval of the TCM and the IAA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF
THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby approve
the City of Miami Beach Traffic Calming Manual and authorize the City Manager to execute the
Intergovernmental Agency Agreement with Miami-Dade County pursuant to section 2-96.1 of
the County Code for the installation and maintenance of traffic calming devices and their
related traffic control signs on the City's local municipal streets pursuant to the City's Traffic
Calming Manual.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of May, 201 1.
ATTEST:
Matti Herrera Bower
Mayor
Robert Parcher
City Clerk APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LmAGE
T:\AGENDA\2011\6-01-1 l\Traffic Calming Manual and IAA - RESO 6-01-201 1 .doc
Attachment C
Carlas Alwez, Mayor
July 22,2010
Mr. Fred BRcaanari, P.E,, Director
Publc Work& D6partm~flt
CRy of Miami Beah
17W ~anwttion Center Driv~
Miami Beach, FL 33439
Public WQ*
111 NW 'lstS&eet~+Suite1610
Mlami, Roitda 3312&1970
T 3Q5-375-2960 F 3D5-375-307Q
Re: Aweptanc~ d City @Miami Beach's Traffic Calming Manual
The Miami-Dade County Public Works Department (WD) has mvi- the CQ of
Miam'r &a&'$ Traffio CaFmirrg NEanual, and rzancwt tkat all our ersmmr?n& ham ken
incoqamtM in said manual. Thus, we approve the contents of the manual. Please be
advised &at an Interagency Ageement shuuld bc! appmved by both agencies, which will
then pmvide the Cifyr with the authority to fOftow the guidelines in the manual when
w@min~,h@c studies.
Should jrcu Rave any questions, pfeasa do not hesitae to contact Dr, Joan Staen, P.E.,
PTOE, Mamger, TmHc Enginewing Division, at (305) 375-2030.
cc: Xavier Falcon!, P.E., Transportation Manager, City of Miami Beach
Dr. dm Shen, P,E,, PTOE, Assistant Chief, Traffic Engineering Division
Table 1. Traffic Calming Eligibility Comparison for Residential Local Streets Based on tables on Page 8 of the City of Miami Beach Traffic Calming Manual. A street is eligible for traffic calming under the City's procedure if it scores 2.5 points or higher.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution approving a First Amendment to the Management Agreement between the City and the Miami Beach
Garden Conservancy, Inc. (the Conservancy) establishing criteria and guidelines for the Conservancy to award
naming rights for portions of the Botanical Garden (the Premises), in exchange for monetary contributions from private
donors, to fund certain capital improvements to the Premises.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
1 Increase communitv rating of cultural activities and ensure well maintained facilities. I
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
Approximately 73% of residents surveyed in the 2009 survey rank the availability of Miami Beach's cultural and
recreational programs as excellent and good.
Issue: . - - -. - .
Shall the Mayor and Commission approve an Amendment to the Management Agreement between the City
and the Conservancy?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
On January 13, 2010, the City Commission approved the Basis of Design Report (BODR) for the Miami Beach
Botanical Garden, providing for the implementation of improvements in three (3) phases; totaling an estimated
$2,148,044. A fourth phase of the adopted Master Plan includes certain improvements not considered an integral part
of the immediate design plan, totaling an additional $358,488. In the absence of City funding for this phase, the
Conservancy has proposed to fund these elements through private donors, in exchange for naming rights
acknowledging the donors. On April 27, 201 1, the City's Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC),
approved a recommendation by the Administration that would allow the Conservancy to award naming rights for
interior portions of the premises, in exchange for monetary contributions from private donors, to fund improvements
set forth in the BODR, which includes: I) amending the City Code to exempt the Botanical Garden from the provisions
of the City's Naming Ordinance; and 2) in the event that the City Commission approves such exemption from the
Naming Ordinance, the Management Agreement should be amended, to establish criteria and guidelines for naming
interior portions of the facility. Subject to approval of the proposed Amendment to the Naming Rights Ordinance on
Second and Final Reading, scheduled for today's meeting of the City Commission, the Administration recommends
adopting the attached proposed Amendment to the Management Agreement between the City and the Garden
Conservancy, setting forth the conditions by which the Conservancy may grant naming rights in the Botanical
Garden.
Advisory Board Recommendation: I Finance & Citywide Projects Committee: April 27, 201 1
Financial Information:
Source of Funds: nla I ( Amount I Account
1 1 I nla
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
[ Anna Parekh, extension 7193
AGENDA ITEM f?
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
/
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager n*
DATE: June 1, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl
BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ClTY CLERK
TO EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THAT CERTAIN MANAGEMENT
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE ClTY AND THE MlAMl BEACH GARDEN
CONSERVANCY, INC. (THE "CONSERVANCY"), DATED JANUARY 17,2007, FOR
THE MANAGEMENT OF THE MlAMl BEACH BOTANICAL GARDEN (THE
"PREMISES"), LOCATED AT 2000 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE, MlAMl BEACH,
FLORIDA; SAID AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES FOR
THE CONSERVANCY TO AWARD NAMING RIGHTS FOR PORTIONS OF THE
BOTANICAL GARDEN, IN EXCHANGE FOR MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
PRIVATE DONORS, TO FUND CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
PREMISES.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOMES SUPPORTED
Increase resident satisfaction with the level of services and facilities.
BACKGROUND
On January 17,2007, the Mayor and City Commission approved a new Management Agreement
with the Miami Beach Garden Conservancy for the operation of the Miami Beach Botanical Garden,
with an initial term of five (5) years, commencing on July 1, 2007, (upon expiration of previous
agreement), with an option, at the City's sole discretion, to renew and extend the Agreement for an
additional five (5) year term.
Since taking over the operations of the Botanical Garden in July, 1999, the Conservancy has
initiated extensive public outreach initiatives, educational programming, and has played an important
role in capital planning efforts including, but not limited to, recent upgrades to the facility's irrigation
system (with matching grant funds from the County). The Conservancy has also used its best efforts
to increase its publiclprivate funding contributions towards the operation of the facility, resulting in
the City being able to reduce its annual contribution by 25% (from $200,500 in FY 01/02 to $152,475
through FY 09/10).
The City's annual contribution comprises approximately 43% of the Conservancy's income, with the
balance derived from grants, donations, memberships, event functions, and gift shop sales. It should
also be noted that the Administration has looked into the cost of absorbing the operation in-house.
Based on an estimate by the City's Parks Department, the City's cost to operate the facility,
providing the same level of programming and services, would be approximately $230,000 per year;
almost 51 % more than the City's current contribution to the Conservancy.
One of the Conservancy's primary goals is to achieve accreditation of the Miami Beach Botanical
Commission Memorandum
Miami Beach Garden Conservancy Amendment
June 1,201 1
Page 2 of 3
Garden through the American Association of Museums (AAM). To this end, it has been working with
the City in defining the scope of capital improvements to achieve this goal. Originally, a total of $1.5
Million was allocated from the Series 2000 General Obligation Bonds to undertake the
improvements. In July, 2003, following an RFQ selection process, EDAW was selected to undertake
the planning and design of the facility. Contract issues between EDAW and the City led to EDAW's
eventual termination for convenience, and the project being put on hold until additional funds could
be identified and/or the scope revisited. A total of $1,380,753 is currently available for design and
construction of this project from the Series 2000 General Obligation Bond and City Center RDA
funds. Approximately $381,247 has been expended or encumbered to date due to previous design
efforts.
On September 10, 2008, the City Commission authorized the execution of a new professional
services agreement with RJI, in an amount not to exceed $125,000, for architectural, engineering,
and landscape architecture services for the master planning, design, bid and award, and
construction administration services, and an approved reimbursable allowance of $5,000; for a total
not to exceed amount of $130,000.
On January 13, 2010, the City Commission approved the Basis of Design Report (BODR) for the
Miami Beach Botanical Garden, providing for the implementation of improvements in three (3)
phases; totaling an estimated $2,148,044.
A fourth phase of the adopted Master Plan includes certain improvements not considered an integral
part of the immediate design plan, totaling an additional $358,488, and include such items as a
future visitor center, a reflecting pool, refurbishing the existing fountain, adding an on-site rain water
collection system, and a shade structure over the patio for outdoor events. The Conservancy has
proposed to fund these elements through private donors, in exchange for naming rights
acknowledging the donors.
Chapter 82 Article VI of the City Code, entitled "Naming of Public Facilities and Establishment of
Monuments and Memorials" (also referred to as the City's Naming Ordinance), sets forth the manner
in which public facilities may be named. However, on several occasions the City has provided for an
exemption from the requirements of the City's Naming Ordinance. These exemptions were granted
for the Bass Museum of Art, the Miami City Ballet; and for the Altos del Mar Sculpture Park.
Additionally, the Miami Beach Botanical Garden is exempt under the Ordinance, but only from the
referendum requirements.
ANALYSIS
On April 27,201 1, at a meeting of the City's Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC or
Committee), the Administration recommended that in order to allow the Conservancy to award
naming rights for interior portions of the premises, in exchange for monetary contributions from
private donors, to fund improvements set forth in the BODR, that two actions would be required of
the City Commission as follows:
1) As it has been done with other not-for-profit entities (i.e. the Bass Museum, Miami City Ballet
and the Altos del Mar Sculpture Park), the City Commission should consider fully exempting
the Miami Beach Botanical Garden from the provisions of the City's Naming Ordinance
(rather than just keeping the limited exemption, as to the referendum requirements); and
2) In the event that the City Commission approves such exemption, the Management
Agreement should be amended to establish criteria and guidelines for naming interior
Commission Memorandum
Miami Beach Garden Conservancy Amendment
June 1,201 1
Page 3 of 3
portions of the facility. It should be noted that naming rights provisions and criteria have
been incorporated into other management agreements, involving the Altos Del Mar
Sculpture Garden, the Miami Beach Convention Center, and the Fillmore.
These recommendations were approved by the FCWPC and, on May 1 1,201 1, in accordance with
the Committee's recommendation, the City Commission adopted an ordinance on First Reading
amending Chapter 82 of the City Code in order to grant the Conservancy a full exemption from the
City's Naming Ordinance. The ordinance is scheduled for second reading on this same agenda.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Subject to approval of the proposed ordinance on Second and Final Reading scheduled for today's
meeting of the City Commission, the Administration recommends adopting the attached proposed
Amendm to the Management Agreement between the City and the Conservancy, setting forth the
y which the -conservancy may grant naming rights in the Botanical Garden.
T:WGENDA\2011Uune l\Consent\Botanical Garden Amendment Memo.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF
MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND ClTY CLERK TO EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THAT CERTAIN
MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE ClTY AND THE
MlAMl BEACH GARDEN CONSERVANCY, INC. (THE "CONSERVANCY"),
DATED JANUARY 17, 2007, FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE MlAMl
BEACH BOTANICAL GARDEN (THE "PREMISES"), LOCATED AT 2000
CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE, MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA; SAID
AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES FOR THE
CONSERVANCY TO AWARD NAMING RIGHTS FOR PORTIONS OF THE
BOTANICAL GARDEN, IN EXCHANGE FOR MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS
FROM PRIVATE DONORS, TO FUND CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
TO THE PREMISES.
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2007, the Mayor and City Commission approved a new
Management Agreement with the Miami Beach Garden Conservancy (Conservancy) for the
operation of the Miami Beach Botanical Garden, with an initial term of five (5) years,
commencing on July 1, 2007, with an option, at the City's sole discretion, to renew and extend
the Agreement for an additional five (5) year term; and
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2008, the Mayor and City Commission authorized the
execution of a professional services agreement with Raymond Jungles, Inc., (RJI), in an amount
not to exceed $125,000, for architectural, engineering, and landscape architecture services for
the master planning, design, bid and award, and construction administration services, and an
approved reimbursable allowance of $5,000; for a total not to exceed amount of $130,000; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2010, the Mayor and City Commission approved a Basis of
Design Report (BODR) for the Miami Beach Botanical Garden, providing for the implementation
of improvements in three (3) phases; totaling an estimated $2,148,044; and
WHEREAS, a fourth phase of the adopted Master Plan includes certain improvements
not considered an integral part of the immediate design plan, totaling an additional $358,488,
which the Conservancy has proposed to fund through private donors, in exchange for naming
rights acknowledging the donors; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 82 Article VI of the City Code, entitled "Naming of Public Facilities
and Establishment of Monuments and Memorials" (also referred to as the City's Naming
Ordinance), sets forth the manner in which public facilities may be named; and
WHEREAS, on several occasions the City has provided for an exemption from the
requirements of the City's Naming Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on April 27, 2011, the City's Finance and Citywide Projects Committee
recommended in favor of fully exempting the Miami Beach Botanical Garden from the provisions
of the City's Naming Ordinance as well as amending the Management Agreement to establish
criteria and guidelines for naming interior portions of the facility; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on June , 201 1, the Mayor and City Commission
adopted, on second and final reading, an amendment to the City's Naming Ordinance
exempting the Botanical Gardens from the requirements thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION
OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby
approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a First Amendment to that certain
Management Agreement by and between the City and the Miami Beach Garden Conservancy,
Inc. (the "Conservancy"), dated January 17, 2007, for the management of the Miami Beach
Botanical Garden (the "Premises"), located at 2000 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach,
Florida; said amendment establishing criteria and guidelines for the Conservancy to award
naming rights for portions of the Botanical Garden, in exchange for monetary contributions from
private donors, to fund certain capital improvements to the Premises.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of June, 2011.
ATTEST:
MAYOR
ClTY CLERK
T:V\GENDA\2011\6-01-1 l\Botanical Garden Amendment Reso.doc APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR ~ECtlT10N
AMENDMENT NO. I
TO THAT CERTAIN MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA AND
MlAMl BEACH GARDEN CONSERVANCY, INC.
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT made this lST day of
June, 2011, (the "Effective Date"), between the ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, a municipal
corporation of the State of Florida (hereinafter called "City") having its principal address at 1700
Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, and MlAMl BEACH GARDEN
CONSERVANCY, INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, having its principal address at 200
Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, 331 39 (hereinafter called "Conservancy").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, on January 17, 2007, the Mayor and City Commission approved a Management
Agreement with the Miami Beach Garden Conservancy for the operation of the Botanical
Garden, with an initial term of five (5) years, commencing on July 1, 2007, and terminating on
June 30, 2012, with an option, at the City's sole discretion, to renew and extend the Agreement
for an additional five (5) year term; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2010, the City Commission approved a Basis of Design Report
(BODR) for the Miami Beach Botanical Garden, providing for the implementation of
improvements in four (4) phases; totaling an estimated $2,506,532; and
WHEREAS, the fourth phase of the BODR includes certain improvements which the
Conservancy has proposed to fund through private donors, in exchange for naming rights
acknowledging the donors; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 82 Article VI of the City Code, entitled "Naming of Public Facilities and
Establishment of Monuments and Memorials," sets forth the manner in which public facilities
may be named; and
WHEREAS, on June lSt, 201 1 the City Commission adopted an ordinance on second and final
reading, exempting the Miami Beach Botanical Garden from the requirements of Chapter 82,
Article VI of the Code; and
WHEREAS, in order to assist the Conservancy in its fundraising efforts to implement the fourth
phase of the BODR, the Management Agreement also needs to be amended to establish
criteria and guidelines for naming portions of the Premises in exchange for monetary
contributions from private donors.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises of mutual covenants and conditions
herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which
are hereby conclusively acknowledged, it is agreed by the parties hereto to amend the
Management Agreement as follows:
1. Section 17, entitled "Signage" is amended as follows: (deleted language is and
inserted language is underlined);
Section 17. Signage
17.1 Generallv
Conservancy shall provide, at its cost within the budget submitted to the City, required signs at
all public approaches to the Premises. All advertising, signage and postings shall be approved
by the City and shall be subject to all applicable planning and zoning requirements of the City.
17.2 Naming Riqhts
The Citv reserves all name-in-title rights (i.e. the right to name) in the Miami Beach Botanical
Garden and all revenue(s) that may be derived therefrom.
The Conservancv shall be permitted to name the interior portions of the Premises (which rnav
also include, outdoor garden areas surrounding the Welcome Center facility but within the
described boundaries of the Premises), if and onlv if the City Commission approves and adopts
an ordinance amending Chapter 82, Article VI, Section 82-501 through 82-505, as same mav be
amended from time to time (hereinafter, the "Citv's Naming Ordinance"), exempting the
Botanical Garden from the requirements of the Citv's Naming Ordinance.
The Conservancv shall include the name of the Citv of Miami Beach in its publications,
advertising, promotions, websites, announcements, and other similar and related materials
referrincl to the Botanical Garden and/or the Premises; provided, however that the Conservancv
shall not use the Citv's name and/or logo in any of the aforestated medias and/or materials
issued bv the Conservancv, or in anv other manner (whether express or implied), for the
purpose of soliciting funding, donations, and/or other monies for the Botanical Garden (other
than to identifv the location of the Botanical Garden and/or the Premises as being situated
within the Citv of Miami Beach), without the express written consent and/or permission of the
Citv Manager.
All signage (whether exterior or interior) shall be subiect to the Citv Manager's prior written
approval as to size, location, materials, and aesthetics. The Conservancv agrees that it shall
bear all costs to obtain and install anv new signaqe (including, without limitation, anv costs
related to obtaining all required approvals and/or permits).
Naming ri~hts in connection with sponsorships (i.e. sponsorship names) shall be subiect to the
Citv Manager's prior written approval, which shall not be unreasonablv withheld. In no event
shall anv sponsors hi^ names be permitted which include the names of anv company selling the
following tvpe of products: guns, tobacco, or sexual products (the "Prohibited Names").
In no event shall anv portion of the Botanical Garden and/or the Premises be named or re-
named after an individual who has committed an illeqal act (regardless of whether it becomes
known to the Conservancv and/or the Citv before or after the approval of the proposed naming).
In such events, the Conservancv shall, at its sole cost and expense, immediatelv remove (or
cause to be removed) such name(s) from the Premises and/or anv portion(s) thereof, and the
Citv shall have no liabilitv, whether to the Conservancv, and/or third parties, in connection with
such removal.
Except as provided herein (and where reserved to the Citv), the Conservancy shall be entitled to
all naming rights revenues derived herefrom; provided however that anv revenues in connection
with anv naming rights pursuant to this Section 17.2 must be utilized bv the Conservancv as
follows: 1 .) first, to fund those certain improvements to the Garden Center Premises, as more
s~ecifically set forth in Phase 4 of the Basis of Design Report (BODR) for the Miami Beach
Botanical Gardens, as approved by the Citv Commission on Januarv ?3, 2010; and 2.) second,
following completion of the improvements referenced in the preceding subsection (I), as
evidence bv the issuance bv the Citv of a final Certificate of Completion (C.C) and/or Certificate
of Use (C.U) (as the Citv mav determine) any additional and/or subsequent revenue shall be
used exclusivelv for the management, operation, and maintenance of the Botanical Garden
and/or the Premises, and shall be reported to the Citv during the Citv's annual review of the
Conservancv's proposed operating budget for the Botanical Garden and/or the Premises
JDursuant to Section 7 hereof).
Notwithstanding anvthing in this Section 17.2, no name (andlor signage related thereto)
approved in the Botanical Garden and/or the Premises, or anv portion thereof, shall be allowed
to remain beyond the Term of this Agreement, and the Citv shall have no liabilitv, whether to the
Conservancv, and/or to third parties, in connection with the removal of anv signage following the
termination and/or expiration of this Agreement.
Except as amended hereby, the Management Agreement remains in full force and effect and is
reconfirmed for all purposes.
IN WITNESS OF THE FOREGOING, the parties have set their hands and seals
the day and year first written above.
ATTEST: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
City Clerk
ATTEST:
Secretary
Print Name
Mayor
MIAMI BEACH GARDEN CONSERVANCY, INC
President
Print Name
T:\AGENDA\2011Uune l\Consent\Botanical Garden Amendent.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM &LANGUAGE
5-1%-
Date
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, authorizing Amendment No. 2 to the
Management Agreement between the City of Miami Beach, Florida and Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park, Inc. for the Operation of a
Sculpture Park in Altos Del Mar Park; said amendment modifying the deadline to obtain a building permit for construction of the
sculpture park proposed improvements from May 13,201 1, to March 31,201 1 ; and further requiring ADMSP to provide proof to the City
Commission by September 14, 201 1, that funding for architectural and engineering services has been secured.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Increase satisfaction with family friendly recreational activities.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): The 2009 Community Satisfaction Survey shows that 73.3% of residents
and 58.7 % of businesses feel the City has the "right amount" of cultural events available. Residents also attend cultural activities (such
as art shows, film festivals and live performances) 10.61 times per year on average. The same survey shows that residents attend
museums on average 6.85 times per year. However, 29.3% of residents also feel the City has "too few" museums.
Issue:
Shall the City Commission approve an amendment to the Management Agreement Between the City and ADMSP? I
Item SummarylRecommendation:
1 On October 17, 2007, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of Request for Proposals No. 02-07/08 to establish a I
Cultural Arts Themed andlor other passive Recreational Activities Program in Altos Del Mar Park, located on Collins Avenue, between
76th and 77th Streets (the RFP). The Administration negotiated a Management Agreement with ADMSP whereby they would design,
develop, operate and maintain a sculpture park within a portion of Altos Del Mar Park (to be known as the Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park),
in accordance with its response to the RFP. On June 3, 2009, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2009-27100 which
approved and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Management Agreement with ADMSP.
The Agreement has an initial term of ten (I 0) years, with two (2) additional five (5) year renewal options, at the City's sole and absolute
discretion. The initial Term of the Agreement commenced on June 3,2009 and expires on June 3, 2019. On April 14,201 0, the City
Commission approved Amendment No. 1 of the Management Agreement by adopted Resolution No. 201 0-27371. The Amendment
defined the "Possession Date" and further provided that ADMSP's obligations under the agreement with respect to maintenance and
general liability coverage shall not commence until the possession date.
On March 5,201 1, the City received a letter from ADMSP (See attached Exhibit A), advising the City that it would not be able to obtain a
Full Building Permit for the Proposed Improvements by May 13,201 1, as currently stipulated in the Agreement. The letter requests that
the deadline within which to pull a Full Building Permit be extended to February 13,2012, and provides an explanation for the request.
Subsequently, on May 4, 201 1, ADMSP submitted another letter (Exhibit B) explaining in more detail the reason for the extension
request. The letter also amends the original request within which to obtain a Full Building Permit to March 31, 2012.
The Neighborhoods and Community Affairs Committee considered ADMSP's request at its May 5,201 1, meeting. ADMSP explained
that the architectural and engineering (NE) services for this project were originally to be provided pro-bono but, due to the economic
recession, it has been unable to secure these services pro-bono. ADMSP stated that it is now in a position to raise $1 20,000 to pay for
the NE services, but is in need of additional time to secure these funds and obtain a Full Building Permit. The Committee unanimously
recommended in favor of the extension until March 31,201 2, and also recommended that ADMSP provide the City with proof that they
have obtained sufficient funds to pay for the NE services by the September Commission meeting. As such, the Administration has
drafted a proposed amendment to the ADMSP agreement reflecting the Committee's recommended extension of the deadline to pull a
full building permit, and a September 14, 201 1 deadline for ADMSP to provide proof of funding to the City Commission for the NE
Advisory Board Recommendation:
The Neighborhoods and Community Affairs Committee reviewed this request at their May 5, 2011 meeting and unanimously
recommended in favor of the requested amendment.
Financial Information:
I
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Max Sklar, Ext 61 16
Source of Funds:
Financial Impact Summary:
Sign-Offs:
Approved Account
I
City Manager
[k-x-'
Department Director
Amount
Assistant City Manager
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miarnibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Me
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June 1, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA AND ALTOS DEL MAR SCULPTURE PARK, INC.
(ADMSP) FOR THE OPERATION OF A SCULPTURE PARK IN ALTOS DEL MAR PARK;
SAID AMENDMENT MODIFYING THE DEADLINE TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCULPTURE PARK PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FROM
MAY 13, 2011, TO MARCH 31, 2012; AND FURTHER REQUIRING ADMSP TO PROVIDE
PROOF TO THE CITY COMMISSION BY SEPTEMBER 14, 2011, THAT FUNDING FOR
ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS HAS BEEN SECURED.
BACKGROUND
On October 17, 2007, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of Request for Proposals
No. 02-07/08 to establish a Cultural Arts Themed and/or Other Passive Recreational Activities Program
in Altos Del Mar Park, located on Collins Avenue, between 76th and 77th Streets (the RFP). On July 16,
2008, the Mayor and City Commission accepted the recommendation of the City Manager and
authorized the Administration to enter into negotiations with the successful proposer, Altos Del Mar
Sculpture Park, Inc, a not-for-profit Florida corporation (ADMSP). The Administration negotiated a
Management Agreement with ADMSP whereby IT would design, develop, operate and maintain a
sculpture park within a portion of Altos Del Mar Park (to be known as the Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park),
in accordance with its response to the RFP. On June 3, 2009, the City Commission adopted Resolution
No. 2009-27100, which approved and authorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Management
Agreement with ADMSP. The Agreement has an initial term of ten (10) years, with two (2) additional five
(5) year renewal options, at the City's sole and absolute discretion. The initial term of the Agreement
commenced on June 3,2009, and expires on June 3,2019.
ADMSP would be responsible for all costs associated with design, development, construction, operation,
and maintenance of the Sculpture Park including, without limitation, construction of all Proposed
Improvements. ADMSP retained the services of ArquitectonicaGEO to create the proposed Sculpture
Park Design. ADMSP confirmed that a capital investment of $2.5 million is needed upfront, and $1.7
million is needed for operating costs yearly. Under the terms of the Agreement, ADMSP would be
responsible for all ongoing maintenance of the Sculpture Park, including the Proposed Improvements. It
would also be responsible for operation and management of the Park for its intended purposes. ADMSP
is currently still meeting with potential sponsors/donors to fund these expenses.
On April 14, 2010, the City Commission approved Amendment No. 1 of the Management Agreement
pursuant to Resolution No. 201 0-27371. The Amendment defined the "Possession Date," and further
Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park
June 1,201 1
City Commission Meeting
Page 2 of 2
provided that ADMSP's obligations under the Agreement with respect to maintenance and general
liability coverage would not commence until such Possession Date.
On March 5, 201 1, the City received a letter from ADMSP (See attached Exhibit A), advising the City that
it would not be able to obtain a Full Building Permit for the Proposed Improvements by May 13, 201 1, as
currently stipulated in the Agreement. The letter requests that the deadline within which to pull a Full
Building Permit be extended to February 13, 2012, and provides an explanation for the request.
Subsequently, on May 4, 201 I, ADMSP submitted another letter (Exhibit B) explaining in more detail the
reason for the extension request. The letter also amends the original request within which to obtain a
Full Building Permit to March 31, 2012.
The Neighborhoods and Community Affairs Committee considered ADMSP's request at its May 5, 201 1,
meeting. ADMSP explained that the architectural and engineering (NE) services for this project were
originally to be provided pro-bono but, due to the economic recession, it has been unable to secure
these services pro-bono. ADMSP stated that it is now in a position to raise $120,000 to pay for the NE
services, but is in need of additional time to secure these funds and obtain a Full Building Permit. The
Committee unanimously recommended in favor of the extension until March 31, 2012, and also
recommended that ADMSP provide the City with proof that they have obtained sufficient funds to pay for
the AfE services by the September Commission meeting. As such, the Administration has included the
September 14, 201 1 Commission meeting as a deadline for ADMSP to provide proof of funding to the
City for the NE services.
The attached Amendment No. 2 to the Management Agreement is provided for your review and
consideration.
CONCLUSION
If the Mayor and City Commission agree with the recommendations of the Neighborhoods and
Community Affairs Committee, the Mayor and Commission can approve the Amendment to the
Management Agreement between the City and Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park, Inc., as reflected in the
attached, extending the deadline for ADMSP to obtain the full building permits, and setting a September
14, 201 1 deadline for ADMSP to provide proof of funding for A/E services.
Attachments
T:WGENDA\2011\6-01-1 IWDMSP Mgmt Agmnt Amendment 2 Memo.doc.RTF
RESOLUTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED
R7 - Resolutions
R7H A Resolution Pertaining To The Par 3 Golf Course And The Flamingo Park Project
Tennis Center, And Ratifying Previously Approved Resolution No. 2010-27407, Which
Approved And Adopted The Par 3 Project Master Plan, Including The Construction Of
Four (4) Hard Surface Tennis Courts, Tot Lot, And Splash Pad And Ratifying Previously
Approved Resolution No. 2009-27190, Which Approved The Flamingo Park Master Plan
Option "L", As Amended, Including The Construction Of Seventeen (17) Hydro Courts At
The Proposed Tennis Center.
(Capital Improvement Projects)
(Memorandum & Resolution to be Submitted in Supplemental)
Agenda Item )rl
Date 6-1- 1\
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
NEW BUSINESS
AND
COMMISSION REQUESTS
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miamibeachfl.gor
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, Robert Parcher, City Clerk
Tel: (305) 673-741 1, Fax: (305) 673-7254
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Subiect:
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
June 1,201 1
BOARD AND COMMITTEES
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
That appointments be made as indicated.
ANALYSIS:
Attached are the applicants that have filed with the City Clerk's Office for Board and
Committee appointments.
BOARD OR COMMITTEE:
Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee
VACANCIES
TOTAL MBRS. APPOINTED BY:
City Commission
TOTAL VAC PAGE
9 Page I
Board of Adjustment 7 City Commission 1 page 5
Community Development Advisory 14 Commissioner Deede Weithorn 1 Page 11
Committee
Debarment Committee 7 Mayor Matti Herrera Bower 1 Page 15
Design Review Board 7 City Commission 1 Page16
/ Agenda Item R ?A
We are committed to providing excellent public service and safety to all who live, work and play in j
399 I
Date 6-1 -11
BOARD OR COMMITTEE:
Disability Access Committee
VACANCIES
TOTAL MBRS. APPOINTED BY: TOTAL VAC PAGE
Commissioner Michael G6ngora 1 Page 17
Fine Arts Board 14 Commissioner Ed Tobin 1 Page 18
Hispanic Affairs Committee 7 Commissioner Michael G6ngora 1 page 23
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower
Miami Beach Commission For 21 Commissioner Jonah M. Wolfson 1 Page28
Women
Miami Beach Sister Cities Program 24 Mayor Matti Herrera Bower 5 Page 31
Single Family Residential Review 3 Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager 3 Page 41
Panel
Youth Center Advisory Board Commissioner Ed Tobin 1 Page 47
Attached is breakdown by Commissioner or City Commission:
NON-CITY COMMISSION COMMITTEES
Ricky Arriola
The Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts Center Trust
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower
Citizen's Oversight Committee
Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau
Tourist Development Council
Hilda Fernandez, Asst. CM.
Miami-Dade County Homeless Trust Board
Mitchell Kaplan
Performing Arts Center Trust (PACT)
Commissioner Tobin
= Metropolitan Planning Organization
Vacant Vacant Vacant
Dade Cultural Alliance
Commissioner Weithorn
Miami Dade League of Cities
Committee Rrst Name
Finance & Citywide Projects Committee
Chairperson Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Vice-Chair Commissioner Jorge Exposito
Member Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
Alternate
Liaison
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Patricia Walker, Chief Financial Off.
Member
Alternate
Liaison
Land Use & Development Committee
Chairperson Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
Vice-Chair Commissioner Michael Gongora
Commissioner Jorge Exposito
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Richard Lorber, Acting Planning Dir
NeighborhoodslCommunity Affairs Committee
Chairperson Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Vice-Chair
Member
Alternate
Liaison
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Commissioner Michael Gongora
Barbara Hawayek, Building Depart
Mayor Bower
Mayor Bower
Mayor Bower
Mayor Bower
Mayor Bower
Mayor Bower
Mayor Bower
Mayor Bower
Mayor Bower
Mayor Bower
Mayor Bower
Mayor Bower
Page 1 of 1 Wednesday, May 18, 201 1
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.rniamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO : Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June 1,201 1 a%
SUBJECT: BOARD AND COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS - CITY COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Make appointments as indicated.
BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
1. Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
2. Board of Adjustment
3. Design Review Board
F:\CLER\$ALL\MARIA-M\B & C\Commission Memo B & C FOR 5-1 1-1 I .doc
403
Agenda Item R9 A I
Date 6-f-Ii
Board and Committees Current Members
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Sec. 2-167
Composition:
The committee shall consist of eleven (11) voting members with two (2) year terms appointed at
large by a majority vote of the Mayor and City Commission:
One citizen:
1) actively engaged in the residential home building industry in connection with affordable housing;
2) actively engaged in the banking or mortgage banking industry in connection with affordable
housing;
3) representative of those areas of labor actively engaged in home building in connection with
affordable housing;
4) actively engaged as an advocate for low-income persons in connection with affordable housing;
5) actively engaged as a for-profit provider of affordable housing;
6) actively engaged as a not-for-profit provider of affordable housing (Housing Authority member);
7) actively engaged as a real estate professional in connection with affordable housing;
8) actively sewing on the local planning agency pursuant to Florida Statute 3 163.3174 (Planning
Board member);
9) who resides within the jurisdiction of the local governing body making the appointments;
10) who represents employers within the jurisdiction;
11) who represents essential services personnel as defined in the local housing assistance plan.
Members of the Loan Review Committee, members of the Community Development Advisory
Committee (CDAC), Planning Board and Miami Beach Housing Authority may be appointed to fill any
of the eleven (11) categories and serve as ex-officio voting members on this committee. If due to
conflict of interest by prospective appointees, or other reasonable factor, the City is unable to appoint
a citizen actively engaged in these activities in connection with affordable housing, a citizen engaged
in the activity without regard to affordable housing may be appointed.
City Liaison: Richard Bowman
Vacancy:
To replace
Stephanie Berman
To replace
Jonathan Fryd
To replace Roberto
DaTorre
To replace Dr.
Barry Ragone
To replace Ada
Llerandi
To replace Brian
Ehrlich
To replace Lianne
Pastoriza
To replace Robert
Saland
To replace David
Smith
(3) Rep. Labor Home BI
(8) Local Planning Boar
(6) Not For Profit
(10) Rep. Empl. withlju
(4) Low-Income Advoc.
(1) Res. Home Bldg.
(1 1) Rep. Essential Sew
(5) For Profit
(2) BankingIMortgage
City Commission
City Commission
City Commission
City Commission
City Commission
City Commission
City Commission
City Commission
City Commission
Members:
Name Last Name Position/Title Term Ends: Appointed by: Term Limit:
- - . -- . -
I.ll _,~.~/,&-,.~,~~..r .* ,.,. e,"L"r,<<rvA s.%L. <*<<<L,< an ,'," ?,-.,%-~-c'".~,.,.~e~"~~:~r:.-.-~~<,<~~~..z.~,*,~." ,., '~~"~,~~.<~",~.~~-~~-~~,~,~-~~~,w~<r~-..w..~~~~~<~~~,~.~~.~~~..".-.~a*,-~*,,~~~~f~~.~~?~<~...%.~~~. .?.->.z*"aL,.*
Monday, May 16,201 1 Page 1 of 47
Board and Committees Current Members
Clark Reynolds (9) Res. Juris. Local Gvt 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31/13
Michael Burnstine (7) Real Estate Prof. 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31 /I 3
Amy Perry
Arian Adorno
Charles Urstadt
Karen Fryd
Mark Wohl
Steven Gonzalez
Andrew Fischer
Brian Ehrlich
Dr. Barry Ragone
Marie Towers
Roberto DaTorre
~..~~~r~~~~.~~~~~~~~,,m~~"-,w~--'"."~-:-r~~~.~~~~.~.-..~~~,,r~ *h~>:<"c,.7.-rT..ca, c~e.-"a~.~~z..r..m,*&-~*"<dr<.r<<7~ ,,x,r, *, "~","r~~~~~.~~",~~~..~~~~~w~~~~~~~*,.w~~~~~.w~~~".~:~~~~~~.A~~. ..Z"2.
Monday, May 16,2011 Page 2 of 47
Board and Committees Current Members
Board of Adjustment RSA 1-2 Sec 11 8-
111
Composition:
Two (2) year term.
Appointed by a 517th vote.
Seven (7) voting members composed of two members appointed as citizens at-large and five
members shall be appointed from each of the following categories (no more than one per category),
namely: Law, Architecture, Engineering, Real Estate Development, Certified Public Accountant,
Financial Consultation, and General Business. The members representing the professions of law,
architecture, engineering and public accounting shall be duly licensed by the State of Florida; the
member representing general business shall be of responsible standing in the community, and each
member shall be bound by the requirements of the Conflict of Interest Ordinance of the city and shall
be subject to removal from office for the violation of the terms thereof. No member shall have any
financial or other interest in any matter coming before the board.
Members shall be apppointed for a term of two years by a five-seventh vote of the city commission.
Members of the Board of Adjustment must be either residents of or have their principal place of
business in Miami Beach; provided, however, that this amendment shall not affect the term of existing
members of the Board of Adjustment.
City Liaison: Antonieta Stohl
Vacancy:
To replace Andrew At -large
Resnick
Members:
Name Last Name
-
Alexander Annunziato
Andrew Resnick
Bryan Rosenfeld
Lior Leser
Richard Preira
Sherry Roberts
12/31/2012 City Commission
Position/Title Term Ends: Appointed by: Term Limit:
At-large 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31/13
Real Estate Developer 12/31/2012 City Commission 12/31 11 5
CPA 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31/15
Financial Consultation 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31/13
Law 12/31/2012 City Commission 12/31/16
General Business 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31 /I 3
Applicants
Alan Fishman
Brent Coetzee
Brian Gilderman
Gabriel Paez
Josh Gimelstein
Micky Ross Steinberg
Robert Newman
Scott Needelman
Position/Title Applicants Position/Title
Beth Gopman
Brian Ehrlich
Dov Konetz
Jessica Conn
Joy Malakoff
Rafael Velasquez
Roger Houle
,#..~~A<,'*s ,..,...,. -m~mr<r"~,>.<:.-,..&v.+.a<,,2.%..w/.~~ ..<., ~+,.~.x".~r,..-.- .,,... ~<."e<...>...*r<..~.c".7,/6-z.,~<,.7~.w, ...,, -.r,-..r~~<~~-~nz<~.'zd,~"~.",~.,~.,~ .... <<.~L,.,~,,x~.<<"r"n~-.~."%.z,~z?.. .... Az~<.-,.~.a,~<ds.""'.z".A*,~."~~~*-'
Monday, May 16,2011 Page 50f 47
Board and Committees Current Members
Design Review Board Sec. 118.71
Composition:
Two (2) year term.
Appointed by a minimum of 4 votes.
Seven (7) regular members and two (2) ex-officio members.
The seven (7) regular members shall consist of:
two (2) registered architects,
one (1) registered architect or a member of the faculty of a school of architecture, urban planning or
urban design in the state, with practical or academic expertise in the field of design, planning, historic
preservation or the history of architecture, or a professional architectural designer or professional
urban planner
one (1) registered landscape architect,
one (1) registered architect, professional designer or professional urban planner,
and two (2) citizens at-large.
One person appointed by the City Manager from an eligibility list provided by the Disability Access
Committee shall serve in an advisory capacity with no voting authority. The Planning Director, or
designee and the City Attorney or designee shall serve in an advisory capacity.
Residency and place of business in the county. The two (2) citizen-at-large members and one of the
registered landscape architects, registered architects, professional designer or professional urban
planners shall be residents of the city.
City Liaison: Thomas Mooney
Vacancy:
To replace Michael Urban Planner
Laas
12/31/2012 City Commission
Members:
Name
Carol
Gabrielle
Jason
Lilia
Seraj
Thomas
Last Name
Housen
Redfern
Hagopian
Medina
Saba
DeLuca
Position/Title Term Ends: Appointed by: Term Limit:
- -. ... -
At-large 12/31/2012 City Commission 12/31/16
At-large TL 12/31/2011 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31/11
Registered Architect 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31 /I 5
Urban Planner 12/31/2012 City Commission 12/31/15
Landscape Architect 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31 /I 3
Reg. Architect TL12/31/2011 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31/11 J
Gary Held advisory/City Attorney Designee
Richard Lorber advisory/Ading Planning Director
Vacant ex-ofFiciolDisabilitv Access Committee
Daniel Garcia Elizabeth Camargo
Gilbert Squires Jane Gross
Jessica Conn Larkin Menezes
Leonard Wien, Jr. Leslie Tobin
Pamela Palma Scott Needelman
~.w/zz.~~~~~~...~.~_~,~, .w_l..r, "&.?<. ,~.-..<;;: ,.,c.. zm.<. ' .... < r.. "a,.&-, T.%,,". . .x."~.;TA-~.-.,-,*<a.'.,./....Mt*d6?< ...*>>...",%2,.<. ,"-L*r<"~-.r~c*="c..~z<v-,~a<d~~L.--r""7 ,,~=~'%'r.-.-.-A-",~~d~..&.~"U~r..w'.%
Monday, May 16,2011 Page 16 of 47
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 1 of 1
Parcher, Robert
From: Wolfson, Jonah
Sent: Thursday, May 19,201 1 2:45 PM
To: Parcher, Robert
Subject: Nomination of Mark Sinnreich for Health Facilities Board
Jon& MWlfson ICOMMISSIONER
City of Miami Beach
T: 305.673.7102 1 F : 305.673.7096
1700 Convention Center Dr., Miami Beach, FL 33139
&please consider the environment before printing.
Agenda ltern R9A. 2
Date 6-1-11
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
R9 - New Business and Commission Requests
Dr. Stanley Sutnick Citizen's Forum. (12:30 p.m.)
Dr. Stanley Sutnick Citizen's Forum. (5:30 p.m.)
AGENDA ITEM: R9B1-2
DATE: --/-/I
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
-. C -_ . -_ - COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: June 1, 201 1
SUBJECT: Report on the 201 1 Florida Legislative Session
Each year the City Commission determines a list of issues to support or oppose during
the annual legislative session in Tallahassee. Many of the City's outcomes from the
2011 session may have implications on the City during the 2012 legislation session,
which will start in January 2012 due to redistricting.
In addition to redistricting, the 2012 Session will also be impacted by the US Senate
campaign of Senate President Haridopolos, the pending 2012 general election, as well
as fallout from the end-of-session meltdown between the House and the Senate.
The Final Legislative Report by the City's lobbying team is attached. A summary of some
of the key issues follows:
201 1 Positive Outcomes:
Grandfather of existing ordinances relating to short-term rentals. The State's pre-
emption of local ordinances does not impact Miami Beach. However, the
Administration and the City's lobbyists expect that the grandfather provision will
have to be defended every legislative session in the future since the vacation
rental industry will likely seek to eliminate it.
No significant movement occurred regarding development of a Casino in Miami
Beach or elsewhere in Florida. Despite being heavily lobbied by Las Vegas
gaming corporations, all proposals for destination resorts failed to gain traction
and Casino-related legislation died during the session. The Legislature did
include $400,000 in the budget for a study of the "potential benefits" of both
destination resorts and horse racing. Efforts by Las Vegas Sands, Wynn Resorts,
and other gambling entities are expected to increase during the next year in
order to attempt to pass Destination Resort legislation in 2012.
Although it received a hearing in one Senate Committee, the bill to provide
Tourist Development Tax revenues for Dolphins Stadium died. At this point, all
indications are that the Miami Dolphins will once again seek approval of this
legislation during the 2012 Legislature, and will most likely try to link it to funding
of the Convention Center.
An effort in the House to repeal the authority of local governments to install red-
light cameras died in the Senate. Although this year the Senate did not seem to
have an appetite to consider this legislation, the House Bill that was approved by
that chamber was sponsored by Representative Corcoran, who will be Speaker
of the House in 2016 and has made this a top priority.
' Agenda Item RqC
Date 6-1 - 11
Page 2 of 2
State Legislative Recap
Although the Legislature did agree to put a "Smart Cap" proposal on the 2012
ballot, also known as TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights), it will apply only to state
revenue and does not affect local government budgets. Local governments must
remain vigilant on this issue since the Legislature has one more opportunity prior
to the 2012 general election.
0 $1.7 million was provided in the budget for beach renourishment in Miami Beach.
The City will continue to work with our partners at Miami-Dade County as they
pursue funding for beach renourishment.
Efforts to exempt online travel companies (OTC - i.e. Orbitz, Expedia) from
collecting and remitting sales taxes did not pass. At this point the lawsuits that
have been filed by several counties may continue, and there may be some effort
by the OTCs to continue to explore settlement options. The Administration
expects that this legislation will return in 2012, since the Senate Bill was
sponsored by Senator Don Gaetz, who will be Senate President in 2013.
Efforts to repeal the Business Tax Receipt were not approved, and would have
represented a $4 million impact to Miami Beach. The Administration expects that
this repeal may be attempted again in 2012.
201 1 Negative Outcomes:
The Legislature finally approved amendments to the Bert Harris Act, specifically
removing the sovereign immunity provision. The amendments, however, are not
retroactive and only apply to future decisions. The Administration does not
anticipate any further activity related to Bert Harris Act amendments.
Efforts to gain authority to increase the Convention Development Tax for the
improvements to the Miami Beach Convention Center did not pass. The City will
prioritize this legislation again during the 2012 session.
Although the City secured language in both the House and Senate
Transportation bills to allow for the regulation of Segways on public sidewalks,
the two bills were not identical and died on the agenda calendar on the last day
of Session. The City will prioritize this amendment during the 2012 session.
Also included in the House and Senate Transportation bills were amendments to
resolve the dispute with Miami-Dade County regarding the distribution of the '%
penny surtax for transportation in favor of the County's 34 cities. During the last
week of session, the Board of County Commissioners approved funding of the
three new cities from the County's 80% share of PTP, but only for one year until
the existing interlocal agreements with all of the cities expire in 2012. The
Administration will work with the other cities during the next year to reach final
agreement with the County regarding the future distribution of the municipal
share of the transportation surtax. If an agreement cannot be reached, the 2012
session represents an additional opportunity to again pursue legislation that
resolves this issue.
An amendment was approved for inclusion on the 2012 ballot which reduces the
assessment cap on non-homestead properties from 10% to 5%. Additional
property tax amendments that may result in reduced collections were also
included on the 2012 ballot, including an expansion of the discount on property
taxes for veterans, and a first-time homebuyers exemption. Local governments
remain vigilant during the 2012 legislative session regarding efforts to
e the proposed cap from 5% to 3%.
JM
Att
MICHAEL J. BARRY
STEPHEN A. ECENIA
RICHARD M. ELLIS
DIANA FERGUSON
MARTIN P. McDONNELL
J. STEPHEN MENTON
R. DAVID PRESCOTT
TO:
VIA:
FROM:
RUTLEDGE, ECENIA & PURNELL
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 551,32302-0551
119 SOUTH MONROE STREET, SUITE 202
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301-1841
TELEPHONE (850) 681-6788
TELECOPIER (850) 681-6515
MEMORANDUM
Mayor Matti Bower
City Commissioners and City Manager Gonzalez
City of Miami Beach
E-mail to Kevin Crowder
Gary Rutledge
Fausto Gomez
Bob Levy
Margie Menduni
Manny Reyes
Evan Power
Jose Diaz
Diana Ferguson
DATE: May 13,201 1
SUBJECT: 201 1 Legislative Session, Final Report
HAROLD F.X. PURNELL
MARSHA E. RULE
GARY R. RUTLEDGE
MAGGIE M. SCHULTZ
GABRIEL F.V. WARREN
--- ----- ---
GOVERNMENTAL CONSULTANT
MARGARET A. MENDUNI
After voting to extend Session until Saturday, May 7 at 6:00 p.m., the 201 1 Legislative Session
concluded at 3:30 a.m. on May 7. Three major pressures converged to produce a contentious
Session with an explosive conclusion. Governor Scott, who was experiencing his first Session
ever, had an extensive agenda which he pushed forcefully. Senate President Haridopolos had an
agenda based on his U.S. Senate campaign and tried to force his members to support. In the end,
many Senators revolted. The House set deregulation and streamlining of government at any cost
as their driving force. The House attempt imploded in the Senate.
The following is a report on the City's legislative agenda as well as issues added to the agenda
during Session.
City of Miami Beach
201 1 Legislative Session, Final Report
Page 2
Expansion of Gambling
Although the Senate discussed a number of bills related to destination resort casinos, the House
never took up the companion bills. In the end, there was no expansion of gambling during this
Session. There is, however, language in the budget on line 21 13A, which allocates $400,000 to
the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability to "conduct a
comprehensive gaming study of the revenues derived, the expenses incurred and the potential
benefits to Florida fkom destination resorts and horse racing. The Office of Program Policy
Analysis and Government Accountability shall recommend an independent consultant for the
study subject to the approval of the Legislative Budget Commission." We will keep the City
abreast of progress on that issue.
Miami Beach Convention Center and Conference Facilitv Expansion
The team lobbied for the passage of Senate Bill 980 by Bennett which would have authorized an
increase in the rate of the Charter County Convention Development Tax and for its two House
companions. However, there was no support for this legislation in either Chamber and the bills
were never heard.
Stadium Funding
House Bill 141 and Senate Bill 466 would have allowed the expenditure of public funds for
renovations of the Dolphin Stadium. These bills never got heard in committee and did not pass
this Session.
Beach Renourishment
Despite the nearly $4 billion deficit in the budget for fiscal year 2011-12, the Legislature was
able to fund beach renourishment statewide at $16.2 million. The funding request from Miami-
Dade County which primarily serves the City of Miami Beach was $1.7 million and that was
hlly funded.
Miami Beach Funding
Local Services Programs were funded at $8.2 million. From that appropriation on line 378, the
following specific allocation was made:
Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Center of Dade County - $300,000
Peoples Transwortation Plan
Bob Levy was able to work with Senator Margolis to amend Senate Bill 1 180, Transportation, by
Latvala. The amendment changed Section 212.055, Florida Statutes, Discretionary Sales Tax, to
City of Miami Beach
201 1 Legislative Session, Final Report
Page 3
provide that "new municipalities must be reimbursed on a pro rata basis with the allocation of
funds to the previously existing municipalities and must not reduce the percentage allocation to
the previously existing municipalities." Unfortunately, Senate Bill 1180 took on a lot of
amendments during the process, including some very controversial amendments, and did not
pass the Session.
Community Redevelopment
Although no language emerged which would have reduced or limited community redevelopment
agencies powers, discussions were held and lobbying was done by Bob Levy to oppose that
language. Attempts were made to put language on Senate Bill 468, a redevelopment bill by
Senator Bullard.
Online Hotel Tax Collections
A great deal of time was spent by the lobbying team to work with a coalition of other local
governments to defeat this bill. Although House Bill 493 passed the House and Senate Bill 376
passed the Senate, the House Bill was not taken up in the Senate and died on the Calendar.
Pension and Insurance Reform
Senate Bill 1128, Related to Local Government Retirement Plans, passed. The bill which
reduces the cost for local governments, makes a number of changes, including the following:
Accrued unused annual leave may not be included in calculations of retirement benefits.
Overtime may be included but it is tapped at 300 hours.
Actuarial or task surpluses in a local plan may not be used outside the plan.
Local plans are eligible to enter the Florida Retirement System only if the plan has no
unfunded actuarial liabilities.
A Task Force on Public Employee Disability Presumption is created to study and make
recommendations on disabilities incurred in the line of duty.
If affirmatively acted upon by the Governor, the bill becomes effective July 1,201 1.
Local Revenue Restrictions
The Legislature did not take up any bills which would have put TABOR-like restrictions on local
governments. However, they did pass Joint Resolution 958, which proposes to replace existing
state revenue limitations with a new state revenue limitation based on inflation and population
changes.
The Legislature also passed House Joint Resolution 381 which provides a tax rate for first time
homebuyers and caps the annual change in assessed value for non-homestead property at 5%.
City of Miami Beach
20 1 1 Legislative Session, Final Report
Page 4
Another ballot initiative, SJR 592, expands a property tax rate for injured veterans to those
veterans who did not live in Florida when they entered military service.
On the positive side, House Bill 281 which passed, would require property owners challenging
their property values before Value Adjustment Boards to pay 75% of their owed taxes while the
case is under review.
Having both positive and negative consequences, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 2142 which
requires the state's five Water Management Districts to cut back $210 million in property taxes.
For the fiscal year 2011-2012, the total ad valorem taxes levied by the South Florida Water
Management District may not exceed $284.9 million. The bill provides for legislative approval
of the Water Management Districts' budget.
Anchoring and Mooring of Vessels
No legislation passed which would address efforts by the City regarding boats anchored behind
single family homes.
Condominium Reform
The lobby team spent many hours in support of House Bill 1 195 which passed this Session. The
bill addresses a number of foreclosure issues, including collection of rent from a non-owner
tenant and financial obligations to associations after foreclosure. The bill also deals with
termination of a condominium association. The bill allows the association to restrict the use of
common areas to unit owners who are more than 90 days delinquent in paying any monetary
obligations to the association. The bill further addresses the association's right to suspend the
voting rights of a unit or a member due to non-payment of any monetary obligations due to the
association which are more than 90 days delinquent. It further specifies that "a voting interest or
consent right allocated to a unit or member which was duly suspended by the association may
not be counted towards the total number of voting interests necessary to constitute a quorum, the
number of voting interests required to conduct an election, or the number of voting interests
required to approve an action under this chapter or pursuant to the declaration, articles of
incorporation, or bylaws."
If affirmatively acted upon by the Governor, the bill becomes effective July 1,201 1.
Protection of Ocean Rescue Lifeguards
No bills passed which would have amended Chapter 784.07, Florida Statutes, to include ocean
lifeguards for certain enhanced penalties imposed for assault and battery.
City of Miami Beach
201 1 Legislative Session, Final Report
Page 5
Bottle and Can Deposit, Plastic Baas and Styrofoam
Return deposits for bottles and cans, a statewide ban on Styrofoam on beaches and
implementation of local governments' ability to regulate the use of plastic bags were not
discussed during this Session.
Equal Rights Amendment
The Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution was not ratified this Session.
Bert Harris Act
We led a coalition of lobbying groups, including the Florida Association of Counties and the
Florida League of Cities to work with Representative Eisnaugle and Senator Simmons who again
filed Bert Harris legislation. We were able to secure several amendments to reduce the impact of
this legislation which was likely to pass, and did pass. The amendments included the following
issues:
Moratoria longer than twelve months are no longer considered "not temporary." Rather,
they will continue to be examined on a case by case basis.
The length of time since passage of ordinances can be considered in determining whether
there are truly reasonable investment-backed expectations when the "first application"
occurs many years afterwards.
The proposed 120-day settlement period was lengthened to 150 days.
The "final decision" (previously the "written ripeness decision") and is now referred to as
a "statement of allowable uses" in order to prevent too much weight being given to staffs
letters.
The "first application" language was clarified to provide more assertiveness.
Restaurant Sanitation
No legislation passed which would require restaurants to conspicuously post their Health
Department reportslratings.
Funding for Water Related Proiects
With the ongoing deficit in the budget, there was no opportunity to fund water related projects.
Film Incentive
House Bill 143 contains an increase in the film incentive. The increase is fiom $38 million to
$42 million for each fiscal year, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-21 5. Unfortunately,
Representative Precourt made the increase dependent upon acceptance of language restricting the
City of Miami Beach
201 1 Legislative Session, Final Report
Page 6
number of television series funded per cycle in favor of additional funding for digital media.
That initiative was not supported by the Film Commissioners of the City of Miami Beach nor the
Commissioner from Miami-Dade County. Talent agents were due to be the deregulated in
House Bill 5005 which passed the House but was rejected by the Senate.
Cultural Arts and Historic Preservation Funding
Historic Preservation Grants were funded at $1.2 million. Cultural Affairs Grants were
appropriated as follows:
Art Grants - $297,200
Culture Builds Florida - $500,000
Cultural and Museum Grants - $2.1 million
Florida Endowment for the Humanities - $350,000
Affordable Housing Funding
The following local government allocations were made for affordable housing:
Community Development Block Grant - $34 million
Neighborhood Stabilization Program - $8.5 million
Housing and Urban Development Disaster Grants - $26.9 million
The following Trust Funds were swept into General Revenue:
Local Government House Trust Fund - $133.2 million
State Housing Trust Fund - $56.3 million
Hybrid Vehicles
Considering the dire states of the budget, there was no opportunity to encourage the state to buy
hybrid vehicles. While the budget does contain provisions to buy vehicles by certain agencies,
the money for those was scarce as it has been for a number of years.
Transportation Funding
The budget swept the Transportation Trust Fund of $150 million which went into General
Revenue. No activity during this Session involved the Interstate 395 Expansion or the 1-95 Hot
Lanes.
City of Miami Beach
201 1 Legislative Session, Final Report
Page 7
Miami Beach Bay Walk
The lobby team moved forward with language to assist with the Miami Beach Bay Walk
development over water sections of Biscayne Bay. However, that language did not pass.
South Point Fountains
No action was taken by the lobby team during Session on this issue.
Comprehensive Planning
House Bill 7207 which is entitled Trust Funds, is actually a major growth management reform
bill. The House and Senate passed very different versions of growth management reform.
During the Budget Conference process, they agreed to take primarily the House Bill with some
additions fiom the Senate which became House Bill 7207. The reform is primarily an attempt to
return growth management decisions to local governments. Some of the major elements include
the following:
Makes concurrency for parks and recreation, schools and transportation facilities,
optional for local governments;
Deletes the requirement that comprehensive plans be financially feasible;
Deletes the twice a year limitation on comprehensive plan amendments;
Abolishes 9J-5 (DCA's growth management rules) and incorporates certain provisions of
that rule into the bill;
Creates a four-year development of regional impact permitting extension;
Encourages DOT to study the proportionate share calculation.
The bill is effective upon becoming law.
The Legislature also dismantled the Department of Community Affairs. Part of the Department
has been placed in the new Department of Economic Opportunity which is under the Governor.
In fbture reports to the City, we will provide more details regarding how the Department has
been relocated.
Education Issues
School hding was cut, between 1.22% and 8% per student, depending upon the individual
districts reserving federal funds fiom last year in anticipation of sparse funding for the following
year. The following education bills may be of interest to the City.
Senate Bill 2120 is a major education budget conforming bill. The bill deals with class size by
redefining core curriculum courses by grade level to provide flexibility to meet class size
requirements. In regard to non-compliance penalties, the bill codifies the alternate calculation
City of Miami Beach
201 1 Legislative Session, Final Report
Page 8
for Districts not in compliance which was approved previously by the Legislative Budget
Commission. That alternative calculation already allowed non-compliant schools for the current
year to have 75% of their hds restored. The bill also authorizes school districts to designate
pilot schools to implement the transition to instructional materials that are electronic or digital
format. This may be of interest to Miami Beach's IB program and probably would be a good
pilot for the Miami-Dade County School System.
House Bill 7197, Digital Learning. This bill authorizes the following digital learning actions:
Authorizes students to take an online course offered by a school district other than their
own
Requires high school students entering grade 9 in the 201 1-2012 school year to complete
at least one online course within the 24 credit requirements for high school graduation
Authorizes school districts to operatekreate their own virtual instruction programs
Authorizes Florida Virtual School (FLVS) to provide full time instruction to students in
kindergarten through grade 12 and part-time instruction to students in grades 4-5
The lobby team was able to insert language which would allow the City to regulate the use of
segways on sidewalks into Senate Bill 1180 and its companion. These large transportation bills
picked up a number of very controversial amendments and did not pass.
Public Lodginflacation Rentals
We were able to amend House Bill 883 to provide a grandfathering provision. The bill prohibits
local governments from regulating, restricting or prohibiting vacation rentals based solely on
classification use or occupancy. The exemption reads as follows:
A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not restrict the use of vacation rentals,
prohibit vacation rentals or regulate vacation rentals based solely on their
classificaiton, use, or occupancy. This paragraph does not apply to any local law,
ordinance or regulation adopted on or before June 1,201 1.
Hand Bill Distribution
House Bill 883, Public Lodging Establishments, amends Florida Statute 509.144, regulating
hand bill distribution in a public lodging establishment. New language exempts the following
fiom the distribution prohibitions currently in law:
other communications protected by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution or communications about public health, safety, or welfare distributed
by a federal, state or local government entity or a public or private entity.
City of Miami Beach
20 1 1 Legislative Session, Final Report
Page 9
The bill fiuther requires written permission of the owner to distribute hand bills while
current language would permit written or oral permission. Financial penalties are
imposed for a second or third violation. Personal property, including a vehicle, may be
seized for a third offense. If the establishment owner and one other supporting person
sign an affidavit supporting a law enforcement officer's probably cause, the officer may
give a notice to appear without warrant.
Red Light Cameras
Bills filed which would have eliminated the local government red light program did not pass.
There was also language in other bills which would have required local governments to pay the
Florida Department of Transportation to conduct a necessity study prior to installation of new
cameras. That language also did not pass.
Energy Economic Zone Pilot Pronram
House Bill 879 which is a general economic development bill, contains language for progress
forward in the pilot zone for the City of Miami Beach and Sarasota County. The amendments to
Florida Statute 377.809, makes the following changes:
Change the date for submittal of a report to the Governor, President of the Senate and
Speaker of the House from February 15,2012 to February 15,2015
Provides that beginning July 1, 2012, all the incentives and benefits provided for
enterprise zones shall be available to the Energy Economic Zones with certain
stipulations
Provides that effective July 1, 2012, the total amount of state financing available to each
designated energy zone is limited to $300,000 per zone
The bill allows the Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development and the
Department of Revenue to adopt emergency rules to administer the provisions of the new
language.
Visit Florida
A large reorganization bill changed the current structure of Visit Florida. Members of the team
lobbied heavily to maintain independence for Visit Florida. It will be rehoused under the
Governor's Office.
It has been our pleasure to represent the City of Miami Beach during the 2011 Legislative
Session. We will continue to monitor all of these issues for action by the Governor and the
resulting rulemaking.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
FROM: Jonah Wolfson, Commissioner
DATE: May 1 6th, 201 1
SUBJECT: Agenda Item
Please place on the June 1, 0 1 Commission Meeting Agenda a
discussion item on the status of repairs to Belle Isle infrastructure that are
pending to resolve flooding issues that have been ongoing.
If you have any questions, please contact Leonor Hernandez at extension
6437.
We ore cornmil~ed to provrdrrlg clxceller~\ puhlrc servrce and safety to all who live work ond play rn our 11
I Agenda Item f? q D
Date 6-1-11
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION
RECFlVFn
2011 HAY 18 PH12: 07
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager
FROM: Michael Gongora, Commissioner
DATE: May 17, 201 1
SUBJECT: Discussion Item for June 1 Commission Meeting
I would like to request a discussion at the June 1 Commission meeting regarding the
ongoing flooding in Belle Isle and a status update on steps administration is taking to
resolve the situation. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my aide
Diana Fontani at ext 6087.
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager
Jose Smith, City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
Deede Weithorn, Commissioner
May 11,201 1
Agenda Item for June 1 Commission Meeting
I would like to request a discussion and an update on the progress of the Baywalk at
the June 1, 201 1 Commission meeting.
Thank you.
We are commlrted to providing exceilent publ~c service and safety b all who ilve, work, and play In our Agenda Item flq E
I Date 6-1-11
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
R9 - New Business and Commission Requests
R9F Discussion Of Viability Of Storing City Directed Towed Vehicles On Terminal island.
(City Manager's Office)
(Memorandum to be Submitted in Supplemental)
Agenda Item Rq f
Date 6/1-11
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
FROM: Jonah Wolfson, Commissioner
DATE: May 23rd, 201 1
SUBJECT: Agenda Item
Please place on the June lSt, Commission Meeting Agenda a discussion item regarding the
approval of the following two Resolutions placing two ballot questions to amend Section 6.03 of
the City Charter for the November I, 201 1, General Election:
1. Resolution No.1 asks whether Section 6.03 of the Charter should be amended to change
the time period that a candidate running for office in the City has within which to file
hislher qualifying petition; from the current requirement of no later than the second day
of the consecutive four day qualifying period (which commences following the first
Monday in September prior to said general election), to no later than noon of the 14~ day
preceding the first day of the (4 day) qualifying period.
2. Resolution No. 2 asks whether Section 6.03 should be amended to require the City to
waive the qualifying fee that the City charges (which is currently a sum equal to 7.5% of
the annual salary of the office for which the candidate's running, or $1 360.for Mayor and
$1 020 for Commissioner) in the event that the County Supervisor of Elections does not
verify a candidate's petition by 5PM on the second day of the four day qualifying period.
If you have any questions, please contact Leonor Hernandez at extension 6437.
i Agenda Item Rq G
We ore commrtted to provrdrng exceller~~ publrc scnwce and sofeiy to ail who irve, work and ploy In ou(
Date 6-1- I I
43 1 I
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A NOVEMBER I, 2011 SPECIAL
ELECTION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE
ELECTORATE OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH A QUESTION ASKING
WHETHER MlAMl BEACH ClTY CHARTER SECTION 6.03 SHOULD BE
AMENDED TO CHANGE THE TIME PERIOD THAT A QUALIFIED
ELECTOR OF THE CITY, RESIDING WITHIN THE ClTY FOR AT LEAST
ONE (I) YEAR PRIOR TO QUALIFYING, HAS TO FILE WITH THE ClTY
CLERK HISIHER PETITION FOR QUALIFYING AS A CANDIDATE FOR
OFFICE, FROM NO LATER THAN THE SECOND DAY OF THE
CONSECUTIVE FOUR (4) DAY PERIOD FOR QUALIFYING AS A
CANDIDATE FOR SUCH OFFICE, TO NO LATER THAN NOON OF THE
14~~ DAY PRECEDING THE FIRST DAY OF SUCH CONSECUTIVE
FOUR (4) DAY QUALIFICATION PERIOD
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH:
SECTION 1.
In accordance with provisions of the Charter of the City of Miami Beach, Florida and the
general laws of the State of Florida, a Special Election is hereby called and directed to be held in the
City of Miami Beach, Florida, from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November I, 201 1, for the
purpose of submitting to the electorate the question as set forth hereinafter.
SECTION 2.
That the appropriate and proper Miami-Dade County election officials shall conduct the said
Special Election hereby called, with acceptance of the certification of the results of said Special
Election to be performed by the City Commission. The official returns for each precinct shall be
furnished to the City Clerk of the City of Miami Beach as soon as the ballots from all precincts have
been tabulated.
SECTION 3.
That the said voting precincts in the City of said Special Election shall be as established by
the proper and appropriate Miami-Dade County Election Officials. All electors shall vote at the
polling places and the voting precincts in which the official registration books show that the said
electors reside.
SECTION 4.
Registration of persons desiring to vote in the Special Election shall be in accordance with
the general law of the State of Florida governing voter registration. Qualified persons mayobtain
registration forms to vote at the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive,
First Floor, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, during normal business hours, and at such other voter
registration centers and during such times as may be provided by the Supervisor of Elections of
Miami-Dade County. Each person desiring to become a registered voter shall be responsible for
properly filling out the registration form and returning it to the Miami-Dade County Elections Office.
All questions concerning voter registration should be directed to the Miami-Dade County Elections
Office, 2700 N.W. 87th Avenue, Doral, Florida 33172; Telephone: (305)499-VOTE (8683).
SECTION 5.
Not less than thirty days' notice of said Special Election shall be given by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Such publication
shall be made in accordance with the provisions of $1 50.031 and $1 00.342, Florida Statutes, and
Section 38-3 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach
SECTION 6.
The notice of election shall be substantially in the following form:
THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA
NOTICE OF SPECIAL ELECTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THATA SPECIAL ELECTION HAS BEEN CALLED
BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH,
FLORIDA, AND WILL BE HELD IN SAID ClTY FROM 7:00 A.M. UNTIL 7:00 P.M.
ON THE 1'' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 201 1, AT WHICH TlME THERE SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE DULY REGISTEREDAND QUALIFIEDVOTERS OFTHE
ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:
CHANGE IN TlME THAT CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE HAVE TO FlLE
QUALIFYING PETITIONS WlTH CLERK.
SHALL CHARTER SECTION 6.03 BE AMENDED TO CHANGE THE TIME
THAT A CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR ClTY OFFICE HAS TO FlLE A
PETITION WlTH THE ClTY CLERK QUALIFYING AS A CANDIDATE,
FROM NO LATER THAN THE SECOND DAY OF THE FOUR DAY
QUALIFYING PERIOD, TO NO LATER THAN NOON OF THE 14~" DAY
PRIOR TO THE FIRST DAY OF SUCH QUALIFYING PERIOD?
YES
SECTION 7.
That the official ballot to be used in the Special Election to be held on November 1, 201 1,
hereby called, shall be in substantially the following form, towit:
"OFFICIAL BALLOT"
CHANGE IN TlME THAT CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE HAVE TO FILE
QUALIFYING PETITIONS WlTH CLERK.
SHALL CHARTER SECTION 6.03 BE AMENDED TO CHANGE THE TlME
THAT A CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR CITY OFFICE HAS TO FILE A
PETITION WlTH THE ClTY CLERK QUALIFYING AS A CANDIDATE,
FROM NO LATER THAN THE SECOND DAY OF THE FOUR DAY
QUALIFYING PERIOD, TO NO LATER THAN NOON OF THE 14~~ DAY
PRIOR TO THE FIRST DAY OF SUCH QUALIFYING PERIOD?
YES
NO
SECTION 8.
That the absentee voters participating in said Special Election shall be entitled to cast their
ballots in accordance with the provisions of the Laws of the State of Florida with respect to absentee
voting.
SECTION 9.
That the City of Miami Beach shall pay all expenses for conducting this Special Election and
will pay to Miami-Dade County or directly to all persons or firms, upon receipt of invoice or statement
approved by the Supervisor of Elections ofMiami-Dade County, Florida.
SECTION 10.
If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of the proposed ballot measure is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way
affect the validity of the remaining portions of said ballot measure.
SECTION 11.
This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 201 1
ATTEST:
MATTI HERRERA BOWER, MAYOR
ROBERT PARCHER, ClTY CLERK
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson) AWRWEOAStb
F:\ATTO\AGUR\ELECTIONS\Election Ballot Question- Charter Sec. 6.03 - Ext. of Time Reso (First Ballot Question 201 l).doc
PoRM & WOUAGE
4FORU(3UTION
PROPOSED BALLOT QUESTION AND TEXT -
NOVEMBER I, 201 1 SPECIAL ELECTION
PROPOSED BALLOT QUESTION:
CHANGE IN TlME THAT CANDIDATES FOR OFFICE HAVE TO FlLE
QUALIFYING PETITIONS WlTH CLERK.
SHALL CHARTER SECTION 6.03 BE AMENDED TO CHANGE THE
TlME THAT A CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR ClTY OFFICE HAS TO FlLE
A PETITION WlTH THE ClTY CLERK QUALIFYING AS A CANDIDATE,
FROM NO LATER THAN THE SECOND DAY OF THE FOUR DAY
QUALIFYING PERIOD, TO NO LATER THAN NOON OF THE 14~" DAY
PRIOR TO THE FIRST DAY OF SUCH QUALIFYING PERIOD?
YES
PROPOSED CHARTER TEXT:
Sec. 6.03. Qualifying.
The City Commission shall cause to be placed on the ballot to be used in the general election
the name of any qualified elector of the City residing within the City at least one year prior
qualifying and whoT
within the four (4) consecutive days immediately following the first
Monday of September prior to said general election, shall have paid to the
City Clerk of the City of Miami Beach the sum equal to seven and one-
half percent (7 %%) of the annual salary of the office to which helshe
seeks election as a qualifying fee, and shall have been photographed and
fingerprinted by the identification bureau of the Police Department of the
City,
shall have filed with the City Clerk
semd before noon of the 14'~ dav preceding the first day for qualifying
as a candidate for such office, a petition approving his/her candidacy
signed by sufficient qualified and registered voters to constitute not less
than two percent (2%) of the k number of such voters as the same shall
be on the date sixty (60) days prior to the first day of qualifying as a
candidate for office, which petition shall be transmitted bv the Citv Clerk
to the Miami-Dade Countv Supervisor of Elections and which must be
verified bv the Supervisor of Elections within the four (4) consecutive davs
immediatelv following the first Mondav of September prior to said general
election,
and shall have taken, signed and subscribed to an oath or affirmation in writing in which helshe
shall state (1) the title of the office for which helshe is a candidate; (2) that helshe is a qualified
elector of the City of Miami Beach, Florida and has resided in the City at least one year prior to
qualifying wa-pbkm; (3) hislher legal residence, by street and number; (4) that helshe is
qualified under the ordinances (including Miami Beach City Code Chapter 38 governing
"Elections") and Charter of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, to hold the office for which helshe
is a candidate.
Such oath or affirmation shall be substantially in the following form:
STATE OF FLORIDA
SS:
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE )
Before me, an officer authorized to administer oaths, personally appeared to me well known
who, being sworn, says that helshe is a candidate for the office of City Commissioner (Group
No. ) (or Mayor) for the City of Miami Beach, Florida; that helshe is a qualified
elector of said City residing within the City at least one year before qualifying for City of Miami
Beach elected office; that hislher legal residence is: , Miami Beach, Miami-Dade
County, Florida; that helshe is qualified under the ordinances (including Miami Beach City Code
Chapter 38 governing "Elections") and Charter of said City to hold such office; and that helshe
has paid the required qualification fee or has qualified bv petition.
Signature of Candidate
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D., 4-920
Authorized Officer
The City Commission shall, by ordinance, prescribe the manner of holding general and special
elections not inconsistent with the provisions hereof, and shall, by ordinance or resolution,
prescribe polling places in the various voting precincts in the City.
F:\ATTO\AGUR\ELECTIONS\Election Proposed Ballot Question and Text (201 1) - Charter Sec. 6.03 (First Ballot Question) - (5-8-
I l).doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A NOVEMBER I, 2011 SPECIAL
ELECTION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE
ELECTORATE OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH A QUESTION ASKING
WHETHER MlAMl BEACH ClTY CHARTER SECTION 6.03 SHOULD BE
AMENDED TO REQUIRE A WAIVER OF THE ClTY QUALIFYING FEE IN
THE EVENT THAT THE COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS DOES
NOT VERIFY A CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE'S QUALIFYING PETITION BY
5:00 PM ON THE SECOND DAY OF THE FOUR DAY QUALIFYING
PERIOD.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION
OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH:
SECTION 1.
In accordance with provisions of the Charter of the City of Miami Beach, Florida and the
general laws of the State of Florida, a Special Election is hereby called and directed to be held in the
City of Miami Beach, Florida, from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November I, 201 1, for the
purpose of submitting to the electorate the question as set forth hereinafter.
SECTION 2.
That the appropriate and proper Miami-Dade County election officials shall conduct the said
Special Election hereby called, with acceptance of the certification of the results of said Special
Election to be performed by the City Commission. The official returns for each precinct shall be
furnished to the City Clerk of the City of Miami Beach as soon as the ballots from all precincts have
been tabulated.
SECTION 3.
That the said voting precincts in the City of said Special Election shall be as established by
the proper and appropriate Miami-Dade County Election Officials. All electors shall vote at the
polling places and the voting precincts in which the official registration books show that the said
electors reside.
SECTION 4.
Registration of persons desiring to vote in the Special Election shall be in accordance with
the general law of the State of Florida governing voter registration. Qualified persons mapbtain
registration forms to vote at the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive,
First Floor, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, during normal business hours, and at such other voter
registration centers and during such times as may be provided by the Supervisor of Elections of
Miami-Dade County. Each person desiring to become a registered voter shall be responsible for
properly filling out the registration form and returning it to the Miami-Dade County Elections Office.
All questions concerning voter registration should be directed to the Miami-Dade County Elections
Office, 2700 N.W. 87" Avenue, Doral, Florida 33172; Telephone: (305)499-VOTE (8683).
SECTION 5.
Not less than thirty days' notice of said Special Election shall be given by publication in a
newspaper of general circulation in Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Such publication
shall be made in accordance with the provisions of §150.031 and §100.342, Florida Statutes, and
Section 38-3 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach
SECTION 6.
The notice of election shall be substantially in the following form:
THE CITY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA
NOTICE OF SPECIAL ELECTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THATA SPECIAL ELECTION HAS BEEN CALLED
BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MlAMl BEACH,
FLORIDA, AND WILL BE HELD IN SAID ClTY FROM 7:OOA.M. UNTIL 7:00 P.M.
ON THE IS' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 201 1, AT WHICH TIME THERE SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE DULY REGISTERED AND QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE
ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:
WAIVER OF ClTY QUALIFYING FEE WHERE COUNTY ELECTIONS
SUPERVISOR DOES NOT TIMELY VERIFY CANDIDATE'SQUALlFYlNG
PETITION.
SHALL CHARTER SECTION 6.03 BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE A WAIVER
OF THE ClTY QUALIFYING FEE IN THE EVENT THAT THE COUNTY
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS DOES NOT VERIFY A CANDIDATE FOR
OFFICE'S QUALIFYING PETITION BY 5:00 PM ON THE SECOND DAY
OF THE FOUR DAY QUALIFYING PERIOD?
YES
NO
SECTION 7.
That the official ballot to be used in the Special Election to be held on November 2, 201 1,
hereby called, shall be in substantially the following form, towit:
"OFFICIAL BALLOT'
WAIVER OF ClTY QUALIFYING FEE WHERE COUNTY ELECTIONS
SUPERVISOR DOES NOT TIMELY VERIFY CANDIDATE'S QUALIFYING
PETITION.
SHALL CHARTER SECTION 6.03 BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE A WAIVER
OF THE ClTY QUALIFYING FEE IN THE EVENT THAT THE COUNTY
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS DOES NOT VERIFY A CANDIDATE FOR
OFFICE'S QUALIFYING PETITION BY 500 PM ON THE SECOND DAY
OF THE FOUR DAY QUALIFYING PERIOD?
YES
NO
SECTION 8.
That the absentee voters participating in said Special Election shall be entitled to cast their
ballots in accordance with the provisions of the Laws of the State of Florida with respect to absentee
voting.
SECTION 9.
That the City of Miami Beach shall pay all expenses for conducting this Special Election and
will pay to Miami-Dade County or directly to all persons orfirms, upon receipt of invoice or statement
approved by the Supervisor of Elections ofMiami-Dade County, Florida.
SECTION 10.
If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of the proposed ballot measure is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way
affect the validity of the remaining portions of said ballot measure.
SECTION 11.
This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2011.
ATTEST:
MATTI HERRERA BOWER, MAYOR
ROBERT PARCHER, ClTY CLERK
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson) APPROVED AS TO
FORM 8 LANGUAGE
F~\ATTO\AGUR\ELECTIONS\Election Ballot Question- Charter Sec. 6.03 - Ext. of Time Reso (Second Ballot Question 201 l).doc a FOR WCUfION
PROPOSED BALLOT QUESTION AND TEXT -
NOVEMBER I, 201 1 SPECIAL ELECTION
PROPOSED BALLOT QUESTION:
WAIVER OF ClTY QUALIFYING FEE WHERE COUNTY ELECTIONS
SUPERVISOR DOES NOT TIMELY VERIFY CANDIDATE'S
QUALIFYING PETITION.
SHALL CHARTER SECTION 6.03 BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE A
WAIVER OF THE ClTY QUALIFYING FEE IN THE EVENT THAT THE
COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS DOES NOT VERIFY A
CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE'S QUALIFYING PETITION BY 5:00 PM ON
THE SECOND DAY OF THE FOUR DAY QUALIFYING PERIOD?
YES
PROPOSED CHARTER TEXT:
Sec. 6.03. Qualifying.
The City Commission shall, by ordinance, prescribe the manner of holding general and special
elections not inconsistent with the provisions hereof, and shall, by ordinance or resolution,
prescribe polling places in the various voting precincts in the City. In the event that the Miami-
Dade County Supervisor of Elections has not verified the petition of a candidate, which petition
contains the required signatures and was timely filed pursuant to this Section 6.03, by 5:00 p.m.
on the second day of the four (4) consecutive days immediately following the first Monday of
September prior to said general election, then the candidate shall not be required to file the
qualifying fee required in this Section.
F:WTTOWGUR\ELECTIONS\Election Proposed Ballot Question and Text (201 1) - Charter Sec. 6.03 (Second Ballot Question) - (5-
12-1 l).doc
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.rniarnibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower
Members of the City Commission
City Manager ~or~e Gonz
City Attorney. Jose Smith
June 1,201 1
Attorney Client Session
Pursuant to §2$6.011, Florida Statutes, the City Attorney hereby
advises the Mayor and City Commission that he desires advice
concerning the following pending litigation matter:
The Citv of Miami Beach, Florida vs. Hargreaves Associates,
Incorporated, William Lane Architect, Inc., William Lane, Savino &
Miller Design Studio, P.A., Dan Euser Water Architecture, Inc.,
Kenneth DiDonato, Inc., Kenneth DiDonato, Inc.. Kenneth DiDonato,
LAM Partners, Inc.,'William A. Abarca, P.E., Play.Site.Architecture,
Inc., Joanne Hiromura, Johnson, Avedano. Lopez, Rodriguez &
Walewski Engineering Group, Inc., Horacio A. Rodriguez, P.E.
Magnum Construction Manaqement, Corp. d/b/a MCM Corp., and or
MCM, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida , Case No. 10-61 979 CA 03
Therefore, a private closed Attorney-Client Session will be held during the lunch
recess of the City Commission meeting on June 1, 201 1, in the City Manager's
Large Conference Room, Fourth Floor, City Hall, to discuss settlement negotiations
and/or strategy related to litigation expenditures with regard to the above-referenced
litigation matter.
The following individuals will be in attendance: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower;
Members of the City Commission: Jorge Exposito, Michael Gongora, Jerry Libbin,
Edward Tobin, Deede Weithorn and Jonah Wolfson; City Manager Jorge Gonzalez,
City Attorney Jose Smith, first Assistant City Attorney Steven Rothstein, Special
Counsel, Richard, Lydecker, Special Counsel Meredyth S. Cooper, and Special
Counsel Christopher Berga.
F:\ATTO\SMIJ\Maria\scripts\Script for Mayor on MCM June 1 201 1 .docm Agenda Item R10 A
Date 6-1-11
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
REPORTS
AND
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Reports and Informational Items
(see LTC #I 25-201 1)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK