20110713 Bookmarked Agenda ocr optomizedAM1 BEACH
CiW Commission Meeting
City Mall, Commission Chambe=, 3rd Floor, 1700 Convention Center Drive
July 13,281 1
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower
Vice-Mayor Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Jorge Exposito
Commissioner Michael Gbngora
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
City Manager Jorge M. ~onzalez
City Attorney Jose Smith
City Clerk Robert E. Parcher
Visit us at miamibeachfl.gov for agendas and video "streaming" of City Commission Meetings.
Chapter 2, Article VII, Division 3 of the City Code sf 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
egardoliing the provisions of the Ordinance should be directed to the
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 RIO City Attorney Reports
C6 Commission Committee Reports
C7 Resolutions Re~orts and Informational Items
We are committed to providing excellent public service and safety to all who live, work, and play in our vibrant, tropical, historic community.
Consent Agenda, July 13,201 1
Presenbtions and Awards
PA1 Presentation By The United States Conference Of Mayors To The City Of Miami Beach For
Outstanding Achievement City Livability Award For The DecoBike Program. (Page 3)
(Requested by Mayor Matti Herrera Bower & City Manager's Office)
PA2 Certificates Of Recognition To Be Presented To The Winners Of The New Generation Leadership &
Workforce Institute Social Entrepreneurship Biz Plan Competition.
(Requested by Mayor Matti Herrera Bower)
PA3 Certificates Of Recognition To Be Presented To Sonia Bortolin, Becky Ritter And Tamra Sheffman,
For Participating In The June 1 5th - "201 1 All Women's Air Race Classic," Representing The City Of
Miami Beach.
(Requested By Mayor Matti Herrera Bower)
PA4 Certificates Of Appreciation To Be Presented To Several Hotels, For Receiving The 1 7'h Annual Inn
Key Awards For Exceptional Employees.
(Requested by Mayor Matti Herrera Bower)
PA5 Certificate Of Recognition To Be Presented To The Class Of 201 1 Valedictorian And Salutatorians Of
Rabbi S. Gross (RASG) Hebrew Academy.
(Requested by Commissioner Jorge R. Exposito)
PA6 Certificate Of Recognition To Be Presented To The Mrs. Rosann Sidener Ed.D., Principal At Miami
Beach Senior High School For The Summa Cum Laude Graduates Of The Class Of 201 1.
(Requested by Commissioner Jorge R. Exposito)
PA7 Proclamation To Be Presented To Division Chief Bill Riley For His Years Of Service To The City Of
Miami Beach As An Employee Of The Police Department.
(Requested by Commissioner Jorge R. Exposito)
PA8 Ceriificates Of Appreciation To Be Presented To Participating Restaurants And Miami Beach Senior
High Students For Their Participation In Organizing The Dinner For Haiti Fundraiser.
(Requested By Commissioner Michael Gongora)
PA9 Certificate Of Recognition To Be Presented To Las Olas Cafe And Owner For Their Long Standing
Contribution To The City Of Miami Beach.
(Requested By Commissioner Michael Gongora)
PA1 0 Certificate Of Recognition To Be Presented To Cynthia Aguilar, Miami Beach Lifeguard, For Her Hard
Work And Dedication In Raising Money For The Make-A-Wish Foundation.
(Requested by Commissioner Michael Gongora)
Consent Agenda, July 13,201 1
Presenhtions and Awards (Continued)
PA1 1 Certificate Of Recognition To Be Presented To Roberto Caneba, SeniorIParticipant In UNIDAD's
Senior Placement Program And To Ana Sosa, Supervisor Of Big Brother And Big Sister,
EmployerIParticipant In UNIDAD's Senior Placement Program.
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
PA1 2 Certificates Of Recognition To Be Presented To The City Of Miami Beach Lady Sharks Softball Team.
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
PA1 3 Certificate Of Recognition To Be Presented To Lifeguards JC Hernandez, Bill Geddes, Daniel Martin,
Richard McKinnon And Cynthia Aguilar.
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
PA14 Recognition And Brief Presentation On Full Re-Accreditation Of The Public Works Department By
Public Works Director Fred Beckmann.
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
PA15 Presentation By Heather Rohan, CEO Of Aventura Hospital And Medical Center.
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
PA16 Certificate Of Appreciation To Be Presented To Dr. Denis Rod For His Service To Miami Beach
Residents.
(Requested by Commissioner Jerry Libbin)
PA1 7 Proclamation To Be Presented For Swim Show Miami At The Miami Beach Convention Center From
July 16-1 9, 201 1.
(Requested by Commissioner Deede Weithorn)
PA1 8 Key To The City To Be Presented To Officer Richard Rios For His Military Service.
(Requested by Commissioner Jerry Libbin)
CONSENT AGENDA
Action:
Moved:
Seconded:
vote:
Consent Agenda, July 13,201 1
Request For Approval To Reject Bids Received For Invitation To Bid (ITB) No. 50-08109 - For
Wastewater System Improvements For The South Pointe Booster Pump Station. (Page 7)
(Public WorksIProcurement)
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 Par 3 Golf Course Project. (Page 37)
(Capital lmprovement Projects)
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 6th Street And 513'~ Street Restroom Projects.
(Page 47)
(Capital lmprovement Projects)
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 Bandshell Park Project. (Page 57)
(Capital lmprovement Projects)
Request For Approval To Award A Contract To Siemens Enterprise Communications, Inc., Pursuant
To Invitation To Bid (ITB) No. 28-1 011 1 For The Maintenance Of The Telecommunications Systems
At Various City Facilities, In The Annual Amount Of $257,115.24. (Page 65)
(Information TechnologyIProcurement)
Request For Approval To lssue A Request For Proposals (RFP) For Providing Parking Meter
Collection Services For The City's Parking System. (Page 69)
(Parking Depariment)
Request For Approval To lssue A Request For Qualifications (RFQ) For A Fourth Solid Waste
Franchise Contractor To Provide Commercial Waste Collections And Disposal Services. (Page 81)
(Public WorksIProcurement)
Request For Approval To Award Contracts To Best Janitorial & Supplies, Inc.; Calico Industries, Inc.;
Central Poly Corp.; Dermatec Direct; Hospitality Purchasing LLC; Hudson Plastic Corp.; lnterboro
Packaging Corp.; Janitor's Supply Outlet; Pride Enterprises; Quill Corp.; Rex Chemical Corp.;
Songahi, Inc.; Totalpack, Inc.; And Troy Industries, Inc., As Primary And Secondary Vendors Per Line
Item, Pursuant To Invitation To Bid No. 5-1 011 1, For The Purchase Of Janitorial Supplies Citywide, In
The Estimated Annual Amount Of $183,009. (Page 87)
(Procurement)
Consent Agenda, July 13,201 1
(Continued)
C21 Request For Approval To Issue A Request For Proposals (RFP) For The Operation Of Snack Vending
Machine Concessions At Various City-Owned Properties And Facilities. (Page 95)
(Real Estate, Housing & Community Development/Procurement)
C2J Request For Approval To Award A Contract To TM Sound And Lighting Company Pursuant To
Invitation To Bid (ITB) No. 23-1 011 1 For Audio System Replacement And Upgrade For The Miami
Beach Convention Center, In The Estimated Annual Amount Of $149,332.53 Plus A Ten Percent
Project Contingency For A Grand Total Of $1 64,265.78. (Page 103)
(Tourism & Cultural Development/Procurement)
C4 - Commission Committee Assignments
C4A Referral 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.
(Page 109)
(Recommended by the Land Use & Development Committee)
(Legislative Tracking: Planning Department)
C4B Referral To The Planning Board -An Amendment To The Land Development Regulations Requiring
A Maintenance Bond Or Security Instrument To Ensure Abandoned Construction Sites Meet Property
Maintenance Standards. (Page 11 1)
(Recommended by the Land Use & Development Committee)
(Legislative Tracking: Planning Department)
C4C Referral To The Finance And City-wide Projects Committee To Discuss The Proposed lnterlocal
Agreement Between Miami-Dade County And The City Of Miami Beach For The Provision Of A Bi-
Directional Transit Circulator Route Service Known As The "South Beach Local." (Page 11 3)
(Public Works)
C4D Referral To The Finance And Cityvvide Projects Committee A Discussion Pertaining To The Issuance
Of The Request For Proposals (RFP) For The Comprehensive Professional Tennis Management And
Operations Services At The City's Flamingo Park And North Shore Park Tennis Centers. 115)
(Parks & RecreationIProcurement)
C4E Referral To The Finance And Cityvvide Projects Committee To Discuss Authorizing The City Manager
To Negotiate And Enter Into Temporary Licensing-Use Agreements With Contractors Requiring The
Use Of City-Owned Properly For The Purpose Of Staging AndlOr Storage Of Construction Equipment
In Connection With City Or Privately Funded Construction Projects. (Page 1 17)
(Real Estate, Housing & Community Development)
Consent Agenda, July 13,201 1
(Continued)
C4F Referral To The Finance And Citywide Projects Committee - Discussion Concerning Oversight Board
For Recommendations Concerning New Liquor Licenses. (Page 1 19)
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
C4G Referral To The Finance And City-wide Projects Committee - Discussion Concerning City Fees And
Charges For Gay Pride 2012. (Page 121)
(Requested By Commissioner Michael Gongora)
C4W Referral To The Land Use And Development Committee - Discuss The Development North Of Lincoln
Road. (Page 123)
(Requested By Commissioner Michael Gongora)
C41 Referral To The Land Use And Development Committee - Discussion Concerning The Special Events
Ordinance. (Page 125)
(Requested By Commissioner Michael Gongora)
C4J Referral To The Land Use And Development Committee - Discussion Regarding Appeals From
Historic Preservation Board, Planning Board, And Board Of Adjustment. (Page 127)
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
C4K Referral To The Finance And Citywide Projects Committee To Discuss The Issuance Of Additional
Stormwater Revenue Bonds. (Page 129)
(Finance Department)
C6 - Commission Committee Reports
C6A Report Of The Capital lmprovement Projects Oversight Committee Meeting On May 9, 201 1: 1)
Attendance. 2) Public Comments. 3) Presentations: a. Scott Rakow Youth Center Refund Check; b.
Status Of Permanent Generators. 4) Requested Reports: a. Status Report On Lower North Bay Road
Neighborhood; b. Status Report On Normandy Isle Neighborhood. 5) Old Business: a. Status Report:
Venetian Island Neighborhood lmprovement Project; b. Status Report: Sunset islands I & II Status; c.
Status Report: Sunset islands Ill & IV; d. Status Report: Status Report: Palm & Hibiscus Island
Undergrounding. 6) Discussion Item: a. Construction Management Options. 7) Review And
Acceptance Of Minutes. (Page 133)
C6B Report Of The Finance And City-wide Projects Committee On May 19,201 1 : 1) Follow Up: Discussion
Regarding The Miami Beach Festival Of The Arts And Potentially Contracting With A Professional Art
Festival Company To Produce The Festival For The City. 2) Discussion On Updated VCA Budget. 3)
Discussion Regarding Renewal Of Agreement With Clear Channel Adshel, Inc. To Construct,
Operate, And Maintain Bus Shelters. 44 Discussion On Resources Assigned To Address Proliferation
Of Homeless On Washington Avenue. (Page 139)
Consent Agenda, July 13,201 1
(Continued)
C6C Report Of The Finance And Citywide Projects Committee Meeting On May 25,201 1: 1) Discussion
Regarding Ordinances Related To Modifications To The Building, Fire, Planning And Public Works
Department Fees And Resident And Business Concerns That Building Department Fees Are Too
High. (Page 143)
C6D Report Of The Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee Meeting On June 3, 201 1: i)
Presentation Regarding FDOT AIton Road Projects From fifth Street To N. Michigan Avenue. 2)
Discussion To Review And Approve the Proposed Location Of The North Beach Dog Park. 3)
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. 4)
Discussion Concerning The Flamingo Park Neighborhood Becoming Florida's Most Pedestrian
Friendly Neighborhood. 5) Quarterly Crime Statistics. 6) Discussion Regarding The Lack Of
Accessibility Of The City's Website To The Disabled. 9) Discussion Regarding An Ordinance
Amending Chapter 2, Article Ill, Division 26, Sections 2-190.107 And Section 2-1 90.1 10 Of The City
Code, Establishing the City's Community Development Advisory Committee, To Amend the City
Affiliation Requirements For Membership On The Community Development Advisory committee;
Providing For Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date. 8) Discussion Regarding The Safety
Issues With The Funkshion Fashion Event Held In City Of Miami Beach. 9) Discussion Concerning
Noticing For Sidewalk Cafe Permit Renewal. (Page 147)
C6E Report Of The Land Use And Development Committee On June 6, 201 1: 1) 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. 2) Discussion
Regarding The Gale Hotel Height Limits. 3) Discussion On The Ocean Beach Historic District R-PS4
Zoning Amendment. 4) An Ordinance Clarifying The Qualifications And Categories Of Members To
Be Appointed To The City's Land Use Boards. 5) Discussion Concerning A Location For A Skate Park
In Miami Beach Including The Funding Sources Available. 6) Discussion On The Baywalk. 7)
Discussion Regarding A Potential Method Of Replacing Pine Trees On Historic Pine Tree Drive.
(Page 157)
Consent Agenda, July 13,201 1
(Continued)
C6F Report Of The Finance And Citywide Projects Committee On June 23,201 1 : 1) Discussion Regarding
Ordinances Related To Modifications To The Building, Fire, Planning And Public Works Department
Fees And Resident And Business Concerns That Building Department Fees Are Too High. 2)
Discussion On Resources Assigned To Address Proliferation Of Homeless On Washington Avenue.
3) Request For Approval To Purchase American Darling Fire Hydrants From American Flow Control,
The Manufacturer Of The American Darling Fire Hydrants, In The Estimated Annual Amount Of
$40,000.4) Discussion Regarding A Proposed Ordinance Which Will Require Mandatory Recycling,
Via The Establishment Of A City Of Miami Beach Recycling Program, For Multifamily Residences And
Commercial Establishments In The City. 6) Discussion Regarding Extending The Amount Of Time
Residents Have To Pay Their Utility Bill. 6) Discussion Regarding Security Alliance. 7) Discussion
Regarding A New Voluntary Benefit. 8) Discussion Regarding An Amendment To The NSPl
Agreement Between The State Of Florida DCA And The Related Agreement Between The City And
Miami Beach Community Development Corporation, To Permit And Outline The Process For
Construction Draw Downs. 9) Discussion Regarding Advertising On Deco Bike Stations, Its Economic
Impact To The City And The Enhancement Of The Deco Bike Program. 10) Discussion Regarding
Miami-Dade County ADA Parking Fines Program, For Funding In The Approximate Amount Of
$90,000 For Eligible ADA Projects And The Best Usage For The Grant Dollars. 11) Discussion
Regarding An Extension Of The Lease Agreement Between The City Of Miami Beach, As Tenant,
And Meridian Miami, LLC, As Landlord, For Use Of Approximately 5,311 Square Feet Of Space From
September A, 201 1, Through April 30, 2012 At A Monthly Rent Of $1 1,949.75. (Page 163)
C7 - Resolutions
A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The City Manager Or His Designee To Submit The Following
Grant Application: 1) US Department Of Justice, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
(JAG) For Funding In The Approximate Amount Of $79,359 For A Police Observation Tower; And, 2)
Miami-Dade County For Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Funds In The
Approximate Amount Of $1 1,606 For The Police Department's E-Ticketing Initiative; Appropriating
The Above Grants, Matching Funds, And City Expenses Related To The Above Projects, If Approved
And Accepted By The City, And Authorizing The Execution Of All Necessary Documents Related To
These Applications. (Page 175)
(Budget & Performance Improvement)
C7B A Resolution Retroactively Authorizing The Acceptance Of $A3,000 Dollars In Cash Donations
(Including Sponsorships) Made To The City For The Annual Fourth Of July Celebration, A Free Event;
And Further Appropriating Said Funds For The Fourth Of July Celebration; And Accepting And
Appropriating Future Donations For This Purpose; And Authorizing The City Manager Or His
Designee To Make Such Expenditures And/or Reimbursements From The Aforestated Donations, In
Furtherance Of And Consistent With The Aforestated Event. (Page 181)
(Tourism & Cultural Development)
Consent Agenda, July 13,201 1
C7 - Resolutions (Continued)
C7C A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute Amendment No. 2 To
The Agreement, Between The City And UNIDAD Of Miami Beach, Inc., A Florida Not-For-Profit
Corporation, Dated March 25, 201 1, For Project Management Services Relative To The Design,
Development And Construction Of Certain lmprovements At Bandshell Park Including A Terrace,
Tree Relocation, And Utilities Adjacent To The North Beach Community Center; Said Amendment For
The Design And Construction Of The Northeast Quadrant Of The Bandshell Park As Per The
Adopted Master Plan, In The Not-To-Exceed Amount Of $1 67,550, Including A 10% Contingency;
With Previously Appropriated Funds. (Page 185)
(Capital lmprovement Projects)
C7D A Resolution Approving An Increase To The Project Contingency For The Renovation And
Restoration Of The Historical Fire Station No. 2 Project, In The Amount Of $415,000, From Previously
Appropriated Fund 304 Capital Reserve Funds In The Project Budget, For Unforeseen Structural
Concrete Spalling Repairs. (Page 199)
(Capital lmprovement Projects)
C7E Bayshore And Lower North Bay Road Inspection & Construction Administration Services (Page 21 3)
1. A Resolution Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute A Professional Services
Agreement With Atkins North America, Inc., Pursuant To The Request For Qualifications No.
22-1 011 1 For Resident Project Representative Services, For A Period Of Up To Twenty-Six
(26) Months, For The Central Bayshore Neighborhood 8a, Lower North Bay Road
Neighborhood 8b, And Lake Pancoast Neighborhood 8c Projects; In The Negotiated Lump
Sum Amount Of $542,000 And An Additional Lump Sum Amount Of $2,000 For Reimbursable
Expenses, For A Total Lump Sum Amount Of $544,000; With Previously Appropriated
Funding In The Amount Of $272,714; And Further Appropriating $271,286 From Fund 429,
Stormwater Projects Line Of Credit, With Such Funds To Be Repaid From Proposed Future
Stormwater Bonds.
2. A Resolution Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute Amendment No. 22 To The
Professional Services Agreement Between The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, And CH2M Hill
For The Professional Landscape, Architectural And Engineering Services For The Right-Of-
Way Infrastructure lmprovements Program For Neighborhood No. 8 Bayshore And Sunset
Islands, Dated May 16,2001 (The Agreement), In The Negotiated Not-To-Exceed Amounts Of
$640,586.00, For Construction Administration Services, For A Period Of Twenty Six (26)
Months For The Bayshore Neighborhoods No. 8a, 8b, And 8c Packages, And $59,414, For
Reimbursables, For A Grand Total Not-To-Exceed Amount Of $700,000, With Previously
Appropriated Funding In The Amount Of $360,645; And Further Appropriating $339,355, From
Fund 429, Stormwater Projects Line Of Credit, With Such Funds To Be Repaid From
Proposed Future Stormwater Bonds.
(Capital lmprovement Projects)
Consent Agenda, July 13,201 1
C7 - Resolutions (Continued)
C7F A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager, Pursuant To Request For
Qualifications (RFQ) No. 21-10/11, 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 Property Management Facility; And Authorizing The Administration To Enter lnto
Negotiations With The Top-Ranked Firm, Pirtle Construction Company; And Should The
Administration Not Be Able To Successfully Negotiate An Agreement With The Top-Ranked Firm,
Authorizing The Administration To Negotiate With The Second-Ranked Firm, Coastal Construction Of
Monroe, Inc., D/B/A Coastal Construction Company. (Page 235)
(Capital lmprovement Projects/Procurement)
A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager Periaining To The Ranking Of
Firms, Pursuant To Request For Qualifications (RFQ) No. 37-1 011 1, 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; Authorizing The
Administration To Enter lnto Negotiations With The Top-Ranked Proposer, Pirtle Construction
Company; And Should The Administration Not Be Successful In Negotiating An Agreement With The
Top-Ranked Proposer, Authorizing Negotiations With The Second-Ranked Proposer, KVC
Constructors, Inc. (Page 245)
(Capital lmprovement Projects/Procurement)
C7H A Resolution Pursuant To City Code Section 38-6, Authorizing Early Voting For The November 1,
201 1 General And Special Elections, If Any, And For The November 15, 201 1 Runoff Elections, If A
Runoff Election Is Required. (Page 253)
(City Clerk's Office)
C71 A Resolution Authorizing The Administration To Videotape And Air On MBW 77 The Mayor And
Group IV, V, And VI Commission Candidate Presentations For The November 1, 201 1 General
Election. (Page 263)
(City Clerk's Office)
C7J A Resolution Authorizing The City Administration To Enter lnto An Agreement With The Trustmark
Companies To Provide A Voluntary Accident Insurance Plan, Fully Funded By Employee
Contributions, As Recommended By Gallagher Benefit Services, The City's Consultant Of Record.
(Page 269)
(Human Resources)
C7K A Resolution Approving An Interlocal Agreement With Miami-Dade Clerk Of Courts For A
Computerized Parking Ticket Issuing System, And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute
The Agreement. (Page 281)
(Parking Department)
C7L A Resolution Authorizing And Approving A Month To Month Extension Of The Towing Permits With
Beach Towing Services, Inc. And Tremont Towing Services, Inc., Respectively; Said Extensions
Commencing On September 1,201 1, And Expiring No Later Than December 31,201 1. (Page 285)
(Parking Department)
Consent Agenda, July 13,201 1
C7 - Resolutions (Continued)
C7M A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The NeighborhoodslCommunity Affairs Committee
At Their June 3, 201 1 Meeting To Locate A Dog Park In The Southern Quadrant Of North Shore
Open Space Park; And Further Authorizing The Installation Of Said Dog Park With Funding In The
Amount Of $91,875 As Adopted In The 2010-2014 Capital Budget & 5-Year Capital Improvement.
(Page 291)
(Parks & Recreation)
C7N A Resolution Approving A Settlement Agreement Between The AT&T Corporation, And The City Of
Miami Beach, And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute A Settlement Agreement In A
Form Acceptable, And Legally Sufficient, To The City Attorney And City Manager, And Further
Authorizing The City Attorney And City Manager To Take Such Further Actions As May Be Necessary
To Accomplish The Intent Thereof. (Page 31 1)
(Police Department)
C70 A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And The City Clerk To Execute Amendment No.
1 To The Agreement Between The City And Clear Channel Adshel, Inc. (Contractor) To Construct,
Operate And Maintain Bus Shelter Structures And Other Street Furniture Throughout The City,
Pursuant To Request For Proposals No. 107-99100; Said Amendment Exercising The City's Option
To Renew The Agreement For The First Five (5) Year Renewal Term, Commencing On November 1,
201 1, And Ending On October 31, 2016, With The Option To Renew For A Second Five Year
Renewal Term, At The City's Sole Option And Discretion; Increasing The Minimum Annual Guarantee
Payable To The City Throughout The Term; And Requiring Contractor To Submit A Proposal To The
City For The Development (Or Conversion Of Existing, As The Case May Be) Of A To Be Agreed
Upon Number Of LCD Bus Shelters Throughout The City, Which Will Be Developed, Designed,
Fabricated, Installed, Operated, And Maintained At Contractor's Sole Cost And Expense. (Page 31 5)
(Public Works)
C7P A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute Amendment No. 4 To
The Agreement Between The State Of Florida Department Of Community Affairs And The City Dated
November 24,2009, For The Allocation Of NSPl Funds; Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And
City Clerk To Execute Amendment No. 6 To The Related Agreement Between The City And Miami
Beach Community Development Corporation Dated January 21, 201 0, For The Allocation Of NSPI
Funds; Said Amendments To Allow The Draw Down Of Funds. (Page 331)
(Real Estate, Housing & Community Development)
C7Q A Resolution Adopting The City's One-Year Action Plan For Federal Funds For Fiscal Year
201 112012, Which Includes The Budgets For The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program And The Home Investment Partnership (Home) Program; Authorizing The City Manager To
Make Minor Non-Substantive Changes To The One-Year Action Plan Or Resulting Agreements
Before Execution (Which May Be Identified During The Finalization AndlOr Review Process, And
Which Do Not Affect The Purpose, Scope, Approved Budget AndlOr Intent Of The Plan); Authorizing
The City Manager To Extend The Expiration Dates Of Said Agreements When Necessary;
Authorizing The City Manager To Execute All Applicable Documents And Submit The One-Year
Action Plan To The U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development (HUD); Further
Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute Agreements For Sub-Recipients Of CDBG And
Home Funds; And Authorizing The Appropriation Of All Federal Funds When Received. (Page 339)
(Real Estate, Housing & Community Development)
Consent Agenda, July 13,201 1
C7 - Resolutions (Continued)
C7R A Resolution Authorizing A Substantial Amendment To The City's 2008 Action Plan To Reprogram
$80,600 Of Homeless Prevention And Rapid Re-Housing Program Funds To Reduce The Funding
From Program Staffing And Data Collection And Evaluation Costs, While Increasing The Funding For
Direct Financial Assistance Services To Eligible Homeless Clients; Further Authorizing The City
Manager To Execute All Contracts, Agreements And Amendments Necessary To Carry Out The
Above Program. (Page 389)
(Real Estate, Housing & Community Development)
C7S A Resolution Approving An Eight (8) Month Extension Of The Lease Between The City Of Miami
Beach, As Tenant, And Meridian Miami, LLC, As Landlord, For Approximately 5,311 Rentable Square
Feet Of Property, Located At 1680 Meridian Avenue, Suites 201 And 203, Miami Beach, Florida, For
Administrative Offices For The City's Fire Department; Said Extension Commencing On September 1,
201 1, And Expiring On April 30, 2012; Such Extension So As To Allow The Fire Department's
Administrative Staff To Remain In The Same Office Space Without The Disruption Of Moving Its
Office Twice In An Eight (8) Month Period. (Page 395)
(Real Estate, Housing & Community Development)
End of Consent Agenda
Presentations and Awards
Presentation By The United States Conference Of Mayors To The City Of Miami Beach
For Outstanding Achievement City Livability Award For The DecoBike Program.
(Requested by Mayor Matti Herrera Bower & City Manager's Office)
Certificates Of Recognition To Be Presented To The Winners Of The New Generation
Leadership & Workforce Institute Social Entrepreneurship Biz Plan Competition.
(Requested by Mayor Matti Herrera Bower)
Certificates Of Recognition To Be Presented To Sonia Bortolin, Becky Ritter And Tamra
Sheffman, For Participating In The June 15'~ - "201 1 All Women's Air Race Classic,"
Representing The City Of Miami Beach.
(Requested By Mayor Matti Herrera Bower)
Certificates Of Appreciation To Be Presented To Several Hotels, For Receiving The 1 7'h
Annual Inn Key Awards For Exceptional Employees.
(Requested by Mayor Matti Herrera Bower)
Certificate Of Recognition To Be Presented To The Class Of 201 1 Valedictorian And
Salutatorians Of Rabbi S. Gross (RASG) Hebrew Academy.
(Requested by Commissioner Jorge R. Exposito)
Certificate Of Recognition To Be Presented To The Mrs. Rosann Sidener Ed.D.,
Principal At Miami Beach Senior High School For The Summa Cum Laude Graduates Of
The Class Of 201 1.
(Requested by Commissioner Jorge R. Exposito)
Proclamation To Be Presented To Division Chief Bill Riley For His Years Of Service To
The City Of Miami Beach As An Employee Of The Police Department.
(Requested by Commissioner Jorge R. Exposito)
Certificates Of Appreciation To Be Presented To Participating Restaurants And Miami
Beach Senior High Students For Their Participation In Organizing The Dinner For Haiti
Fundraiser.
(Requested By Commissioner Michael Gongora)
Certificate Of Recognition To Be Presented To Las Olas Cafe And Owner For Their
Long Standing Contribution To The City Of Miami Beach.
(Requested By Commissioner Michael Gongora)
1 I Agenda Item PA 1- /8
1 Date 7-134
Presentations and Awards (Continued)
PA10 Certificate Of Recognition To Be Presented To Cynthia Aguilar, Miami Beach Lifeguard,
For Her Hard Work And Dedication In Raising Money For The Make-A-Wish Foundation.
(Requested by Commissioner Michael Gongora)
PA1 1 Certificate Of Recognition To Be Presented To Roberto Caneba, SeniorlParticipant In
UNIDAD1s Senior Placement Program And To Ana Sosa, Supervisor Of Big Brother And
Big Sister, EmployerIParticipant In UNIDADJs Senior Placement Program.
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
PA12 Certificates Of Recognition To Be Presented To The City Of Miami Beach Lady Sharks
Softball Team.
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
PA13 Certificate Of Recognition To Be Presented To Lifeguards JC Hernandez, Bill Geddes,
Daniel Martin, Richard McKinnon And Cynthia Aguilar.
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
PA14 Recognition And Brief Presentation On Full Re-Accreditation Of The Public Works
Department By Public Works Director Fred Beckmann.
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
PA15 Presentation By Heather Rohan, CEO Of Aventura Hospital And Medical Center.
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
PA16 Certificate Of Appreciation To Be Presented To Dr. Denis Rod For His Service To Miami
Beach Residents.
(Requested by Commissioner Jerry Libbin)
PA17 Proclamation To Be Presented For Swim Show Miami At The Miami Beach Convention
Center From July 16-1 9, 201 1.
(Requested by Commissioner Deede Weithorn)
PA1 8 Key To The City To Be Presented To Officer Richard Rios For His Military Service.
(Requested by Commissioner Jeny Libbin)
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Request For Approval To Reject Bids Received For lnvitation To Bid (ITB) No. 50-08109 - For Wastewater
System Improvements For The South Pointe Booster Pump Station.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
[ Ensure well-maintained infrastructure
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): I The 2009 Customer Satisfaction Survey indicated that 79% of businesses rated recently completed ( I capital improvement projects as "excellent" or "good."
Issue: 1 Shall the City Commission reject all bids? I
Item SummarylRecommendation:
I lnvitation to Bid (ITB) No. 50-08109 was issued on July 28, 2009, with an opening date of November 2, 1
2009. The pre-bid conference was held on August 7, 2009. During the pre-bid conference, prospective
bidders were instructed on the procurement process and the information their respective proposals should
contain. Bidsync issued bid notices to 3,140 prospective bidders of which 235 viewed the notice and
resulted in the receipt of the following three (3) bids:
Cardinal Contractors, Inc.
MCM-Garney JV
Poole & Kent Company of Florida
A Technical Review Panel did not meet for this project given the outcome of the Cost Benefit and Overflow
Frequency Analysis presented by CDM to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee on April 27, 201 1.
On December 9, 2009, LTC 348-2009 was issued notifying the City Commission of the project's
postponement based on a request by the Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department to potentially
modify the project's scope. Originally, Miami-Dade County's plan focused on having one (1) 54-inch
diameter sanitary sewer force main that would have required the construction of a booster pump station in
the South Pointe neighborhood. However, the modified proposal included having three (3) independently-
operating sewer force mains, two (2) 48-inch diameter pipes and one (1) 20-inch diameter reclaimed water
line, that would presumably alter the hydraulics of the City's sanitary sewer pumping system and cause a
significant reduction in pressure at the City's connection point to the County's transmission system. This
questioned the necessity of constructing the South Pointe Booster Pump Station and the City decided to
suspend the ITB process temporarily until the matter could be resolved.
At the April 27, 201 1, Finance and Citywide Projects Committee meeting, the Public Works Department
informed the Committee that due to the Wastewater Peak Flow Management Study conducted by CDM in
2009, which revised wastewater peak flows from 90 MGD to 70 MGD (a 22% reduction), the City had
instructed CDM to conduct a costlbenefit analysis and a sanitary sewer overflow frequency analysis to
provide the data needed to determine if the booster station should still be built. Based on CDM's findings,
the Administration recommended that the booster station not be constructed, the bids received pursuant to
ITB 50-08109 be rejected, and the project be de-funded, in addition to, deferring the ultimate decision to
construct to Miami-Dade Water and Sewer once it determines if it will increase the diameter of its force
main that serves the City.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
The Finance and Citywide Projects Committee concurred and voted in favor of the Administration's
AGEHDA ETEY C2A
DATE z.
I recommendation not construct the booster station, reject all bids received, and de-fund the project.
Financial information:
Approved Source of
Funds:
OBPl
Total NIA
1
Amount
NIA
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 C mission /"
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO R~~CT BIDS RECEIVED FOR INVITATION TO
BID (ITB) NO. 50-08109 - FOR WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE SOUTH POINTE BOOSTER PUMP STATION.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Reject all bids.
ANALYSIS
Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. 50-08109 was issued on July 28, 2009, with an opening date of
November 2, 2009. The pre-bid conference was held on August 7, 2009. During the pre-bid
conference, prospective bidders were instructed on the procurement process and the
information their respective proposals should contain. Bidsync issued bid notices to 3,140
prospective bidders of which 235 viewed the notice and resulted in the receipt of the following
three (3) bids:
Cardinal Contractors, Inc.
MCM-Garney JV
Poole & Kent Company of Florida
As a result, the following table provides the proposed lump sum bid prices of the three (3)
responsive bids:
A Technical Review Panel did not meet for this project given the,outcome of the Cost Benefit
and Overflow Frequency Analysis presented by CDM to the Finance and Citywide Projects
Committee on April 27, 201 1.
Contractor
Cardinal Contractors
Poole & Kent
MCM
On December 9, 2009, LTC 348-2009 was issued notifying the City Commission of the project's
postponement based on a request by the Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department to
potentially modify the project's scope (see Attachment A). Originally, Miami-Dade County's plan
focused on having one (1) 54-inch diameter sanitary sewer force main that would have required
the construction of a booster pump station in the South Pointe neighborhood. However, the
Rase >Bid$Rricr!
$12,764,522
$14,602,025
$15,962,025
Commission Memorandum - ITB-50-08/09 - South Pointe Booster Pump Station
July 13, 2011
modified proposal included having three (3) independently-operating sewer force mains, two (2)
48-inch diameter pipes and one (1) 20-inch diameter reclaimed water line, that would
presumably alter the hydraulics of the City's sanitary sewer pumping system and cause a
significant reduction in pressure at the City's connection point to the County's transmission
system. This questioned the necessity of constructing the South Pointe Booster Pump Station
and the City decided to suspend the ITB process temporarily until the matter could be resolved.
At the April 27, 201 1, Finance and Citywide Projects Committee meeting, the Public Works
Department informed the Committee that due to a Wastewater Peak Flow Management Study
conducted by CDM in 2009, which revised wastewater peak flows from 90 MGD to 70 MGD (a
22% reduction), the City had instructed CDM to conduct a costlbenefit analysis and a sanitary
sewer overflow frequency analysis (Attachment B) to provide the data needed to determine if
the booster station should still be built. Based on CDM's findings, the Administration
recommended that the booster station not be constructed, the bids received pursuant to ITB 50-
08/09 be rejected, and the project be de-funded, in addition to, deferring the ultimate decision to
construct to Miami-Dade Water and Sewer once it determines if it will increase the diameter of
its force main that serves the City. The Committee concurred and voted in favor of the
Administration's recommendation.
CITY MANAGER'S REVIEW .
Given CDM1s findings, the need to construct the booster station at this time is unnecessary.
Therefore, all bids received pursuant to ITB 50-08109 should be rejected.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission reject all bids received for
Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. 50-08109 - for wastewater system improvements for the South Pointe
Booster Pump Station.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - LTC 348-2009 - Postponement of Coast Guard Wastewater Booster
Pump Station Project
Attachment B - April 27, 201 1, Finance and Citywide Projects Committee Memorandum
T:\AGENDA\2011Uuly 13\Consent\lTB 50-08-09 - South Pointe Booster Pump Station - MEMO.docx
Commission Memorandum - lTB-50-08/09 - South Pointe Booster Pump Station
July 13, 20 1 1
ATTACHMENT A - LTC 348-2009 - POSTPONEMENT OF COAST GUARD WASTEWATER
BOOSTER PUMP STATION PROJECT
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
NO. LTC # '348-2009
RE C F f '!' :-. i..".
2009 DEC I 1 FM 4: 08
. .-' , . i,\ , ( I..' 1:i::'P *- - - 8,~L,if,, .J 01-f ILE
LETTER TO COMMISSION
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
. FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: December 10,2009
SUBJECT: Postponement of Coast Guard Wastewater Booster Pump Station Project
The purpose of this LTC is to update the Mayor and City Commission on the Coast Guard
Wastewater Booster Pump Station Project (CGWBPS), and a County proposed utility tunnel
under Government Cut that will replace an existing 54" sanitary sewer line running from
Miami Beach to Virginia Key.
Until December 9,2009, the Administration had been told repeatedly by Miami-Dade County
Water and Sewer Department (WASD) that a utility tunnel with three (3) pipes devoted to
sanitary sewer flow was to be the means to replace the existing 54" sewer line.
As indicated in the detailed background that follows, the planned utility tunnel could have
eliminated the need to build the CGWBPS. On December 9,2009, the City was notified by
WASD that the utility tunnel was to be temporarily abandoned and relocation of the 54"
sewer line only in Government Cut was to be pursued. It is unknown when and if the utility
tunnel would be undertaken.
The Administration has contacted WASD and the County Manager to seek additional
information to be able to assess the impacts of the change in construction plans. The
change may have an impact on the need for the CGWBPS. As soon as additional
information is developed, it will be provided to the Mayor and City Commission.
The following background information on the utility tunnel was developed prior to receiving
notice from WASD that their plans had changed.
BACKGROUND ON UTILITY TUNNEL
On September 25,2009, MDWASD requested an urgent meeting with City of Miami Beach
City Officials and the City's Coast Guard Wastewater Booster Pump Station (CGWBPS)
Engineer of Record, CDM, to present their revised connection point at the future CGWBPS.
The County felt the meeting was urgent as they had just finalized a design for the
replacement of the existing 54" sanitary sewer line and the design needed to be coordinated
with City plans for the CGWBPS.
It should be noted that in December 2008, CDM completed the final design of the CGWBPS.
The permitting of the same was completed in August 2009. When the Countyapproached
the City with a final Design Criteria preferred alternative in September 2009, the City had
already entered the bidding phase of the project.
The County design criteria package (DCP) for the future Govemment Cut Wastewater
Transmission Force Main Replacement Project(GCWTFRP), was awarded on December2,
2008, to the firm Earth-Tech Consulting, Inc. (now AECOM) by the County Board of
Commissioners. The scope of the design criteria package considered a variety of technical
services for a highly specialized tunnel project which included among other things the
development of a preferred alignment which required the coordination and assistance in
securing land rights with the communities of Fisher lsland and Miami Beach.
The proposed sanitary sewage pipeline was needed in order to replace the existing 54-inch
sewer force main pipeline which now lies in conflict with the proposed US Army Corp of
Engineen-Miami Harbor (Govemment Cut) Federal Dredging Project. This dredging project
is expected to take place in 201 3. As such, the proposed sanitary sewer force main pipeline
will need to be designed, constructed and placed into service prior to the decommissioning
of the existing pipeline prior to the start of the Miami Harbor (Govemment Cut) Federal
Dredging Project.
Given the County's urgent request to establish a connectivity point, both agencies
determined, at the September 25,2009 meeting, that it was in the best interest of all parties
that the City's CGWBPS project accommodates the County's GCWTFRP revised
connection. The connection change based on the new design and would now be at a future
tunnel shaft located adjacent to the future pump station footprint along Jefferson Avenue.
Attachment A illustrates the future shaft location with connection points as envisioned by the
County's Design Criteria Engineer.
It was also at this meeting that MDWASD revealed their final Design Criteria preferred
alternative, which included the proposed future tunnel alignment, as well as its internal
configuration. See Attachment B which illustrates the proposed future tunnel alignment, as
well as a typical cross section of the tunnel housing all the required force main pipeline and
conduits.
The proposed 12-foot diameter encased tunnel is comprised of precast reinforced concrete
segments housing the required sewer force mains and additional conduits ail encased in
grout. The County's original plan to intercept sewerflow via one (1) 54 inch diameter force
main was modified to three (3) independently-operating sewer force mains to convey
wastewater from the City of Miami Beach to the Central District Wastewater Treatment Plant
(CDWWTP) in Virginia Key. The original 54" hydraulic capacity requirement has now been
replaced by two (2) 48 inch diameter pipes. In addition, the County's Design Criteria
Engineer (AECOM) has proposed a third force main of 36-inches in diameter for future use,
as well as an additional 20-inch diameter reclaimed water line to return treated flow from the
CDWWTP back to Fisher Island and Miami Beach, as well as other empty conduits to be
used or to be leased at a later time.
Given the unpredicted and considerable increase in hydraulic capacity of the new design,
the Ci's consultant, CDM, immediately engaged in a subsequent hydraulic analysis to
evaluate the impacts to the City's wastewater conveyance system as a result of these
proposed modifications.
The hydraulic evaluation conducted by CDM eventually concluded that the proposed dual
48-inch diameter replacement sewer force mains proposed by MDWASD, would significantly
alter the hydraulics of the City's sanitary sewer pumping system, by causing a reduction in
pressure at the City's connection point to the MDWASD transmission system; hence
wamnting a reconsideration of the necessity to introduce an additional pumping system to
reduce pressures upstream. The Public Works Director and the City Engineer have
reviewed the hydraulic conclusions and concur with CDM's findings (see Attachment C).
In light of these findings, the City has requested that WASD provide a Letter of Agreement or
a Memorandum of Understanding, to be followed by a formal Interlocal Agreement, which in
principle will assure the City of Miami Beach that the preferred alternative of replacing the
existing 54-inch force main with dual 48-inch force main with an additional 36-inch force
main will remain consistent through the design-build phase of the Force Main Project and
that no significant deviations from the Design Criteria Package, as presented by AECOM
shall alter the derived hydraulics concluded by CDM, pursuant to the County's proposed
alternatives. The County has confirmed their intent to enter into a Letter of Agreement or
Memorandum of Understanding (see Attachment D). Based on the above, the City intends
to postpone the bid award and construction of the Coast Guard Wastewater Booster Pump
Station until such time the City and WASD have fully and successfully coordinated these two
important projects.
As the Commission was informed in a November 13,2009 LTC regarding the replacement
of the Government Cut Sewer Line, the City met with potentially affected residents on
Monday, November 16" at City Hall to discuss the project. City staff representatives were
also in attendance at a Wednesday, November 18~ meeting held by the County at Miami
Beach High School to discuss the project.
As a result of the two meetings, residents in the area have agreed to form an Ad Hoc
Committee titled "Sewage Tunnel Impact Committee" (STIC). The residents have agreed to
work collaboratively with the City to assure that resident and City needs are met as the
County Project proceeds. Among many questions which have been raised by residents and
by staff, a number have focused on the potential impacts of the projects construction in the
boundaries of the City of Miami Beach. Noise impacts, traffic impacts and business impacts
have all been raised as concerns for our residents. There are also concerns that have to do
with the system capacity and a guaranty from the County that if the future pump station is not
built the County will be responsible for any future additions and or modifications to the
system to handle the sewage flow from Miami Beach.
Attached is the most recent communication that was sent to Miami-Dade County that
indicates many of the areas of concern that need to be addressed for the utility tunnel
project. This e-mail has been shared with the STIC group and will be the subject of
discussion and a meeting to be held with STIC in the near future. When the date is set, the
Mayor and City Commission will be notified.
A concern has also been raised by residents as to the source for funds associated with the
sewer line replacement project. At present, the County is proposing to use funds
accumulated by WASD through connection fees and rates which would have the effect of
spreading the costs across all sewage users in Miami-Dade County. A question has been
raised as to whether or not the Port of Miami should pay some or all of the project costs as it
is related to the dredging of the Port and it may be possible for private investment to be used
to help offset some or all of the project costs. This question is one which will require the
assistance of the members of the City Commission to work directly with the Board of County
Commissioners if a change is to be made.
Attachment
SUBJECT G ~vervlyhed CuS
Pvel fmlhdr~ Tvvrnel Secfjoh
COMPUTED K. P1 aumahn DATE ,-%!&&
CHECKED DATE
BACKCHECKED DATE
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT NUMBER
Page - of - Pages
Attachment C
9 MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami BRCU~, Florida 331 39, www.niamibeuchR.gov
Interoffice Memorai.tdum
TO: Fred H. Beckmann, P.E., Public Works Director
FROM: Fernando A. Vazquez, P.E, City Engineer
DATE: October 28,2009
SUBJECT: CDM's Hydraulic Analysis of the Coast Guard Wasl:~mwater Booster
Pump Station and the newly proposed Government Cut Replacement Force
Main configuration,
Pursuant to our discussion, attached please find memo-andum of findings and
recommendations issued by CDM following a Hydraulic Analysis ctf the aforementioned pump
station in relationship to the newly proposed Government Cut Replacement Force Main
configuration.
In discussions with CDM, it is my professional opinion that CDM's fil'idings are conforming to the
hydraulic modifications of the Government Cut Replacement For= Main, presented by WASD
to the City of Miami Beach during our meeting of September 25,200.3.
Please let me know if you have any further questions andlor require additional information.
F:\workCGAU\(l) EMPLOYEE FOUIERSFERNANDO VAZQUEnCoast Guard i)ump Station\Coast Guard Pump
Station- CDM Hydraulic Analysis.doo:
BM) Brickell Avenue. hlte 500
Miami, Florida 33131
tel: 305 372-7171
fax: 305 372-9167
October 28,2009
Mr. Fernando Vhzquez, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach,. FL 33139
Subject: City of Miami Beach
Hydraulic Analysis of the Coast Guard Wastewater Booster Pump station and
the Government Cut Replacement Force Main (ITB 50-08-09)
Dear Mr. VBzquez:
The City of Miami Beach bansmits its wastewater to the Central District Wastewater
Treatment Plant (CDWWTP) through an existing 54-inch diameter force main under
Government Cut for treatment by the Miami Dade Water and Sewer Department
(MDWASD). Previous hydraulic analysis and studies determined that an inline Booster Pump
Station in the South Pointe neigl~horliood was recommended to adequately meet wastewater
transmission needs from the City of Miami Beach (City). Accordingly, the City completed the
design and permitting of the Coast Guard Booster Pump Station (CGBPS) and advertised on
August 27,2009 for receipt of coilstruction bids. Following is a recap offering a background to
the CGBPS,
The CGBPS project was formulated as part of the Water and Wastewater Pump Stations
Upgrades Prelimina~y Design project initiated in 1992. Based on tl~e findings of this project,
the City and CDM concul-red that the least disruptive and most economically feasible option
to meet the projected wastewater flows and subsequent Miami-Dade County Volume Sewer
Customer Ordinance (VSCO) requirements for the wastewater transmission system was to
construct a new booster yump station at the downstream end of the City's wastewater
transmission system. This approach was in lieu of performing the major structural and
electrical upgrades at six large existing yump stations locatednorth of Alton Road and SW 5th
Street. The new pumps installed under the recently completed Pump Stations Upgrades
Program were designed specifically to work in concert with a new booster station (e.g.
CGBPS) and therefore maintain stable discharge pressure conditions in the City's
transmission system. The Pump Stations Upgrades Program was successfully completed in
2006 leaving the CGBPS as the remaining component to the City's upgraded pumping station
improvements and wastewater transmission strategy.
consulting. engineering .construction. operations A
Mr. Fernando Vazquez, P.E.
October 28,2009
Page 2
Community meetings were held to discuss the aesthetics, performance and operation of the
proposed CGBPS. In November 2006, the City Design Review Board approved the current
design strategy for the CGBPS. In December 2008, CDM completed the hl design of the
CGBPS with permitting completed in August 2009. As previously mentioned, the project is
currently in its procurement for cons~uction bid phase.
On September 25,2009, MDWASD scheduled a meeting with the City to discuss their
Government Cut Wastewater ~~ansillission Force Main Replacement project. CDM attended
this meeting where representatives of the MDWASD and their consultant sought to
coordinate their project, seeking replacement of the existing 54-inch diameter force main used
by the City to transmit flows to tl~e CDWWTP, with the bidding of the CGBPS. At this
meeting, it was established that it was in the best interest of all parties that the CGBPS project
accommodate the Gove~nment Cut tie-in connection. It was at this meeting that MDWASD
indicated that they are proposing two parallel 48-inch diameter pipes and one 36-inch
diameter pipe on Jefferson Avenue in lieu of a 5Pinch diameter line, similar to the existing
conditions. MDWASD intex~ds to issue a design/build request for qualifications and request
for proposal around April 2010 and October 2010, respectively for their project. It was also
discussed that MDWASD would reimburse the City for associated costs to re-design and
construct modified force main tie-in to the CGBPS.
Subsequently, MDWASD sent a letter to the City on September 28,2009 indicating their intent
to develop and enter into an inter-local agency agreement for coordination between the City
of Miami Beach CGBPS and the MDWASD1s Gove~ment Cut Replacement FM projects. On
October 21,2009, MDWASD accepted CDM's scope of services to perform engineering
services for the a) hydraulic ai~alysis and b) design modifications associated with the
proposed multiple force at the coiu~ection poult to the existing 54-inch diameter line at
the CGBPS site.
Hydrarrlic Analysis
The l~ydraulic evaluation focused on determining the interrelationship between the City's
wastewater transmission system, pumping units, and the newly proposed tie-in condition of
the CGBPS to-the MDWASD project. Our analysis so far indicates that the proposed dual 48-
inch diameter replacement force mains and the alternate operational condition of &inch and
36-indl diameter replacement force mains proposed by MDWASD sigruficantly alters the
hydraulics of the City's manifolded pumping system, including the CGBPS, by reducing
pressure (i.e head loss) at the City's coiu~ection point to MDWASD's transmission system.
Mr. Fernando Vdzquez, P.E.
October 28,2009
Page 3
Design Modificatiorts
CDM is proceeding witl~ design revisions to the CGBPS drawings to provide a connection
point for the three proposed force mains that accommodate MDWASD's proposed conceptual
Government Cut FM Project. Tlle design drawing revisions will be completed in time for the
current bid closure of November 3,2009.
It is our understanding that the City has not yet received the inter-local agreement from
MDWASD committing to the design or construction of the proposed replacement force
mains. CDM recommends that the City obtain a formal agreement from MDWASD regarding
their commitment to pipe sizing, tunnel location, and construction schedule of the proposed
force mains. With this forinal collunitment, the City will be able to appropriately assess the
criticality of the construction of the CGBPS.
Based on the above developments, tlle City is faced with several options at this time that
includes the following:
Postponing or extending the bid period for approximately six months.
Receive bids per tl~e advertised schedule. However consider extending the period for
Acceptance or Rejection of Bids from 90 days to 180-210 days.
Cancel the bid until formal commitments are made between the City and MDWASD.
In the meantime, CDM advises tile City to continue discussions with MDWASD in an effort to
make the most informed long-term decision regarding the CGBPS. Furthermore, these
discussioils will support tl~e City's responsibility to provide adequate sewer collection and
transmission capacity pursuant to Chapter 24 Section 24-42.2 of the Miami-Dade County
Code of Ordinances.
Mr. Fernando Vhzquez, P.E.
October 28,2009
Page 4
Should you have any questions or need =my further assistance, please contact us.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
JAJ/ys
File: 9381-73797-009
cc: Fred Beckmann, P.E., CMB
Charles Cai~eio, P.E., CMB
Hiram Siaba, CMB
OCT-29-2009 THU 12: 41 PM E, VEGA PSST, DIRECTOR FAX NO, 786 552 8637
Attachment D
Vega, Eduardo A. {WASD)i -
From:
bent:
'To:
Cc:
Subject;
Vega, Eduardo A (WASD)
Thursday, October 29,2009 750 AM
'Beckmann, Fred'
Vazqusz,'Femando; Carreno, Charles; Hemstreet, Tim; Arrebola, VIeente (WASD);
Fernanda-Cuewo, Victor (WASD); Leu, Sm C. (WASD); Renfmw, John {WASD)
RE: REPLACEMENT OF WINCM FORCE MAIN
I am glad to hear from you. Your yesterdey e-mail accurately describe the telephone conversation we hadTuesday
afternoon. Hereby, I am mnflrming that WID-WASD1s request for a two-48-inch and one-36-inch tie-In connections to the
proposed City of Miami Beach Coast Guard Boaster Pump Station Is the final determination from this Department. We
wlll atso paid the designer consultant (CDM) and selected construction contractor the fees associated with the
implementation of this tie-in connection requirement needed for the replacement of the existing 54-inch force main
serving Miami Beach and other northern municipal governments. At this time, I am requesting MD-WASD staff to stan
preparing the Letter of Agreement of Memorandum of ~~re'ernent necessary to legally execute this understanding
between the CMB and MPWASD.
t trust the aforementioned language satisfy your immediate requirement. At this time, I would like to express my most
sincere gratitude to you and Clty'.~ staff for the patlence you have shown in collaborating with our Department in the
Implementation of the proposed Urility Tunnel across Government Cut and Norris Cut.
Best regards,
Eduardo A. Vega,'P.E.
Assistant Director - Engineering and Capital Improvements
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department
3671 SW 38 Avanue Miami, Florida 33146
786-552-81 03 Phone 786-552-8637 Fax
w.miamidade.aov~sd1home.asp
?Delivering Excellence Every Dayn
--.--n.--.--.--.. --.- -.-.--",-----"-.--.-----
-From: Bedmrenn, Fred [mei~:FredBadunann@mlamlbeacM1.gov]
-Sew Wednesday, October.28, .2009 5:18 PM
70: Vega, Muardo A, (WASD)
.Cc: Vazquez, Fernando; Carreno, CharlB; Hem5ttW;Tlm
Subjech REPLACEMENT OF 54-INCH FORCE MAIN
As discussed yesterday, pleaee confirm that WASD will replace the existing Winch force main. with 2-48-inch and 7-36.
inch force mains that will be avallableta senrice sewer flows fmm Miami Baa& to the Vtrginia Keys Treatment Plant.
We request that WASD agrees to executing a Letter of Agreement or a Memorandum of Understanding essuring the City
of Miami Beach that the existing 54-inch fome main will be replaced with 2481nch and I-35inch force mains.
Please call me if you have any questions; cell: 786.412.8683
Thanks.
MIAMIBEW@BQ
Precl H. 6- P-Em, DIRECTOR
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FI 33139
Tel: 306.679,7080 1 Fax: 786.384.5472 1 m.m-
Commission Memorandum - I TB-50-08/09 - South Pointe Booster Pump Station
July 13, 201 1
ATTACHMENT B - APRIL 27, 2011, FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE
MEMORANDUM
[PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
City of Miami Beach, 7700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florido 331 39, www.miamibea~hfl.~ov
TO:
COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: April 27, 201 1
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Reject all Bids for the Coast Guard Wastewater Booster Pump
Station Project.
BACKGROUND
In 1989, the City developed a Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan. This plan included a city wide
wastewater peak flow projection of 90 million gallons per day (MGD). The 90 MGD peak flow
.projections were predicated on the highest and best use build out of the City as it was zoned
back then, and on a positive economic ouflook for the decade.
The Coast Guard Wastewater Booster Pump Station CGWBPS was originariy 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. Other elements of the
plan included mqchanical, structural, and. electrical upgrades to all wastewater pump stations
throughout the City collection system.
The City completed the scheduled infrastructure upgrades of all the wastewater pump stations
with the exception of the construction of the CGWBPS in 2008. On July 28, 2009, the City
issued Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. 50-08109 with an opening date of November 2, 2009 for the
contmction of CGWBPS. Bidsync issued bid notices to 3,140 prospective bidders which resulied
in the receipt of three bids:
Cardinal Contractors, Inc. $12,764,522
MCM-Gamey JV $1 5,962,025
Poole & Kent Company of Florida disqualified
At the time the CGWBPS was out to bid in 2009, the City initiated a Wa,stewater 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 utiiity
systems.
To address this 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 (Attachment A) to provide the data needed to determine if the CGWBPS should still be
built. The cost benefit analysis compares the estimated cost of building the CGWBPS with the ' increased operation and maintenance costs on the wastewater system if it is 'not built. The
LTC - Coast Guard Wastewater Booster Pump Station
April 27,2011
Page 2 of 2
overflow 'frequency analysis predicts the likelihood of an overflow with and without the
CGWBPS.
ANALYSIS \
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 overflow frequency analysis evaluated the additional capacity that would be provided by the
CGWBPS and its ability to reduce the frequency and volume of sewage overflows. It was
estimated that the sanitary sewer system would have an overflow about once every two years
without the CGWBPS and once every ten years with the CGWBPS. Without the CGWBPS,
each overflow is expected to average about 2.7 million gallons (MG). Wiih the CGWBPS, each
overflow is expected to average about 0.4 MG. I
Based on this analysis the financial impact on City coffers to construct the CGWBPS is
$9,164,522 (initial capital cost less expected increased operating cost for the system without the
booster station), From an operational-and regulatory standpoint, over the expected useful life of
the CGVVBPS, the volume of wastewater overflows would be reduced from 67.5 MG to 2.0 MG.
However, this analysis is predicated on a worst case scenario condition. in practice, during the
past five years, after the upgrades to the two Wastewater Booster Pump Stations at 63d Street
and 2~~~ Street were compfeted, the City has not had a single sanitary sewer overflow incident.
In light of the recent force main failure at Harding Avenue and 7fS' Street, it should be noted that
a benefit to constructing the CGWBPS would be a resulting reduction in system wide pressures
throughout the City's force main network. Hydraulic modeiing predicts that systems pressures
would be reduced by an average of 52% (from a maximum of 46 psig to 22 psig). The reduction
in system pressure could potentially reduce the risks of future pipe failures in our aging force
main network and extend the useful iife of the pipe system. The Public Works Department has
commissioned our wastewater engineers to pefionn a force main condition investigation and
operational evaluation. We will include this consideration in finalizing fhat report.
The Miami-Dade Wafer 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 CGVVBPS.
CONCLUSlON
The Administration recommends fhat the CGWBPS not be built at this time, that the bids should
no longer be held, and that the project should be de-funded. Further, it is recommended that the
ultimate decision to construct be deferred until such time as'WASD determines if it will increase
the diameter of its forcernain that serves the City.
Attachment:
M Report - CGWBPS Cost Benefi and Ovemow Analysis
JGGID "' hk~ B
F:\WORK\$ALL\(~)EMPLOYEE FOLDERSWDA DR~TC\Coast~Guanl Booster Pump Station (?).dOcX
800 Brickell Avenue, Suite 500
Miami. Florida 331 31
tel: 305 372-7171
fax: 305 372-9167
December 7,2010
Mr. Fernando Vazquez, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Subject: Coast Guard Booster Pumping Station (CGBPS)
Cost Benefit and Overflow Frequency Analysis
Final Letter Report
Dear Mr. Vazquez:
CDM presents the cost-benefit and overflow frequency analysis developed to aid the City of
Miami Beach (the City) ~II considering complementary decision factors to the sigruficance of
proceeding with the construction of the CGBPS. This letter report is organized to present a
background of the City's wastewater transmission system improvements, the methodology
used to calculate the costs and benefits of the system with and without the CGBPS, the
process used to perform long term analysis of the manifolded pumping station trm~srnission
system to determine the level of protection from sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) with and
without the CGBPS, and lastly to provide considerations based on econonucs and system
hydraulics.
1.0 Background
As part of the design of the Water and Wastewater Pump Statiot~s Upgrades Preliminary
Design in 1992-1993, the City began the process of making sipficant upgrades to its
wastewater transmission system based on the flows developed ~II the Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan prepared by the City of Miami Beach Planning m~d Zoning Department
(October 1989). One major purpose of the in~provements was having adequate capacity in t11e
wastewater pumpii~g stations to handle peak flow conditions without overflows.
The computerized hydraulic model originally developed by CDM in 1994 and updated in
March 2001 was used as the base model for the wastewater pump station improvements. This
model was originally developed as a tool to predict design conditions for pumping
equipment based on future flows developed by the City's Planning and Zoning Department.
These Comprehensive Plan flow values were provided to CDM as the basis for the predicted
consulting .engineering .construction .operations
Mr. Fernando Vazquez, P.E.
December 7,2010
Page 2
future growth and wastewater generation of the City, and subsequently used to select the
equipment to meet the expected future operating conditions at each pumping station. The
results of that analysis were published in a document titled Appendix A - Technical
Memorandum, Hydraulic Modeling of The City of Miami Beach Wastewater Force Main
System, (CDM, April 1994), and included as part of the Water Master Plan for the City of
Miami Beach (CDM 1994).
Based on the results presented in the teclmical memorandum an alternative for an "in-line
booster" station was delineated and recommended to be constructed at a later time
(depending on actual flow increases) on the 54-inch diameter force main (FM) South of 3rd
Street (i.e. CGBPS). The alternative was proposed in lieu of having to implement sigruficant
modifications to five pump stations (PS Nos. 1,10,11,28D, and 31) downstream of PS 28B in
order to comply with the Miami-Dade of Environmental Resources Management (DERM)
Volume Sewer Customer Ordinance (VSCO) requirements. These significant improvemei~ts
would have required major electrical and mechanical modifications under space-limited
conditions.
The booster pump station option provided the City with the benefits of greater operational
flexibility and lower force main pressures throughout the entire manifolded force main
transmission system resulting in decreased operation and maintenance costs, and additional
reserve transmission capacity for potential future increases in wastewater flow. As such, each
upstream pumping station on the force main manifold was re-designed and upgraded to
work in concert with the proposed booster station, allowing uniformity of all of the
equipment (e.g. pumps, drives, motors, controls), increased safety of the operators, and
allowing the selected equipment to fit within the property boundaries of the existing
structures.
In July 2001, CDM developed a Technical Memorandum titled Analysis of tke Impact of No
South Pointe (e.g. CGBPS) Wastewater Booster Pump Station of the Wastewater Transmission
system. This report concluded that as of the Year 2000, the predicted Comprehensive Plan
flows for the wastewater transmission system had not been observed, but the predicted peak
flows developed from the Comprehensive Plan cannot be met without the addition of the
CGBPS. Additionally, the report concluded that witl~ the CGBPS, the system would have
capacity to serve the entire collection system during peak flow conditions without over-
reliance on the storage attenuation in the collection system. The City proceeded with the
implernentatio~~ of the Wastewater Pump Station Upgrades Program including mechanical,
structural, and electrical renovations. The citywide program with the exception of the CGBPS
Mr. Fernando Vazquez, P.E.
December 7,2010
Page 3
was completed in 2008. The CGBPS design and permitting was completed in August 2009 and
subsequently advertised for receipt of constructiol~ bids in October 2009.
In September 2009, the City, as part of the compliance with the Volume Sewer Customer
Ordinance (VSCO), submitted to Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources
Management (DERM), the Peak Flow Management Study, which incorporated actual
monitored flows from 2006 to evaluate the performance of the wastewater pumping stations
and transmission system under a 2-year peak flow condition. This report transitioned the
transmission system evaluation from the use of the estimated Year 2000 Comprehensive Man
projected flows to actual flows collected using flow monitors installed on the sanitary sewer
system. In comparing the projected peak flows utilizing the comprehensive plan and actual
flows monitored in 2006, the peak flows were reduced from the Comprehensive Plan
projected 90 MGD to 70 MGD, the current design capacity of the CGBPS. This report
demonstrated that during the specified 2-year peak flow, the City's pumping stations could
handle the DERM defined flow condition, yet the stations did not operate within their
targeted Best Efficiency Point (BEP).
Prior to proceeding with the award of the CGBPS conkact for construction, the City's Capital
Improvement Project Oversight Committee (CIPOC) requested that the City's Public Works
Department engage CDM ~II quantifying the variances in operation and maintenance cost of
the manifolded pumping station system and documenting the additional level of protection
from sanitary sewer overflows provided with and without the constructioi~ of the CGBPS.
This letter report discusses the level of service evaluation based on the following:
le The development of costs and benefits of having the CGBFS versus existing operation of
the wastewater transmission system witl~out the CGBPS; and
ea The evaluation of the frequency of sewer overflows due to stor~n events based on the
existing operation of the transmission system in comparison to the overflow frequency
associated with the transmission system with the additional capacity of the CGBPS.
2.0 Cost-Benefit Analysis
To verify the economic suitability of constructing the CGBPS, CDM developed an analytical
tool for evaluating the current operation and maintenance (O&M) practices and costs. This
tool enables the City to evaluate current and projected aru1ua1 costs associated with O&M of
the bansmission system with and without the CGBE.
Mr. Fernando Vazquez, P.E.
December 7,2010
Page 4
The analytical tool assesses the O&M practices to verify the premise of implementing the
CGBPS project. With the construction of the CGBPS, the City would install the maximum
possible booster design total head, minimizing increases in power requirements for the five
pump stations, maintain the existing installed horsepower (HP) at PS 1, and minimize
mechanical modifications at the remaining stations.
CDM tested this theorem based on the review and evaluation of historical O&M data. CDM
collected the following information:
s Historical operational cost data for the wastewater transmission system from 1999-2009,
w Monthly operational times (e.g. hours) for the pumping stations for the past 12 months,
81 Monthly energy usage for the pumping stations for the past 12 months,
a Aru~ual maintenance and repair costs for the pumping stations for the past two years, and
s The utility power rate cost structures applied to the pumping stations.
Based 011 this data, CDM developed a spreadsheet model that summarizes O&M costs, energy
usage, and estimates the carbon footprint of the system with and without the CGBPS. O&M
costs for the CGBPS are based on the O&M practices outlined in the January 2007 South
Pointe Wastewater Booster Station Preliminary Design Report.
The results of the scenario of the individual pumping stations wid1 the CGBPS indicate
sigruficant annual operational savings benefits are realized and are further detailed in the
following section.
2.1 Short-Ternz Operational Savings Analysis
Annual operational costs are projected based on the pumping stations rumkg for the
average runtime submitted monthly by the City to the DERM in compliance with the VSCO.
The amount of total dynamic head was projected from the City's DERM-approved Peak Flow
Management Study hydraulic model. The estimated Kilowatt hour (kwh) costs are based on
the average kilowatt hour rate paid by the City in accordance with data received from Florida
Power and Light.
The operational data is based on I1 of the 14 pumping stations collected between 2009 and
2010. The remaining five pumping statioi~s are submersible lift stations. In reviewing the
KM3084 LtrRpt docx
Mr. Fernando Vazquez, P.E.
December 7,2010
Page 5
collected data from the reported submersible stations, similar operating trends were observed
and could be projected for these unreported stations.
CDM evaluated the carbon footprint of the City's pumping statioi~s based on the "Carbon
Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electrical Power in the United States" established
ill July 2000 by the Department of Energy. The carbon dioxide pounds were the average of
Coal Fire, PetroIeum Fire and NaturaI Gas Fire Electrical Production.
Table 2-1 shows system efficiencies through the peak Row operation of the CGBPS. The City
will be afforded an annual energy cost savings of approximately 23.6 percent with the CGBPS.
The estimated use of the CGBPS results in a 22.6 percent reduction in energy based on current
operational practices. Additionally, the use of the CGBPS reduces the City's pumping station
system carbon footprint by approximately 22.6 percent. Realizing this reduction would be
beneficial in terms of helping to meet Miami-Dade County's goal of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions countywide, in keeping with the County's participation in the Cool Counties
program, which will entail an alliance with muiucipal governments such as the City, and with
other institutions. These countywide development efforts are being coordinated by the
County's Office of Sustainability, as noted specifically in Recome~~dation Bll of the report
titled Status of Recommendations- August 2010 by the County's Chate Change Task Force
(http://~~ww.rniamidade.gov/derm/climatechange/ librarylccatf-2010-q3.pdf).
2.2 Long-Tern1 Constncction Cost Investment Analysis
Based on the calculated current operational costs with and without the CGBPS, CDM
compared the difference in O&M costs with and without the CGBPS over the next 50 years,
the typical design life for a pumping station. CDM calculated the difference between the
O&M costs presented in Table 2-1 and projected them through 2050. CDM took the difference
presented in 2010 over the first 5-years of station life, then from 2015 through the next 5-years
and the 2020 difference through the final 40-years . The analysis indicated that over the 50-
year life cycle of the CGBPS, the City will save an estimated $3.6M in O&M expenses. The
submitted apparent low bid pricing and associated construction management costs are
estimated at approximately 514 million. Based on the coIlectecl. O&M information in contrast
with the CGBPS cost, the operational efficiencies result in a 510.4M short fall in offsetting the
capital investment.
Mr. Fernando Vazquez, P.E.
December 7,2010
Page 6
3.0 Hydraulic Analysis
3.1 Model Development
CDM developed a hydrologic and hydraulic model to simulate the individual sanitary
coIIection system overflow frequency of each of the City's sanitary sewer basins associated
with individual pumping stations. The model was developed utilizing the City's sanitary
sewer GIs-database interfaced with EPA's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) for
precipitation data assessment and rapid long-term urban flow simulation. Hourly
precipitation data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) for Miami International
Airport (COOP ID 085663) was used as input to the model.
The volumetric representation of the gravity sanitary sewer system was developed based on
the subdivided sewershed flows to their respective pumping stations. During the model runs,
simulated storm events would trigger the modeled pumps based on the settings representing
on/off pump settings. To simulate this collection and pumping in the model, flow from each
basin was routed to a pumping station with its specified pumping capacity. Control rules are
defined by the pump operational curves for each pump when system flow meets a minimum
flow required for activation.
Groundwater seepage into the system was also included in the model to simulate infiltration.
Seasonal adjustments were made to the infiltration parameters with the base flow established
from field data gathered in 2006 during the sanitary sewer evaluation survey (SSES) .
3.2 Model Validation
The model was validated based on the July 16,2006 storm event, which is the same event
used for calibration of the City's DERM-approved Peak Flow Management Study. Calibration
plots are provided as an appendix to this letter report. The total flow represented in the
hydraulic model is within one percent of the results from July 16 baseline event.
3.3 Long Tenn Sirnzilation
The long-term model scenarios were evaluated with and without the CGBPS. The model was
analyzed utilizing a 58-year period of available rainfall data from the NCDC to determine the
average number of days per year that peak flows and daily discharges exceed pumping
stations operational thresholds. The discharges exceeding the pumping thresholds and
exceeding the volumetric representation of the collection system represent sewer overflows.
Based on the simulation without the CGBPS, overflow statistics were developed.
Table 3-1 shows the locations and overflow statistics for the period of 1950 to 2007 without
the CGBPS in operation.
Mr. Fernando Vazquez, P.E.
December 7,2010
Page 7
Table 3-1 Overflow Statistics for Continuous Simulation from 1950 to 2007 without CGBPS
The results indicate that throughout the 58-year simulation period, in absence of the CGBPS
11 of the City's sanitary sewer basins experienced sanitary sewer overflows beyond the
capacity of the pumping stations and the collection system, resulting in a total of over 78
million gallons of overflow over the course of 65 days. The total duration in hours quantifies
the duration in summed over each day of the sirnulation where the pumping stations or
collection system exceeded their capacity. The duration of overflows is the number of days
an overflow occurred during the simulation period. Duration days are counted regardless of
the lei~gth of an overflow event in hours. The simulation results also confirm the results of the
Peak Flow Management Study conducted in September 2009 where it was concluded that the
system under its current operation provides a 2-year level of service (i.e., an overflow event
occurring approximately once every two years, on the average).
CDM reviewed model analysis for the 2-year design storm with and without the CGBPS.
Force main pressures immediately downstream of PS 28 drop from 46 psi without CGBPS to
22 psi with CGBPS, a 52 percent reduction. This reduction in pressure has a positive hydraulic
effect on all of the pump stations and force mains upstream of CGBPS.
Mr. Fernando Vazquez, P.E.
December 7,2010
Page 8
Table 3-2 shows the locations and overflow statistics for the period of 1950 to 2007 with the
CGBPS in operation.
Table 3-2 Overflow Statistics for Continuous Simulation from 1900 to 2007 with CGBPS
The results indicate that tliroughout the 58-year simuIation period four of the City's sanitary
sewer basins were less prone to salutary sewer overflows beyond the capacity of the pumping
stations and the collection system, resulting in a total of over 2 million gallons of overflow
over the course of 11 days. The results show that the overall level of service for the system
with the CGBPS in operation under current operational parameters provides a 10-year level of
service, five times that of the system without the CGBPS.
4.0 Findings
Based on the benefit-cost and hydraulic analysis the following findings are presented:
The estimated annual electrical savings in the pump station system with the CGBPS results
in a 22 percent reduction based on current operational practices.
ss The implementation of the CGBPS is estimated to reduce the City's pumping station
system carbon footprint by approximately 22 percent. Such a reduction would be consistent
with the previously discussed County objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in
concert with muiucipalities and other institutions.
The annual operating savings from the operation of the CGBPS are estimated as $3.6M over
the prospected 50-year life span of the CGBPS. This in conbast to the $14M capital
investment in the CGBPS indicates that the economics of the coi~truction of the CGBPS is
Mr. Fernando Vazquez, P.E.
December 7,2010
Page 9
marginal; however, the reduction in carbon footprint (discussed earlier) and the reduction
~II wastewater overflows (discussed below) are important non-monetary considerations.
The City's wastewater transmission and collection system under its current operation
without CGBPS provides a 2-year level of service.
The forcemain network experiences a 50 percent decrease in system pressure with the
CGBPS online during a 2-year storm event.
m The level of service for the wastewater transmission and collection system with the CGBPS
improves to a 10-year level of service, a fivefold improvement over the system without the
CGBPS.
With the CGBPS, the volume of overflows is reduced by a factor of 34, and the duration of
overflows is reduced by a factor of approximately 10.
The results of this analysis confirm CDM's 1994 and 2001 analysis that the CGBPS provides
benefits of greater operationaI flexibility for the City and lower force main pressures
throughout the entire system resulting in decreased operation and maintenance costs,
reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and additional reserve transmission capacity for future
increases in wastewater flow. The environmental benefits in terms of reduced overflows
frequency and quantity or duration are significant.
The final determi~~ation whether to construct CGBPS is a decision of level of service ~II
comparison to cost. CDM has confirmed that based on observed conditions, flows are below
those predicted UI the Comprehensive Plan. The booster station would be required if the
flows begin to reflect those noted in the Comprehensive Plan.
The City must determine whether the capital investment of $14M is warranted based
improving health and safety beyond the regulatory requirements imposed by the County,
State and EPA, of wluch the City is currently compliant.
5.0 Additional Considerations
Other factors should be considered by the City to determine whether to proceed with the
construction of the CGBPS.
Mr. Fernando Vazquez, P.E.
December 7,2010
Page 10
5.1 Miarni-Dade Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD) Utility Tirnnel Project
During the bidding phase for the CGBPS, MDWASD initiated the preliminary engineering
phase regarding the replacement of the existing 54-inch diameter force main between Miami
Beach, Fisher Island, and the Central District Wastewater Treatment Plant (CDWWTP) on
Virginia Key. In December 2010, MDWASD will evaluate bids from contractors regarding the
construction of the replacement force main. It is anticipated that MDWASD will finalize
selection and initiate negotiations with a contractor to begin construction of the replacement
force main in the first quarter of 2011,
CDM recommends that tl~e City defer final decision of the consbuction of the CGBPS until it
is confirmed by the contractor whether the existing 54-inch diameter force main wilI be
replaced by a larger diameter force main. As discussed in the November 2009 letter report
"Hydraulic Analysis of the Coast Guard Wastewater Booster Pump Station and the
Government Cut Replacement Force Main", a larger diameter force main will reduce
pressures and improve the operation efficiencies of the existing pumping stations resulting in
no need to construct the CGBPS.
While MDWASD has noted their intention to proceed with a 54-inch diameter replacement
force main, it may be possible that the next larger standard (i.e. 60-inch) diameter main is
constructed. Final recommendation regarding the construction of the CGBPS should take this
into consideration.
5.2 Existing 30- and 42-inch Diarneter Force Mains
Beyond the capital investment and operation and maintenance costs to the pumping stations,
the City manages and operates an aging wastewater transmission force main network. Based
on the design of the transmission system, failure of the force mains will require emergency
action by the City to minimize health and safety concerns to the public.
The main 30- and 42-inch diameter force mains, which were mostly constructed in the 1930s
and 1960s, will likely require rehabilitation and/or replacement within the next 20 years
regardless of the decision to construct the CGBPS. University research has bee11 developed
noting tl~at force main pressures influence the life span of a force main. However, this
influence as would be experienced with the CGBPS is insigruficant in relationship to internal
and external corrosion that naturally occurs. CDM recommends that a condition assessment
of the force mains be performed regardless of the decision on the construction of the CGBPS.
The condition assessment will enable the City to project when and what extent of the force
main network requires rehabilitation or replacement, Proper protection of this asset is as
Mr. Fernando Vazquez, P.E.
December 7,2010
Page 11
important to the operation of the sewer system in Miami Beach as the management of the
pumps.
CDM trusts that the analyses and results offer additional factors for consideration for the City
to determine whether the increased leveI of service provided with the CGBPS offers sufficient
environmental and operational benefits to the wastewater transmission system to warrant the
constructio~~ of the facility.
Very truly yours,
rincipal /
Dresser & McKee Inc.
Enclosure: Table 2-1
File: PW 9381-78398.03.11
cc: Fred H. Beckmaim, P.E. with encl.
Mike Alvarez, CPC with el-tcl.
Table 2-1 Cost Analysis for the Coast Guard Booster Pump Station
(1) Kilowan hour cost is the average kilowatt hour paid based on a data received from Florida Power and Light and is based on a
(31 The average pump hours are derived from data obtained from the City of Miami Beach Public Works Department and is based on the
averaging of 14 of 16 pump station run hours.
(4) Costs are projected based on all the pump stations running for the average runtime indicated above, the amount of total dynamic head
projected from the hydraulic model Table 1 and the estimated kWh costs based on previous operalionaf power costs.
(5) The Energy is baaed on kilowatt hours that are estimated off the average run times and the amount of total dynamic head projected
from the hydraulic model Table 1. The TDH was obtained from Table 6-2 of the Modsling of Sewer System Capacity Peak FLOW
Management Study
(6) The carbon foot print was based on Ule EPA national Stands "Carbon Dioxide Emissions fmm Ihe Generatton of Electrical Power in the
United States" July 2000 from the Department of Energy. The CO' pounds were the average of Coal Fire, Petroleum Fire and Natural Gas
Fire Eleclrical Production.
(7) No personnel is expected to bn added to City of Miami Beach Operalional Division support the CGBPS.
Salaries are projected to increase by 3% each year do to cost of living
Note: Merit raises and overtime are not included in this burden of Labor Projection
(8) Data obtained from the City of Miami Beach proposed 201012011 budget
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
Price (GMP) Amendment For The Par 3 Golf Course Project. 1
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 "excellentn or
"good." I
Issue:
Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the issuance of the RFQ?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
The Scope of the work is to provide all materials, labor, equipment, supervision, mobilization, overhead & 1
profit required to redevelop the City's nine hole Par 3 golf course located on Miami Beach, Florida. The
Par 3 is bounded by Prairie Avenue on the west, W. 28th Street on the north, Pine Tree Drive on the east,
and Miami Beach Senior High School, the Public Works Yard and the Hebrew Academy on the south.
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 (CDs), and to deliver the Project to
the City at or below the GMP and within the Contract time.
On June 1, 201 1, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 201 1-27677 formally approving
the Par3 project Master Plan in concept as per the scope delineated above with a recommendation by the
City Commission that the concept plan be submitted to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee for
approval prior to finalizing construction plans for the project. The Administration is taking into
consideration the concerns expressed by the Bayshore Homeowner's Association, the Bayshore
residents, and Commissioner Exposito regarding the preservation of the Par-3 green space and will be
working with the design consultants to provide a plan that incorporates the elements in the scope of
services in a manner which maximizes the green space to the degree that is feasible and acceptable. The
Project's scope of services stated herein does not preclude any further determination by the City and shall
be subject to the final approval by the aforementioned committees. The Contractor's scope of services
shall be modified accordingly to meet these requirements.
The Project Team, consisting of the Owner (City), Design Professional and CMR will 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 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.
DATE 7#/3-//
APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF THE RFQ. I
4dvisory Board Recommendation:
NIA
'inancia1 Information:
Source of
Funds:
OBPl I Total
Financial Impact Summary: NIA
Zity Clerk's Off'ice Legislative Tracking:
Account 1 Amount
1 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
00(
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO k'- I SUE 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 PAR 3 GOLF
COURSE PROJECT.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve issuance of the RFQ.
PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of the work is to provide all materials, labor, equipment, supervision, mobilization,
overhead and profit required to redevelop the City's nine-hole Par-3 golf course located in Miami
Beach, Florida. The Par-3 is bounded by Prairie Avenue on the west, West 28th Street on the
north, Pine Tree Drive on the east, and Miami Beach Senior High School, the Public Works
Yard and the Hebrew Academy on the south. The scope of work for this project consists of but
is not limited to the following:
1. Eradication of existing turf using applications of Round-up as defined for areas shown on
the turf eradication plan.
2. Removal of invasive tree and shrub vegetation identified on the tree removal plan.
3. Renovation / Construction of tee complexes and practice range tee.
4. Renovation / Construction of greens including practice putting green.
5. Renovation / Construction and/or construction on bunkers / sandtraps.
6. lnstallation of cart path in as identified in the construction drawings.
7. lnstallation of golf feature (e.g. bunker and greens) drainage systems.
8. lnstallation of limited drainage system including basins, piping, and outfall control
structures for moderate surface flow.
9. Sprigging and/or Sodding of specified Paspalum grass for all areas where the existing
turf was eradicated.
10. lnstallation of new pump station including connections to the public water supply with
associated control fittings, brackish water intake, and fertigation system.
11. lnstallation of new irrigation system including connection to the new pump station, new
piping, new irrigation heads, control system, and control lines.
12. Construct a drainage system to convey the on-site runoff as required.
13. Create lake area to provide more storage.
14. Construct a berm surrounding the golf course to contain on-site storrnwater.
15. Construction of four (4) new tennis courts.
16. Construction of a medium size tot lot (approximately 6,000sf).
17. Construction of a small splash pad (approximately 2,000sf).
18. Construction of parking lot with approximately thirty six (36) parking spaces.
19. Construction of required restroom facilities.
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the Par
3 Golf Course Project
June 13,201 1
Page 2 of 9
20. Construction of a jogging trail.
21. Landscaping and irrigation.
22. Hardscape and sidewalks as required in the construction documents.
On June 1, 201 1, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 201 1-27677 formally
approving the Par-3 project Master Plan in concept as per the scope delineated above with a
recommendation by the City Commission that the concept plan be submitted to the Finance and
Citywide Projects Committee for approval prior to finalizing construction plans for the project.
The Administration is taking into consideration the concerns expressed by the Bayshore
Homeowner's Association, the Bayshore residents, and Commissioner Exposito regarding the
preservation of the Par-3 green space and will be working with the design consultants to provide
a plan that incorporates the elements in the scope of services in a manner which maximizes the
green space to the degree that is feasible and acceptable. The Project's scope of services
stated herein does not preclude any further determination by the City and shall be subject to the
final approval by the aforementioned committees. The Contractor's scope of services shall be
modified accordingly to meet these requirements.
ANALYSIS
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
redevelopment of the Par 3 golf courts and related facilities. 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.
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
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 Sewices as follows:
Constructability and Value Engineering
Review of Onsite and Offsite Conditions
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the Par
3 Golf Course Project
June 13, 201 1
Page 3 of 9
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 Par 3 golf course and
related facilities and tennis courts, is $2,900,000.
SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER'S AT RISK
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 ArchitectlEngineer, 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 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 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
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the Par
3 Golf Course Project
June 13, 201 1
Page 4 of 9
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 NE 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.
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
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the Par
3 Golf Course Project
June 13, 201 1
Page 5 of 9
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.
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
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the Par
3 Golf Course project
June 13,2011
Page 6 of 9
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 "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:
I. Team's Experience
The firm must be a Golf Course Contractor that is a Certified Member or
Associate Member of the Golf Course Builders Association of America, or a
Golf Contractor must establish that they have been in the golf course
construction business for at least five years and have completed construction
of an 18 hole golf course construction project in the past ten (10) years.
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 scope definitionlvalidation, planning, public
engagement, cost estimating, scheduling, quality control and assurance plan,
building code reviewlinspection, design, construction, closeout, and warranty
services;
List a minimum of five (5) and maximum of ten (10) successfully completed
projects comparable in design, scope, size and complexity, 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. 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 andlor omissions, or any breach of professional ethics, including those
settled out of court, during in the past five (5) years.
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 the management of
golf course construction projects, as well as 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
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of fhe Consfrucfion Managemenf af Risk RFQ for fhe Par
3 Golf Course Projecf
June 13,201 1
Page 7 of 9
individual should have served as Project Manager on projects having the same size (i.e.,
construction budget of $2.0 million or greater) and complexity.
3. Previous Similar Projects: Provide a list of a minimum of between five (5) and
maximum 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
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)
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
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:
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the Par
3 Golf Course Project
June 13,201 1
Page 8 of 9
(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
(1Opoints) - 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.
RFQ TIMETABLE
The anticipated schedule for this RFQ and contract approval is as follows:
RFQ Issued July 19, 201 1
Pre-qualification meeting July 26, 201 1
Deadline for receipt of questions August 2,201 1
Deadline for receipt of Proposals August 12,201 1
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the Par
3 Golf Course Project
June 13,2011
Page 9 of 9
Evaluation Committee
Commission approval authorizing negotiations
Contract negotiations
Projected contract start date
August 22,201 1
September 14,201 1
SeptemberIOctober
December 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 Par 3 Golf Course Project.
DB\FV\CF\GME\HC
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 I\RFQ for CMR for Par 3 Golf Course Project- Memo.docx
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
:ondensed 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 Price (GMP)
Amendment For The 6'"treet And 53rd Street Restroom Projects. I
Ley 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 "good." I
;sue:
Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the issuance of the RFQ? 1
:em SummarylRecommendation:
The scope of work for this project consists of the demolition of the existing restroom facility located at Lummus Park at
599 Ocean Drive (6~ Street Restrooms), and construction of a new 1,500 SF facility; and the demolition of the existing
restroom facility and Ocean Rescue office (53rd Street Restrooms), located at 53rd Street and Collins Avenue, and
construction of a new 864 SF restroom facility and 546sf office for Ocean Rescue Dept.
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
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 ArchitecVEngineer, 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. 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
restroom facilities at 6'h and 53rd streets. 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 firm's 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.
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
$171,555 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 project prior to construction. To this end the CMR firm is contracted
to perform preconstruction services and provide at the City's request or option, a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
and certifies by signing the GMP contractwith the City thatthe CMR firm can build the project for the GMP.
dvisory Board Recommendation:
NIA
'inancial Information:
Account Source of
Funds:
OBPl
Financial Impact Summary: NIA
1
Total
Amount
NIA
MIAMIBEACH
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 City C/ammission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO~SUE 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 6TH STREET
AND 53RD STREET RESTROOM PROJECTS.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve issuance of the RFQ.
ANALYSIS
Because beach tourism is vital to the economic well being of our community, and the availability
of safe, clean and accessible beachfront restrooms is vital to beach tourism, the Administration
initiated an effort to replace the deteriorated facilities with new standardized facilities. Over the
last few years, new restroom facilities have been constructed at 14'~~ 2lSt, 35'h, 46'h and 64th
Streets. New restroom facilities are also currently being built at 72nd Street as part of the
Oceanfront Community Center Project. The restroom facilities located at 6'h and 53rd Streets
are in deteriorated condition and cannot be effectively secured, and are not adequate to serve
the large number of users.
6th Street Restroom:
The scope of work for this project consists of the demolition of the existing restroom facility
located at Lummus Park at 599 Ocean Drive, and construction of a new 1,500 SF facility.
~3'~ Street Restroom:
The scope of work for this project consists of the demolition of the existing restroom facility and
Ocean Rescue office, located at 53rd Street and Collins Avenue, and construction of a new 864
SF restroom facility and 546SFoffice for Ocean Rescue Dept.
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 restroom facilities at 6th and 53rd streets. 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 firm's 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.
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
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the dh
Street and 53m' Street Restroom Facility
July 13, 20 1 1
Page 2 of 8
type of delivery method, the City was recently able to capture savings in the amount of
$171,555 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
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 Owner's 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
CMR1s 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 construction budget for the two restroom facilities is approximately $I million.
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
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the gh
Street and 53n' Street Restroom Facility
July 13, 201 1
Page 3 of 8
prepare a 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 permitted set of 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 Phase, the CMR shall, provide the City a proposal
for a GMP Amendment for construction phase services and without assuming the duties of the
Architect/Engineer, 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 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 AIE. 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 NE 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
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the 6th
Street and 59 Street Restroom Facility
July 13, 201 1
Page 4 of 8
representatives in any matter arising out of the pre-qualification plan and/or 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.
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
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the 6'h
Street and 5p Street Restroom Facility
July 13, 201 1
Page 5 of 8
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.
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 "Proposer" is
hereby defined to mean the firm andlor business entity which is submitting a proposal pursuant
to this RFQ. Accordingly, the firm and/or 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:
1. 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,
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the 6'h
Street and 5p Street Restroom Facility
July 13, 20 1 1
Page 6 of 8
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 and/or omissions, or any breach of professional ethics, including those
settled out of court, in the past five (5) years.
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 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 $1.0
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, e-mail address
Consultant name, address, phone number, fax and/or e-mail address
Description of the scope of the work
Role of the firm and the responsibilities
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
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 within budget, cause any change orders, or be a source of
dissatisfaction with the owner)
Explanation of how the risks can be avoided/minimized
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:
53
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the 6th
Street and 59 Street Restroom Facility
July 13, 201 1
Page 7 of 8
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, 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
e (20 points) - Willingness to meet time and budget requirements as demonstrated
by past performance, methodology and approach
(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(@ 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
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the dh
Street and 5p Street Restroom Facility
July 13, 201 1
Page 8 of 8
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.
RFQ TIMETABLE
The anticipated schedule for this RFQ and contract approval is as follows:
RFQ Issued:
Pre-qualification meeting:
Deadline for receipt of questions:
Deadline for receipt of Proposals:
Evaluation Committee Meeting
Commission approval authorizing negotiations:
Contract negotiations
Projected contract start date
July 13, 201 1
July 25, 201 1
August 1,201 1
August 8,201 1
August 25,201 1
September 14, 201 1
SeptemberINovember 201 1
December 14,201 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 6'h and 53rd Street Restroom Projects.
DB\FV\CF\GM E\\TV
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-11\RFQ for CMR for 6" and 513'~ Street Restroom Facilities - Memo
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
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 And Construction Phase Services Via A Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Amendment
For The Bandshell Park 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 "good."
Issue: I Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the issuance of the RFQ?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
I The Bandshell Park located on Collins Avenue, between 72nd and 73m Streets, will be undergoing a renovation that [
consists of new walkways and enhanced circulation, a wider promenade, widening of the 73'd ~tket sidewalk, new
walkway linking the park to the North Beach Recreation Corridor at 72nd Street, new landscaping and irrigation, new
urban elements including seating, tables, bike racks, water fountains, trash receptacles, new security lighting, and a
new marquee for the park.
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 ArchitectlEngineer, 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 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 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.
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 renovation of the Bandshell Park. One of the most important
This project delivery method also~minimizes additional costs from the Contractor, including change orders and time
extensions, since the GMP ame dment prohibits most project cost adjustments. Under this approach, time is of the
essence to the Contractor becahe 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
$171,555 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 project prior to construction.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I NIA
Financial Information:
Account Source of
Funds:
OBPl
Financial Impact Summary: NIA
1
Total
Amount
NIA
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: July 13, 201 1 kd
SUBJECT: 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 PRICE (GMP) AMENDMENT FOR THE BANDSHELL
PARK PROJECT.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve issuance of the RFQ.
ANALYSIS
The Bandshell Park located on Collins Avenue, between 72nd and 73rd Streets, will be
undergoing a renovation that consists of new walkways and enhanced circulation, a wider
promenade, widening of the 73rd Street sidewalk, new walkway linking the park to the North
Beach Recreation Corridor at 72nd Street, new landscaping and irrigation, new urban elements
including seating, tables, bike racks, water fountains, trash receptacles, new security lighting,
and a new marquee for the park.
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
renovation of the Bandshell Park. 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.
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
$171,555 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
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
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the
Renovation of the Bandshell Park
July 13, 201 1
Page 2 of 7
contract with the City, that the CMR firm can build the project for the GMP
The City will request Pre-Construction Services as follows:
a Constructability and Value Engineering
a Review of Onsite and Offsite Conditions
Scheduling
a 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, the CMR
will check the quality of the documents and advise the Owner of the most efficient and
economical way to build the project pursuant to the Owners goals and objectives.
The end result is a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) from the Contractor. This 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
review/evaluation process to be utilized is one of "Best Value" Procurement which, in addition to
price, takes into consideration past performance of the bidder's team on previously completed
projects; the Risk Assessment PlanNalue Added Submittal (RAPNAS) prepared for this project
(and submitted with the bid); and qualifications of the bidder's key personnel (based on
presentationslinterviews conducted by the technical review panel, as further set forth in the
evaluation criteria).
The City's construction budget for the renovation of the Bandshell Park is approximately
$800,000.
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 ArchitecUEngineer, 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 ArchitecUEngineer 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 Phase, the CMR shall, provide the City a proposal
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the
Renovation of the Bandshell Park
July 13, 20 1 1
Page 3 of 7
for a GMP Amendment for construction phase services and without assuming the duties of the
ArchitecUEngineer, 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 services described in
this Agreement, the CMR shall maintain a working relationship with the ArchitecUEngineer.
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 NE 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.
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
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the
Renovation of the Bandshell Park
July 13, 201 1
Page 4 of 7
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.
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
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the
Renovation of the Bandshell Park
July 13, 20 1 1
Page 5 of 7
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 "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:
1. 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.
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 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 $1.0
million or greater) and complexity.
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the
Renovation of the Bandshell Park
July 13, 2011
Page 6 of 7
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 and/or e-Mail address
Description of the scope of the work
Role of the firm and the responsibilities
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
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)
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
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,
Commission Memorandum - Issuance of the Construction Management at Risk RFQ for the
Renovation of the Bandshell Park
July 13, 201 1
Page 7 of 7
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
(10points) - 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.
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 renovation of the Bandshell Park Project.
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 I\RFQ for CMR for Bandshell Park Project- Memo
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
I Request For Approval To Award A Contract To Siemens Enterprise Communications, Inc. Pursuant To (
lnvitation To ~id.~o. 28-1 011 1 For The Maintenance Of The ~elecommunications Systems At Various City
Facilities In The Annual Amount Of $257,115.24.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Improve process through information technology
Supporting Data (Su~eys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
Issue: I Shall the Commission Approve the Award of Contract? I
Item Summary1Recommendation:
I The DurDose of the ITB is to establish a contract with a sinale qualified vendor for the maintenance of the I I te1e~orn;nunications systems at various City of Miami each facilities, on an operational basis. I
On November 15,2010, ITB No. 02-1 011 1 was issued, and the Procurement Division e-mailed, as well as
uploaded the ITB to BidSync.com and BidNet, sending notices to over 45 firms. This outreach resulted in
the receipt of two (2) bids, one from Black Box Network Services, and the other from Siemens Enterprise
Communications, Inc. Siemens bid submission was deemed non-responsive. The Bid submitted by Black
Box was deemed responsive, and thus was the only Bid submitted subsequent to this ITB. However, it
included an on-site technician, which added additional costs to their fees. The IT Department believed it
was in the best interest of the City to reject the only Bid received, revise the specifications, and re-issue the
solicitation. The City Manager exercised his authority to reject the proposal pursuant to Section 2-367(b)(1)
of the City of Miami Beach Code.
ITB No. 28-1 011 1 was issued on May 1 1,201 1, with the minimally revised scope of services. On the due
date of June 7,201 1, two (2) bids were once again received, one from Black Box Network Services, and
the other from Siemens Enterprise Communications, Inc.
Both companies are well qualified to provide the services sought by the ITB and both Siemens and Black
Box submitted Bids that were approximately $100,000 lower than the amount currently paid for the
services being contracted.
The lowest bid was received from Siemens Enterprise Communications, Inc.
( Approve the Award of Contract. I
Advisory Board Recommendation: I NIA I
Financial Information:
I I -
Source of Amount Account Approved
1 $257,115.24 Contract Maintenance Communications
Fund Account # 550-1 750-000325
Total $257,115.24
Sign-Offs:
City Manager I
AGENDA lTEM L2E
DATE 7-13-0
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: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO w ARD A CONTRACT TO SIEMENS
ENTERPRISE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. PURSUANT TO INVITATION TO
BID (ITB) NO. 28-IOIII FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS AT VARIOUS CITY FACILITIES, IN
THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $257,115.24.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Award of Contract.
BID AMOUNT AND FUNDING
$257,115.24 Funding is available from Contract Maintenance Communications Fund
Account # 550-1 750-000325
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the ITB is to establish a contract with a single qualified vendor for the
maintenance of the telecommunications systems at various City of Miami Beach
facilities, on an operational basis. The contract shall be in effect for three (3) years from
the date of contract execution by the Mayor and City Clerk, and may be renewed by
mutual agreement for three (3) additional one-year terms, on a year to year basis.
Bidders must provide a letter from Siemens indicating that they are authorized to
provide software patches and hardware for all current releases, including the most
current available software and hardware for the Siemens HiPath 4000 and Xpressions
products. The maintenance solution in place now provides this ability, and any
replacement solution should provide the same ability.
On November 15, 2010, ITB No. 02-10111 was issued, and the Procurement Division e-
mailed, as well as uploaded the ITB to BidSync.com and BidNet, sending notices to over
45 firms. This outreach resulted in the receipt of two (2) bids, one from Black Box
Network Services, and the other from Siemens Enterprise Communications, Inc.
Both Black Box Network Services and Siemens Enterprise Communications are global
companies and leaders in technology and communications solutions and provided bids
that were approximately $100,000 lower than the amount currently paid for the services
being contracted.
The Bid submitted by Siemens took numerous exceptions to the City's terms and
conditions, and was prefaced on "piggybacking" on a State of Florida contract, contrary
to the terms of the ITB. Upon giving written notice that they must comply to the terms of
66
July 13, 201 1
Commission Memorandum
Telecommunications Maintenance IT6 No. 28-1011 1
the Bid, Siemens agreed to not predicate "piggybacking", however they continued to
take numerous exceptions to the terms of the City's bid document.
Following a meeting with the City Attorney, Procurement sent Siemens a letter indicating
that if Siemens did not accept all of the City's requirements, the bid submitted shall be
deemed non-responsive and will receive no further consideration.
Siemens countered in a letter that they will comply with all terms, except the insurance
indemnity, which Siemens could not comply with. Siemens bid submission was
subsequently deemed non-responsive.
The Bid submitted by Black Box was deemed responsive, and thus was the only Bid
submitted subsequent to this ITB. However, it included an on-site technician, which
added additional costs to their fees.
The Technical Requirements of the ITB specifications mandated that "repair and
maintenance must be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week." The requirements did
not specify whether or not an on-site technician was required.
The Information Technology (IT) Department believed it was in the best interest of the
City to reject the only Bid received, revise the specifications, and re-issue the solicitation.
As Black Box submitted the only responsive bid received as a result of the subject ITB,
the City Manager exercised his authority to reject the proposal pursuant to Section 2-
367(b)(1) of the City of Miami Beach Code:
"Where only one bid response is received, andlor the bid exceeds the
budgeted amount, the city manager, without any action by the city
commission, shall have the power to reject the bid and, if he determines
that same is in the best interest of the city, re-advertise the item for
bidding;"
ANALYSIS
The IT Department revised the scope of services to reflect that an on-site technician is
not required pursuant to the requirements of the re-issuance of an ITB.
Invitation to Bid No. 28-1011 1 was issued on May 11, 201 1, with the minimally revised
scope of services. The Procurement Division e-mailed, as well as uploaded the Bid to
BidSync.com and BidNet, sending notifications to over 50 firms. A non-mandatory pre-
bid meeting was held on May 19, 201 1. On the due date of June 7, 201 1, two (2) bids
were once again received, one from Black Box Network Services, and the other from
Siemens Enterprise Communications, Inc.
The bid submission from Siemens took exceptions to the terms and conditions of the
ITB, and also indicated that they wanted mutuality of indemnification. The City
Attorney's office opined that Siemens' exceptions were unacceptable, and the City as a
matter of policy and as prohibited pursuant to Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, does not
indemnify private parties; accordingly, there can be no mutuality of indemnification.
Procurement sent a letter to Siemens on June 29, 201 1, requiring that they must state in
writing whether they accept all terms and conditions of the bid requirements, otherwise
July 13, 201 1
Commission Memorandum
Telecommunications Maintenance ITB No. 28-1 011 1
the Bid submitted shall be deemed non-responsive and will receive no further
consideration.
On June 30, 201 1, Procurement received written confirmation from Siemens that they
will accept all terms and conditions of the Bid requirements.
Both companies are well qualified to provide the services sought by the ITB and, again,
both Siemens and Black Box submitted Bids that were approximately $100,000 lower
than the amount currently paid for the services being contracted.
Black Box is the largest Siemens dealer in the United States and has many years of
experience supporting Siemens and peripheral communication product lines.
Siemens, the City's current service provider for over 20 years, is a software and services
company that provides Open Communications Solutions and Openscale Services to
globally and has over 400,000 maintenance contracts in place globally and 75% of all
Global 500 companies as customers. The total six (6) year cost that was bid by
Siemens Enterprise Communications is lower than that of Black Box Network Services
by $6,809.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis of the bids received, the Administration recommends that the City
award a contract to Siemens Enterprise Communications, Inc. pursuant to Invitation to
Bid (ITB) No. 28-1 011 1 for the Maintenance of the Telecommunications Systems Various
City Facilities, in the Annual Amount of $257,115.24.
BID TABULATION
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-11\Telecommunications Maintenance Memo.doc
Year 1 Cost
Year 2 Cost
Year 3 Cost
Year 4 Cost
Year 5 Cost
Year 6 Cost
Total 6 year Cost
Siemens Enterprise
Communications, Inc.
$257,115.24
$257,115.24
$257,115.24
$257,115.24
$257,115.24
$257,115.24
$1,542,691.44
Black Box Network
Services
$253,500.00
$253,500.00
$253,500.00
$263,000.00
$263,000,00
$263,000.00
$1,549,500.00
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Request For Approval To Issue A Request For Proposals (RFP) For Providing Parking Meter
Collection Services For The City's Parking System.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Maintain or improve traffic flow and improve parking availability.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
There had been an overall increase of 9.57% in total vehicle entries in City facilities between
2004 and 2007, thus maintaining the need for services such as the collection of parking meters.
Issue:
Should the City Commission approve the issuance of a RFP for Parking meter Collection
Services?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
On July 12, 2006, via Resolution No. 2006-26256, the Mayor and City Commission awarded
Request for Proposal No. 17-05/06, to provide the City's parking System with meter collection
services, to Standard Parking (Standard) as the successful proposer, for an initial term of three
(3) years, with two (2) one year renewal options, at the City's discretion.
On June 3, 2009, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2009-27101, which authorized
the issuance of a new RFP for the aforestated services, and also approved a month to month
extension of the existing agreement with Standard, up to January 12, 2010.
RFP No. 56-08/09 was issued on August 7,2009. The Committee convened on December 16,
2009 and unanimously ranked Standard (the existing vendor) as the top-ranked firm. Following
review of the Committee's recommendation, the City Manager exercised his own independent
due diligence, and recommended that the Mayor and City Commission reject all proposals since
the City would realize a minimum annual savings of $34,200 by continuing under the existing
agreement with Standard. On January 13, 2010 the City Commission rejected all proposals
received pursuant to RFP No. 56-08/09, and authorized the Administration to formally exercise
the first renewal option under the existing vendor, Standard Parking Corporation's, current
agreement, which option would commence on January 13,2010 and end on January 12,201 1.
The second renewal option was also exercised therefore the current contract with Standard
expires on January 12,201 2.
The City's Parking System continues to have a need for meter collections services for single
space meters and multi-space pay stations; therefore, the Administration is recommending the
issuance of a Request for Proposals for Parking Meter Collection Services in accordance with
minimum requirements; qualifications; scope of services; and specifications.
Advisory Board Recommendation: I N/A
Financial Information:
I I
AGENDA ITEM CdF
DATE 7-13-11
Source of
Funds:
OBPl
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Gus Lopez, ext 6641
Approved Account
1
Total
Amount
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.rniarnibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City ommission /"
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
July 13, 201 I
THE CITY'S PARKING SYSTEM.
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
(RFP) FOR PROVIDING PARKING METER COLLECTION SERVICES FOR
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Issuance of an RFP.
ANALYSIS
On July 12,2006, via Resolution No. 2006-26256, the Mayor and City Commission awarded
Request for Proposal No. 17-05/06, to provide the City's parking System with meter
collection services, to Standard Parking (Standard) as the successful proposer, for an initial
term of three (3) years, with two (2) one year renewal options, at the City's discretion.
On June 3, 2009, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2009-27101, which
authorized the issuance of a new RFP for the aforestated services, and also approved a
month to month extension of the existing agreement with Standard, up to January 12,2010.
RFP No. 56-08/09 was issued on August 7,2009. The Committee convened on December
16,2009 and unanimously ranked Standard (the existing vendor) as the top-ranked firm, and
Lanier Parking Solutions, as the second-ranked firm. Following review of the Committee's
recommendation, the City Manager exercised his own independent due diligence, and
recommended that the Mayor and City Commission reject all proposals since the City would
realize a minimum annual savings of $34,200 by continuing under the existing agreement
with Standard. On January 13, 2010 the City Commission rejected all proposals received
pursuant to RFP No. 56-08/09, and authorized the Administration to formally exercise the
first renewal option under the existing vendor, Standard Parking Corporation's, current
agreement, which option would commence on January 13, 2010 and end on January 12,
201 1. The second renewal option was also exercised therefore the current contract with
Standard expires on January 12,2012.
The City's Parking System continues to have a need for meter collections services for single
space meters and multi-space pay stations and all renewable options have been exhausted;
therefore, the Administration is recommending the issuance of a Request for Proposals for
Parking Meter Collection Services in accordance with minimum requirements; qualifications;
scope of services; and specifications.
The existing service provider, Standard Parking, Inc., may elect to participate in the
competitive bidding process. Upon the advertisement of the RFP, the Cone of Silence is in
effect. The Parking Department's Administration is limited by the Cone of Silence to only
discuss issues pertaining to the existing contract with the existing service provider, and not
the particulars of the RFP.
Commission Memorandum
Parking Meter Collections Setvices RFP
July 13, 2011
Page 2 of 11
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS I QUALIFICATIONS
The Proposer must have a verifiable proven record of providing parking meter
collection services and must have not fewer than three (3) years of experience,
providing successful parking meter collection services for municipal parking
departments, parking authorities, andlor parking systems, including colleges1
universities; andlor hospitals with the following minimum characteristics:
a. Municipal parking departments, parking authorities, andlor parking
systems, including hospitals, andlor collegesluniversities with daily
parking meter collection frequencies.
Municipal parking departments, parking authorities, andlor parking
systems, including hospitals, andlor collegesluniversities with single
space electronic parking meter mechanisms and multi-space pay
stations, including experience with uploadingldownloading data for
auditing functions, and experience with electronic parking meter vault
door locking systems.
The Proposer must have the ability to provide parking meter collection services as
outlined herein throughout the term of the Agreement and to provide a consistent
level of service with collection frequency that may vary up to 25%, in meter collection
frequency for single space or multi-space pay stations, andlor a combination thereof.
A $500,000 performance bond will be required of the Successful Proposer to
evidence financial stability.
The Proposer must demonstrate a level of expertise, technical knowledge, and
innovation to provide parking meter collection services, including providing services
through inclement weather, and any unforeseeable circumstances.
SPECIFICATIONS
MINIMUM REQUlREMENTSlQUALlFlCATlONS
The Proposer must have a verifiable proven record of providing parking meter
collection services and must have not fewer than three (3) years of experience,
providing successful parking meter collection services for municipal parking
departments, parking authorities, andlor parking systems, including colleges1
universities; and/or hospitals with the following minimum characteristics:
Municipal parking departments, parking authorities, andlor parking
systems, including hospitals, andlor collegesluniversities with daily
parking meter collection frequencies.
Municipal parking departments, parking authorities, andlor parking
systems, including hospitals, andlor collegesluniversities with single
space electronic parking meter mechanisms and multi-space pay
stations, including experience with uploadingldownloading data for
auditing functions, and experience with electronic parking meter
vault door locking systems.
The Proposer must have the ability to provide parking meter collection services as
outlined herein throughout the term of the Agreement and to provide a consistent
level of service with collection frequency that may vary for single space or multi-
Commission Memorandum
Parking Meter Collections Services RFP
July 13, 2011
Page 3 of I I
space pay stations, andlor a combination thereof. A $500,000 performance bond will
be required of the Successful Proposer to evidence financial stability.
The Proposer must demonstrate a level of expertise, technical knowledge, and
innovation to provide parking meter collection services, including providing services
through inclement weather, and any unforeseeable circumstances.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City of Miami Beach intends to receive proposals for Parking Meter Collection Services
for a three (3) year period, with one, two (2) year options to renew, at the sole discretion of
the City.
Successful Proposer shall provide Collection Service for single space parking meters andlor
multi-space pay stations owned by the City of Miami Beach, located at sites designated
herein within the City of Miami Beach. Collection Service shall transport all coins, bills,
andlor data collected from single space parking meters andlor multi-spaces pay stations to
any place within the City of Miami Beach deemed acceptable to the Parking Director, for the
purpose of counting, storing, depositing, or any combination thereof.
SPECIFICATIONS
Number of Parking Meters:
Collection services will be required for a system containing approximately 8,500
parking spaces.
Parking Meter Collection Procedures and Requirements:
The City of Miami Beach presently has a sealed parking meter collection system.
The general SOP (standard operating procedure) for single space meter and multi-
space pay station collection is described below: The Successful Proposer is
required to adhere to the following SOP:
Single Space Meter:
Unlock the parking meter vault door by utilizing a Medeco key for the electronic
locking system. The sealed (locked) coin can is removed from the meter vault area
and inserted into a sealed cylindrical collection device that engages (unlocks) the
coin can from the meter. The coin can's contents are deposited into the collection
device. Once the contents of the coin can have been deposited, it is returned to the
corresponding parking meter and the meter vault door is locked. Once the meter is
collected, retrieve parking meter revenue data via use of a hand held device.
This process is repeated at all parking meters scheduled for collection. All cylindrical
collection devices are returned to the Parking Department for the sorting, counting,
bagging, and deposit of parking meter revenue. If any problem is encountered
during the collection process, a meter technician must be notified immediately.
Additionally, any issues encountered should be clearly noted in the daily collection
reports. Meters that have been bagged thru the City's meter rental program must be
opened and collected if the area is on the collection scheduled for the day.
Commission Memorandum
Parking Meter Collections Services RFP
July 13, 201 1
Page 4 of I1
Multi-Space Pay Stations:
The City of Miami Beach Parking Department currently operates two models of pay
stations; the Strada and the DG; however, the City reserves the right to retain or
replace any and all single space and/or multi-space pay stations, in its sole and
absolute discretion. The successful proposer shall be required to make reasonable
adjustments in order to perform the collection duties described herein as a result of
any new and/or replacement single space meters andlor multi-space pay stations.
Strada Pay Station: Unlock the collection door by inserting the electronic key into the
appropriate area. This will unlock the collection door where both coin and bill
canisters are accessed for replacement. Swap out used bill and coin canisters for a
new (empty) canister.
D.G.'s Pay Stations: Unlock bill canister door and swap out the used bill canister for
a new (empty) bill canister; engage empty sealed coin collection bucket onto pay
station and release all coins into the sealed empty coin collection bucket.
Retrieve printed tape from each and every pay station where collections have been
performed, if applicable.
Number of Collections:
It is estimated that there will be approximately 200,000 single space meter
collections per year and up to 20,000 multi-space pay station collections per year.
Collections are based on single space meter andlor multi-space pay station
utilization; therefore, fluctuations in collection frequencies may be expected.
Collections are made as per a weekly schedule provided by the City of Miami Beach
Parking Department. The City's Parking Department reserves the right to adjust its
inventory of single space meters and multi-space pay stations; including their
collection frequency; type of collection (single space or multi-space); and ratio
between the two types of systems (single space and multi-space pay stations). The
Successful Proposer shall invoice and the City shall only pay for successful
collections. Successful collections are defined as collections that have satisfied all
requirements contained herein. Unsuccessful or partial completion of a collection or
an attempt to collect shall neither be billable by the Collection Service Provider nor
paid by the City.
Equipment:
The Successful Proposer shall be responsible for the coded collection keys, sealed
coin collection buckets, bill canisters, and data retrieval hand held devices andlor
cards, and/or any other equipment issued by the City. Successful Proposer shall be
financially responsible for repair or replacement, including parts and labor, of any
equipment required due to being damaged, lost, or stolen while in hislher care,
custody, and/or control. This includes both electronic and manual keys, hand held
computers, sealed coin collection buckets, bill canisters, and any other cost
associated with securing all parking equipment affected by the breach. Any of the
aforementioned property, including but not limited to, locks, hand held computer
devices, sealed coin collection buckets, bill canisters, and data retrieval
cardsldevices, must be replaced within seven calendar days of invoice or notice.
Failure to meet the time criteria of this provision shall result in a penalty of $250.00
Commission Memorandum
Parking Meter Collections Services RFP
July 13, 2011
Page 5 of I1
per day or ten percent (10%) per day of the total value due to the City from
Successful Proposers due to the loss of City Property, or whichever is greater. The
greater of these two penalties will be assessed against the Successful Proposer for
every calendar day past the seventh (7th) day; such penalty is to be deducted from
any future or current remittances due to the Successful Proposer.
The City of Miami Beach Parking Department will furnish meter coin vault keys, hand
held computer, sealed coin collection buckets, bill hoppers, andlor data retrieval
cards to the Collection Service personnel at the start of each collection day at the
time specified by the Parking Director. This equipment will be issued at the
Administration Offices of the City of Miami Beach Parking Department, located at
1755 Meridian Avenue, Suite 100. All equipment will be signed for by the Service
Provider's Collection Service Personnel receiving the equipment. The equipment will
be returned when the Collection Service has completed its duties at the end of that
day. All Collection Servicg Personnel shall be available for a minimum of eight (8)
hours per day, Monday through Friday; however, at the request of the City, Collection
Service Personnel shall remain available to the City until released by the Parking
Director or designee. The City in its sole and absolute discretion reserves the right
to schedule collections on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. The Successful
Proposer shall be solely responsible for any overtime incurred by its
employees. Daily schedules shall be assigned by the City and collection services
shall typically take place during an eight (8) hour shift between the hours of 6:00 AM
and 6:00 PM. Collection personnel shall be available daily to the City until released
by the Parking Director or hislher designee. All keys and equipment are to be
fastened to the Collector's person by suitable fashion and such fastening shall be
subject to the approval of the Parking Director or designee.
Damages:
All equipment supplied by the City to the Collection Service for the purpose of this
contract will be replaced at the Collection Service's expense in the event of damage
caused while in the Collection Service's care, custody, and control.
General Provisions:
Collection Service Personnel shall be unarmed at all times while engaged in
the collection of and transportation of parking meter revenue.
Collection Service shall collect coins, bills, and data from parking meters on
routes and schedules provided by the Parking Director of the City of Miami
Beach, or designee.
Route schedules and collection frequencies may change periodically, as
required by fluctuations in utilization; meter installations1removaIs andlor rate
changes, or when the Parking Director andlor its designee requests a
segregated revenue rate test or special collection. Collection frequency is
determined in the sole and absolute discretion of the Parking Director or
designee.
Collection Service shall provide secure and safeguarded vehicles. A
minimum of three (3) late model (201 1 or newer) collection vehicles. These
vehicles must be supplied daily and additional vehicles should be provided
Commission Memorandum
Parking Meter Collecfions Services RFP
July 13, 201 1
Page 6 of I1
as needed to perform collection and supervision services. All vehicles shall
contain the required equipment and safeguards as outlined herein.
Each Collection Service vehicle shall have a minimum of two (2) collection
service personnel, in uniform with photograph identification issued by the
City. The Collection Service personnel will wear identification tags, provided
by the City of Miami Beach, at all times while collecting coins and delivering
the collected or counted coins. The Successful Proposer shall provide
Supervisor(s) who must remain in two-way communications with the City's
designee as well as the collection service personnel.
Each vehicle is to be equipped in accordance with the following
specifications and with maximum security systems; "maximum security
systems" includes, but is not limited to:
A web-based electronic vehicle tracking system, such as a GPS
(Global Positioning System). The City shall access to the web-based
system at all times.
Alarm system with sirens covering all entry points.
Interior ironlsteel caged compartments to enclose, keep upright, and
distinguish all full and empty coin canisterslsealed coin collection
bucketslbill hoppers, including an individual slot for each in order to
lock in an ironlsteel compartment independently of each of the other
collection devices. Additionally, the vans must be equipped with
compartments or containers that would secure the handheld
equipment and prevent it from getting damaged or lost in the van.
Enclosed vehicles to keep contents from public view.
The solid bulkhead separating the driver from the back compartment
of the vehicle must have an opening that would permit the driver to
have a clear view of the back compartment.
Each vehicle passengers must adhere to all safety requirements,
including the use of seat belts at all times for the safety of all
collection personnel.
All vehicles must be unmarked.
All vehicles' cargo doors shall be equipped with Hidden Shackle High
security locks.
All vehicles shall be equipped with vertex mirrors installed at the rear
of each vehicle to address blind spots.
All doors are to lock remotely when closed and be equipped with an
alarm system as specified above.
Collection Service shall employ all of the personnel safety
procedures andlor devices necessary to transport monies, data, and
equipment safely from parking meters and multi-space pay stations
to any place designated by the City of Miami Beach for the purpose
of counting, storing, depositing, or any combination thereof.
Each and every collector must be equipped with a two-way
communication device compatible with the City's provider for
communication purposes from one collector to another collector and
to designated City of Miami Beach personnel.
Each vehicle shall be properly maintained and in good working order
and their interior and exterior shall be aesthetically maintained
throughout the term of the Agreement, including all optional terms.
Commission Memorandum
Parking Meter Collections Services RFP
July 13, 2011
Page 7 of I1
Zones:
Collection requirements are itemized by zones (or routes) andlor individual meter
number.
Zone Assignments:
Zone assignments shall be issued daily at the Parking Department at the time the
collection equipment is issued. Wheeled carts for collection are to be provided by
the City of Miami Beach Parking Department and are to be returned at the close of
each day's regular collection. The City in its sole and absolute discretion may assign
specific zoneslroutes to specific collection service personnel.
Transporting of Funds:
All funds collected will be transported to the revenue processing facility for
consolidation. Revenues to be consolidated shall be counted by City personnel and
then, at the option of the City, delivered by the Collection Service to a designated
Miami Beach depository no later than the first business day following the collection
by the Collection Service.
Reports:
Collection Service will be required to complete and submit to the City on a daily
basis, copies of the report forms, including Key Report Form; Daily Parking Meter
Non-Collection Report; and Collection Sheets. Collection Service shall complete
appropriate forms, as provided by the City, for coins found out of canisters. The City
reserves the right to addlamend forms, as required.
Revenue Responsibilities:
Collection Service shall be completely and totally responsible for the security of all
collected revenues (coin, bills, andlor data) while in their care, custody, or control.
The Collection Service shall be required to reimburse the City for any and all
property, funds, andlor valuables damaged, lost, or stolen while under their care,
custody, and control of the Collection Service, upon notification to the Collection
Service.
Termination:
The City may, at its sole discretion, and without cause, terminate this Agreement at
any time during the term herein by giving thirty (30) days written notice to the
Operator of such termination, which shall become effective as of the date so
specified in said written termination.
City of Miami Beach Employees:
The Successful Proposer agrees not to hire any City employee as a part-time or full-
time employee that would participate andlor be associated with the services outlined
herein in providing parking meter collection services to the City of Miami Beach.
Supervision:
The City of Miami Beach Parking Department shall have the right to have its
Commission Memorandum
Parking Mefer Collecfions Services RFP
July 13, 20 1 1
Page 8 of I1
personnel, as deemed appropriate, at the sole discretion of the Parking Director or
designee, to closely monitor the collection service for any and all security reasons.
The Successful Proposer shall designate an on-site supervisor for each collection
team (vehicle), at all times, when collection services are being provided. The on-site
supervisor shall coordinate all duties, functions, and respond to all inquiries, as
required, with the City of Miami Beach Parking Director, or designee.
Firm Price Application:
The prices quoted will remain in effect for a thirty-six (36) month period, at which time
they may be reconsidered for adjustment prior to renewal, if the City, at its sole
discretion, wishes to exercise the two (2) year renewal option, as follows: Change
shall not be more than the percentage decrease or increase in the Consumer Price
Index (overall) computed on the anniversary date of the contract. The index report
for the month October of the applicable year prior to the anniversary date of the
contract shall be the basis from which any computation shall be made.
Loan Equipment:
The Collection Service shall be responsible for returning any loaned equipment to
the City. Any equipment damaged while in the custody of the Collection Service will
be repaired or replaced at the Collection Service's expense.
Proposer's Qualification Form:
The Proposer's Qualification Form, which is part of the proposal, is to be completed
and returned with the proposal.
Insurance:
Certificates of Insurance, in accordance with the attached specifications, will be
required of the Successful Proposer.
Performance Bond:
A Performance Bond in the amount of $500,000.00 will be required of the Successful
Proposer, to give the City surety of the Successful Proposer's financial stability. The
Performance Bond shall be renewable annually and on the options. The form of the
bond shall be approved by the City Attorney and shall be a corporate surety bond
company licensed to do business in the State of Florida.
Collection Service Personnel
All collection service personnel must:
Maintain a neat, well-groomed appearance at all times.
Collect all assigned single space parking meters and multi-space pay
stations, and perform related duties.
Be bonded and insured.
Be in uniform consisting of the following: Sportlpolo shirt or collared shirt (no
t-shirts), dark pants, shorts or skirt, and including but not limited to jacketlcold
Commission Memorandum
Parking Meter Collections Services RFP
July 13, 201 1
Page 9 of I1
weather gear and rain gear. The Successful Proposer's employees will be
issued official City of Miami Beach photo identifications and shall be required
to be worn prominently on a daily basis as part of the employee's official
uniform. The Successful Proposer must include its name on the badge or
uniform. The City reserves the right for final approval of the uniform selected
by the Firm.
Not smoke andlor eat on the job andlor in the Collection Vehicle.
Collectltransfer data as part of the collection process, as may be required.
Provide directions and general information to the public.
Maintain a friendly, courteous and service-oriented attitude at all times.
Demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively in the English language
with the general public, supervisors, and City management.
Be qualified to complete all required forms and reports.
The Successful Proposer must perform a background check, random yearly
drug tests, and Driver License checks every six months, firmltype of
background check to be approved by the City, on all of its employees,
including psychological andlor aptitude examinations as part of their
employment process. The successful Proposer may also be required to
conduct other screening andlor investigative measures, at the request of the
City.
Perform all other related duties as assigned by the City.
Collection Staff must be fully trained before performing their duties. It will be
the responsibility of the assigned collection service supervisor to train any
new employee as needed.
Perform all other related duties as assigned by the City.
Performance Standards
UniformsIName-tags:
All employees must be in full uniform with their respective name-tag at the
start and throughout the balance of their shift. Failure to do so may result in
the City's request to replace said employee with one in full uniformlname-tag.
The Firm's failure to comply may trigger a penalty of $50.00 per employee,
per day.
Customer Service/Conduct:
All employees must comport themselves in a respectful and courteous
manner when addressing the publiclcustomers. Conduct unbecoming shall
include: rudeness, belligerence, hostility, quarrelsome, antagonistic,
aggression, sarcasm, contempt, and mocking. All employees shall further
refrain from smoking, eating, andlor drinking while on-duty. Complaints
pertaining to customer service, including but not limited to the behavior
outlined above shall be immediately addressed by the Successful Proposer.
The City reserves the right at its sole discretion to determine if the employee
is unfit or incompetent to perform the duties and may require the immediate
removal of the employee and replacement with another within one (1) hour of
said request. Failure of the Successful Proposer to do so may trigger a
penalty of $100.00 per day until the employee is removed, as an assessment
of liquidated damages.
Most Favored Customer:
The Successful Proposer warrants and represents that the prices,
Commission Memorandum
Parking Meter Collections Services RFP
July 13, 2011
Page 10 of I1
warranties, benefits and terms set forth in this Agreement are at least equal
to or more favorable to the City than the prices, warranties, benefits and
terms now charged or offered by the Firm, or that may be charged or offered
during the term of this Agreement for the same or substantially similar
services as defined in this Agreement. If at a time during the term of this
Agreement, the successful Proposer enters into an agreement on a basis
that provides prices, warranties, benefits and terms more favorable than
those provided the City hereunder, then the successful Proposer shall within
thirty (30) calendar days thereafter notify the City of such fact, and regardless
of whether such notice is sent by the successful Proposer or received by the
successful Proposer or received by the City, this contract shall be deemed to
be automatically amended, effective retroactively to the effective date of the
more favorable agreement, to provide the same prices, warranties, benefits
and terms to the City; provided that the City shall have the right and option to
decline to accept any such change, in which event such amendment shall be
deemed null and void. If the successful Proposer is of the opinion that an
apparently more favorable price, warranty, benefit or term of this Agreement
is not in fact more favared treatment, the successful Proposer will promptly
notify the City in writing, setting forth in detail the reasons that the successful
Proposer believes said apparently more favored treatment is not in fact more
favored treatment.
The City after due consideration of such written explanation may decline to
accept such explanation and thereupon this Agreement shall be deemed to
be automatically amended effective retroactively to the effective date of the
more favorable agreement, provide the same prices, warranties, benefits and
terms to the City. The provisions of this Article shall survive the closing and
termination of this Agreement.
By submitting a proposal, all proposers shall be deemed to understand and agree that no
property interest or legal right of any kind shall be created at any point during the aforesaid
evaluation/selection process until and unless a contract has been agreed to and signed by
both parties.
EVALUATIONISELECTION PROCESS: CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
The procedure for proposal evaluation and selection is as follows:
Request for Proposals issued.
Receipt of proposals.
Opening and listing of all proposals received.
An Evaluation Committee, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate
each proposal in accordance with the requirements of this RFP. If further
information is desired, proposers may be requested to make additional written
submissions or oral presentations to the Evaluation Committee.
The Evaluation Committee shall recommend to the City Manager the proposal or
proposals acceptance of which the Evaluation Committee deems to be in the best
interest of the City.
The Evaluation Committee shall base its recommendations on the following factors:
Commission Memorandum
Parking Meter Collections Services RFP
July 13, 201 1
Page 11 of 11
A. Proposer's experience and qualifications with providing service
requested in the RFP. - 10%
B. Quality of Proposed Operational Plan. - 10%
C. Qualifications of key personnel and project team. - 10%
D. Evidence of financial stability. - 10%
E. Total Costs made up of collection fee per single space meter and per
multi-space pay station utilizing estimated collections in Section 3,
entitled, "Number of Collections". - 50%
F. Past performance based on number and quality of the Performance
Evaluation Surveys and references. - 10%
After considering the recommendation(s) of the Evaluation Committee, the City
Manager shall recommend to the Mayor and Commission the proposal or proposals
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 Mayor and
Commission may reject City Manager's recommendation(s) and select another
proposal or proposals. In any case, the Mayor and Commission shall select the
proposal or proposals acceptance of which the Mayor and Commission deems to be
in the best interest of the City. The City Commission may also reject all proposals.
Negotiations between the selected proposer and the City Manager take place to
arrive at a contract. If the Mayor and Commission has so directed, the City Manager
may proceed to negotiate a contract with a proposer other than the top-ranked
proposer if the negotiations with the top-ranked proposer fail to produce a mutually
acceptable contract within a reasonable period of time.
A proposed contract or contracts are presented to the Mayor and Commission for
approval, modification and approval, or rejection.
If and when a contract or contracts acceptable to the respective parties is approved
by the Mayor and Commission, the Mayor and City Clerk sign the contract(s) after
the selected proposer(s) has (or have) done so.
By submitting a proposal, all proposers shall be deemed to understand and agree that no
property interest or legal right of any kind shall be created at any point during the aforesaid
evaluation/selection process until and unless a contract has been agreed to and signed by
both parties.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and Commission authorize the issuance of
an RFP (Request for Proposals) for providing parking meter and pay station collection
services for the City of Miami Beach Parking System in accordance with the minimum
requirements; qualifications; scope of services; and specifications outlined herein.
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Request For Approval To Issue A Request For Qualifications (RFQ) For A Fourth Solid Waste Franchise
Contractor To Provide Commercial Waste Collections And Disposal Services
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Improve cleanliness of Miami Beach rights of way especially in business areas
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): The 2009 Customer Satisfaction Survey
indicated 14% improvement by businesses overall in the rating for streets in business areas.
Issue: - - - -. - . I Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the issuance of the RFQ? I
Item SummarylRecommendation:
As a result of mergers and acquisitions, on April 14, 2010, the Mayor and City Commission approved
Ordinance No. 2010-3679 which amended the City Code (Chapter 90 entitled "Solid Waste") to include a
reduction in the number of the City's franchise waste haulers from five (5) to four (4).
The Franchisees of the City of Miami Beach in the provision of solid waste services to commercial
properties were: (1) Waste Management of Dade County; (2) Waste Services, Inc., ("Waste Services");
(3) Choice Environmental Services of Miami; and (4) General Hauling Services, Inc..
In a letter received from Waste Services, dated May 19, 201 1, the City's Solid Waste Director, Al Zamora
was informed that as of April 2, 2011, General Hauling Services, Inc. had been purchased by Waste
Services. As a result, the City's solid waste franchises have been reduced from four (4) to three (3),
therefore requiring that the City solicit a fourth commercial solid waste franchise.
The City Code provisions now in effect have an established procedure in place to address any new
Franchisees. In order to proceed maintaining four (4) franchises and securing the added public benefit the
following changes in the City Code were necessary: the term of the franchise agreement in Section 90-
230 of the City Code was changed to reflect a five (5) year period of time instead of a three (3) year period
of time; a change to Section 90-231 which requires franchisee's for all commercial accounts, not just multi-
family dwellings, to make a recycling offer with a provision to recognize the offset reduction in costs
associated with waste disposal; Section 90-222 was changed to require all franchisees to distribute a
contract terms disclosure form.
All firms that submit a proposal for consideration are subject to and must meet the minimum qualifications
for the City's granting of waste contractor franchises, as set forth in section 90-229 of the City Code (as
amended on September 17,2008).
The term of the Agreement for the successful proposer will terminate on August 31, 2015 to coincide with
the term of the three (3) existing franchise waste haulers.
I APPROVE THE ISSUANCE OF THE RFQ. I
Advisory Board Recommendation:
( NIA
Financial Information:
Source of Amount +Account
Funds: I NIA
OBPI 'Total
Financial Impact Summary: NIA
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Gus Lopez ext. 6641
Department ~ir* Assistant Cwanager City ,Manager 1
AGENDA ITEM Cd
D&TE 7413--/1
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Cenfer 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: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ)
FOR A FOURTH SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE
COMMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTIONS AND DISPOSAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve the issuance of the RFQ.
BACKGROUND
As a result of mergers and acquisitions, on April 14, 2010, the Mayor and City Commission
approved Ordinance No. 2010-3679 which amended the City Code (Chapter 90 entitled "Solid
Waste") to include a reduction in the number of the City's franchise waste haulers from five (5) to
four (4).
The Franchisees of the City of Miami Beach in the provision of solid waste services to commercial
properties were: (1) Waste Management of Dade County; (2) Waste Services, Inc., ("Waste
Services"); (3) Choice Environmental Services of Miami; and (4) General Hauling Services, Inc..
In a letter received from Waste Services, dated May 19, 201 I, the City's Solid Waste Director, A1
Zamora was informed that as of April 2,201 1, General Hauling Services, Inc. had been purchased
by Waste Services. As a result, the City's solid waste franchises have been reduced from four (4) to
three (3), therefore requiring that the City solicit a fourth commercial solid waste franchise.
It is important to emphasize that the City Code provisions now in effect have an established
procedure in place to address any new Franchisees. The changes necessary in the City Code in
order to proceed maintaining four franchises and securing the added public benefit are as follows:
the term of the franchise agreement in Section 90-230 of the City Code was changed to reflect a five
(5) year period of time instead of a three (3) year period of time; a change to Section 90-231 which
requires franchisee's for all commercial accounts, not just multi-family dwellings, to make a recycling
offer with a provision to recognize the offset reduction in costs associated with waste disposal;
Section 90-222 was changed to require all franchisees to distribute a contract terms disclosure form.
The City Commission also provided direction to the Administration that a $75,000 cash contribution
was to be used in support of the International Baccalaureate Program and also approved three (3)
recommendations forwarded to the City Commission by the Sustainability Committee relative to
recycling within the community.
In addition, specific services which were incorporated into the Service Agreements of each waste
hauler included:
City Commission Memorandum - RFQ for the 4th Waste Hauler
July 13, 201 1
Page 2 of 5
1. The provision of two (2) hazardous material pick-up events per year.
2. An annual cash allocation to the City equivalent to the purchase of fifteen (1 5)
urban style recycling containers.
3. The development of a brochure common to be used by all of the franchise waste haulers,
which stipulates recycling requirements, recycling options and the possibility of solid waste
savings. This brochure is to be distributed to all commercial accounts in the City.
4. The City will be reimbursed for security services provided at each of the "wasteful weekends"
sites held monthly in the community.
5. The City will be provided in the first year of the franchise, a contribution from all of the
haulers, with the exception of General Hauling, equivalent to one half of a percent of gross
revenues from accounts in the City, which shall increase by a half percent in each of the next
two (2) years until a total contribution of one and a half percent of gross revenues is being
made to the City. The fund is to be used at the discretion of the City Commission for "green
initiatives". General Hauling is excluded from this item as they already contribute one and a
half percent of gross revenues in the community as a result of their recent franchise award.
6. A cash contribution in the amount of $75,000 per franchise year will be made to the City for
support of Education in the community, as determined by the City Commission.
The five year value of the additional community benefit and services was estimated at approximately
$1,618,750. As a result of a recommendation provided by the Sustainability Committee, the
franchise waste haulers agreed to remove recyclable materials from community drop off points in
South, Middle and North Beach (total 3) on sites which are developed and permitted by the City.
If the City Commission authorizes the issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a fourth
solid waste franchise contractor to provide commercial waste collection and disposal services, all
aforementioned provisions will be included with a term expiring on August 31,201 5 to coincide with
the term of the three (3) existing franchise waste haulers.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 1 QUALIFICATIONS:
ALL FIRMS THAT SUBMIT A PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION ARE SUBJECT TO AND
MUST MEET THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE CITY'S GRANTING OF WASTE
CONTRACTOR FRANCHISES, AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 90-229 OF THE CITY CODE (AS
AMENDED ON SEPTEMBER 17, 2008), AND AS PROVIDED BELOW. IF THE MINIMUM
QUALIFICATIONS ARE NOT MET, THE PROPOSER'S SUBMITTAL WILL BE DEEMED NON-
RESPONSIVE.
Sec. 90-229. Selection of franchise waste contractors.
(a) Except as provided in section 90-233, the city shall license not more than four (4) franchise
waste contractors for residential and commercial waste collections and disposal as provided in
section 90-97. Each applicant for a garbage and trash disposal license or renewal thereof shall
submit, in writing, a list of its qualifications. The minimum qualifications to be considered in the
granting of such license shall include:
(1) Evidence of the applicant's ability to fulfill all duties and requirements of a franchise
waste contractor as set forth in this chapter, including proper certification and adequate
insurance coverage.
(2) Certification that the applicant has never defaulted on any government contract or bid
award.
(3) Evidence that the applicant has the potential for a significant amount of business within
City Commission Memorandum - RFQ for the 4'h Waste Hauler
July 13,201 1
Page 3 of 5
the city, comprised of either a minimum of 50 committed accounts within the city or, in the
alternative, the city commission may accept, in its sole discretion, 50 comparable committed
accounts from outside of the city.
(4) Certification that there are no unsatisfied judgments against the applicant.
(5) Certification that the applicant is not, and will not be, throughout the term that it has a
license, affiliated with, as a parent, subsidiary, by virtue of an interlocking directorate, or
otherwise, an affiliated entity of any existing licensee or any applicant for a licensee under
section 90-1 91 et seq.
(6) The applicant's ability and commitment to provide the city and its businesses and multi-
family residences with (i) good service; (ii) competitive prices; (iii) demonstrated and/or
proposed green initiatives; and (iv) ability and commitment to provide such additional "public
benefit(s)" to the city which may include, without limitation: provision of additional waste
collection, disposal, and/or recycling services (at no cost to the city) to city right of ways, city-
owned public buildings, parks, and/or beaches; voluntary cost and/or fee reductions; and/or
such other city public benefits and/or services as the city manager may, in his reasonable
judgment and discretion, from time to time, require.
(b) If more than one applicant for a franchise waste contractor's license qualify under the minimum
qualifications of this division, license issuance shall be determined by the city commission based
upon applicant(s) that the City Commission deems, in its judgment and discretion, and having
considered the recommendation of the city manager, to have provided the most significant public
benefit(s) to the city (pursuant to subsection 90-229(a)(6)).
(c) In lieu of accepting applications from new applicants as set forth above, the city commission
may choose to issue new licenses to previous licensees. The decision shall be based on the criteria
set forth in section 90-230.
EVALUATION SELECTION PROCESS
The procedure for response, evaluation and selection is as follows:
Request for Qualifications issued.
2. Receipt of responses.
3. Opening of responses and determination by City if responses meet the Minimum
Requirements of the RFP. This determination shall be made by the City Administration,
which shall evaluate proposal in accordance with the requirements of the RFP including,
without limitation, compliance to the Minimum Requirements and Chapter 90 of the City
Code, as amended by Ordinance No. 2008-3616.
An Evaluation Committee, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate each
responsive proposal and shall make its recommendation in accordance with the
requirements of this RFQ, based on the following criteria:
The experience and qualifications of Solid Waste Contractors and Key personnel's ability
and commitment to provide the City and its businesses and multi-family residences with:
I00 points.
a) good service;
b) competitive prices;
c) demonstrated and/or proposed green initiatives; and
d) ability and commitment to provide such additional
"public benefit(s)" to the City which may include,
without limitation: provision of additional waste collection,
disposal, and lor recycling services (at no cost to the City) to
25 points
25 points
25 points
City Commission Memorandum - RFQ for the 4th Waste Hauler
July 13, 201 1
Page 4 of 4
city right-of-way, city-owned public buildings, parks, andlor
beaches; voluntary cost andtor fee reductions; andtor such
other city public benefits andlor services as the city manager may,
in his reasonable judgment and discretion, from time to time, require. 25 points
5. If further information is desired by the Committee, proposers may be requested to make
additional written submissions or oral presentations to the Evaluation Committee.
6. 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.
7. After considering the recommendation(s) of the Evaluation Committee, the City Manager
shall recommend to the Mayor and Commission the proposal or proposals acceptance of
which the City Manager deems to be in the best interest of the City.
8. The City Commission shall consider the City Manager's recommendation(s) as it deems
appropriate, and approve the City Manager's recommendation(s); may make its own
recommendation (s); may reject all proposals; or may prescribe such other action, as it
deems necessary and in the best interest of the City.
9. Following recommendation of award by the City Commission, negotiations between the
selected Proposers and the City Administration take place to arrive at a contract. If the
Mayor and Commission has so directed, the City Manager may proceed to negotiate a
contract with a proposer other than the top-ranked proposer if the negotiations with the
top-ranked proposer fail to produce a mutually acceptable contract within a reasonable
period of time.
10. A proposed contract or contracts are presented to the Mayor and Commission for approval,
modification and approval, or rejection.
11. If and when a contract or contracts acceptable to the respective parties is approved by the
Mayor and Commission, the Mayor and City Clerk sign the contract(s) after the selected
proposer(s) has (or have) done so.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Commission authorize the issuance of a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) for a fourth solid waste franchise contractor to provide commercial waste
collection and disposal services.
DRBIFHBIGL
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 I\RFQ for Commercial Solid Waste Franchise-MEMO.doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Request For Approval To Award Contracts To Best Janitorial & Supplies, Inc.; Calico Industries, Inc.; Central
Poly Corp.; Dermatec Direct; Hospitality Purchasing LLC ; Hudson Plastic Corp.; lnterboro Packaging Corp.;
Janitor's Supply Outlet; Pride Enterprises; Quill Corp.; Rex Chemical Corp.; Songahi, Inc.; Totalpack, Inc.;
And Troy Industries, Inc., as Primary And Secondary Vendors Per Line ltem, Pursuant To lnvitation To Bid
No. 5-1011 1, For The Purchase Of Janitorial Supplies Citywide, In The Estimated Annual Amount Of
--
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.
Issue: I Shall the City Commission approve the award of Contracts? I
ltem SummarylRecommendation:
I lnvitation to Bid No. 5-09/10 was issued on February 15, 201 1 with a bid opening date of March 15, 201 1, 1
which was subsequently postponed to March 25,201 I. The purpose of the ITB is to establish a contract, by
means of sealed bids, for the purchase and delivery of janitorial supplies, including plastic liners, paper
products, cotton rags, disinfectant, degreaser, and other cleaning supplies for various City Departments.
Bidsync issued bid notices to 80 prospective bidders. The notices resulted in the receipt of 20 responsive
bids. Award is being recommended to Primary and Secondary bidders per line item. Annual savings in the
amount of $52,736 are anticipated.
APPROVE THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I
The ITB was issued with language which required that all chemicals supplied 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); and other janitorial products supplied be made with a minimum of
recycled post consumer materials as set forth in the EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG).
I NIA I
Financial Information:
I I
,
a :
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.rniamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the Ci y Commission /"
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1 by"
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO AWARD CONTRACTS TO BEST
JANITORIAL & SUPPLIES, INC.; CALICO INDUSTRIES, INC.; CENTRAL
POLY CORP.; DERMATEC DIRECT; HOSPITALITY PURCHASING LLC;
HUDSON PLASTIC CORP.; INTERBORO PACKAGING CORP.; JANITOR'S
SUPPLY OUTLET; PRIDE ENTERPRISES; QUILL CORP.; REX CHEMICAL
CORP.; SONGAHI, INC.; TOTALPACK, INC.; AND TROY INDUSTRIES, INC.,
AS PRIMARY AND SECONDARY VENDORS PER LINE ITEM, PURSUANT TO
INVITATION TO BID NO. 5-1011 1, FOR THE PURCHASE OF JANITORIAL
SUPPLIES CITYWIDE, IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $1 83,009.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Award of contracts.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME
Ensure well-maintained facilities.
FUNDING
Funds are available from the following budgeted accounts of various Departments:
Sanitation Division South Beach Service Team Acct. 435-9962-000343
Sanitation Division Acct. 435-0430-000343
Parks and Recreation Acct. 01 1-0950-000342-343
Parks & Recreation Acct. 01 1-0940-000343
Parks & Recreation Acct. 435-9962-000343
Fire Department Acct. 01 1-1 21 0-000343
Public Works Sewer Acct. 425-0420-000343
Public Works Water Acct. 425-041 0-000343
Public Works Street Lights Acct. 01 1-0840-000343
Public Works Stormwater Acct. 427-0427-000342
Parking Department Acct. 480-0462-000343
Fleet Division Acct. 51 0-1 780-000343
Propertv Manaclement Acct. 520-1 720-000342
Total
Should additional funding be required due to increased need of supplies, funding will be
subject to the review and approval of the Office of Budget and Performance Improvement
(OBPI).
Commission Memorandum - ITB 5-09/10 Purchase of Janiforial Supplies
July 13, 2010
Page 2
ANALYSIS
The purpose of this Invitation to Bid (ITB) is to establish a contract, by means of sealed
bids, for the purchase and delivery of janitorial supplies, including plastic liners, paper
products, cotton rags, disinfectant, degreaser, and other cleaning supplies for various
Departments throughout the City, as specified herein, on an as needed basis. This
contract shall remain in effect for one (1) year from date of contract execution by the Mayor
and City Clerk, and may be renewed by mutual agreement for two (2) additional years, on
a year to year basis.
While the City has listed the majority of the products (within this solicitation) utilized by the
various Departments in conjunction with their operations, there maybe similar items that
must be purchased by the City during the term of this contract. Under these
circumstances, a City representative will contact the primary vendor to obtain a price quote
for the similar items. If there are multiple vendors on the contract, the City may also obtain
price quotes from those vendors. The City reserves the right to award these similar items
to the primary contract vendor, another contract vendor based on the lowest price quote,
or to acquire the item through a separate solicitation.
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 IT9 was issued with language which required that all chemicals supplied 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); and other janitorial products supplied be made with a minimum of recycled post
consumer materials as set forth in the EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guideline
(CPG).
BID PROCESS
IT9 No. 5-0911 0 was issued on February 15, 201 1 with a bid opening date of March 15,
201 1. Two (2) Addenda 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 25, 201 1.
Bidsync issued bid notices to 80 prospective bidders. The notices resulted in the receipt of
20 responsive bids from the following companies:
Acuity Specialty Products Inc.
dba Zep Sales and Service
Best Janitorial & Supplies, Inc.
Calico Industries, Inc.
Central Poly Corporation
Relda LLC dba Dermatec Direct
Ecolab Inc.
Flavorseal LLC
Hospitality Purchasing LLC
Hudson Platic Corporation
lnterboro Packaging Corporation
Neeld Paper and Supplies dba
Janitor's Supply Outlet
Pride Enterprises
Pyramid School Products
Quill Corporation
Rex Chemical Corporation
Songahi, Inc.
State Industrial Products
Totalpack, Inc.
Troy Industries, Inc.
Unipak Corporation
Commission Memorandum - ITB 5-09/70 Purchase of Janitorial Supplies
July 73, 20 7 0
Page 3
The ITB stipulated that award of this contract may be made to the primary and secondary
lowest and best bidders, as defined in General Conditions 1.38, whose bid will be most
advantageous to the City of Miami Beach. Should the primary vendor fail to comply with
the Terms and Conditions of this Contract, the City reserves the right to award to the
secondary vendor, if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the City. The City reserves
the right to award per line item, should it be determined it is in the City's best economic
interest.
Award is being recommended to Primary and Secondary bidders per line item as noted in
the bid tabulation (Attachment A). Prices quoted by the bidder on the Bid Form shall
remain fixed and firm during the one year term of this contract for all Line ltems except
ltems I and 2 (plastic Liners). During the one year term, and any subsequent renewals,
the City will request prices for Line ltems 1 and 2 on a quarterly basis from those bidders
awarded a contract pursuant to this Invitation to Bid. The quarterly pricing requirement for
plastic liners was added to the ITB due to volatility in the polyethylene industry and
historical highs and lows of resin pricing.
COST COMPARISON
The table below shows a unit price cost comparison per line item between the latest
invoices and unit prices received pursuant to ITB No. 5-1 011 1 :
Based on previous year expenditures of $235,745, estimated annual savings in the
amount of $52,736 are anticipated.
Unit Price
ITB 5-1 011 1
$19.20
$1 5.20
$26.49
$14.56
$0.55
$0.55
$35.00
$5.1 1
$6.69
$7.90
$63.90
$60.85
Description
CL-35 Clear Trash Bags 40x48, 35 Gal , 1 Mil
Black Can Liner XX TOUGH, 38x58,60 Gal 1.5 Mil
Double Ply Toilet Tissue White
Multi Fold Towels, White 4rn
All White Wiping Cloths
White Sheets All Cotton, 24x24, 50 Lb. Box
Latex Glove, Powdered Disposable Large
Gloves, String Knit Double Pvc Dots (Dozen)
Lobby Dust Pan
Clorox Ultra Bleach or Equal 6-1 Gal BottlelCase
9" Duo Sweep Light Industrial Black
Brute 55 Gal Container Grey
Unit Price
Latest Inv.
$36.00
$35.71
$42.13
$16.28
$0.65
$0.65
$45.27
$6.30
$19.96
$1 0.20
$1 95.00
$65.95
Commission Memorandum - ITB 5-09/10 Purchase of Janitorial Supplies
July 13, 2010
Page 4
CONCLUSION:
Based on the aforementioned, the Administration recommends that the Mayor and City
Commission award contracts to Best Janitorial & Supplies, Inc.; Calico Industries, Inc.;
Central Poly Corp.; Dermatec Direct; Hospitality Purchasing LLC; Hudson Plastic Corp.;
lnterboro Packaging Corp.; Janitor's Supply Outlet; Pride Enterprises; Quill Corp.; Rex
Chemical Corp.; Songahi, Inc.; Totalpack, Inc.; and Troy Industries, Inc., as Primary and
Secondary vendors per Line Item, pursuant to ITB No. 5-1011 1 for the Purchase of
Janitorial Supplies Citywide, in the estimated annual amount of $1 83,009.
T:MGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\ITB 5-10-1 1 Purchase of Janitorial Supplies MEMO.doc
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 5-10111 - PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF JANITORIAL SUPPLIES Page I of 3 (P) Primary (S) Secondary REMARKS: * Line ltems 1 and 2: Prices will be requested quarterly on October, January, April and July during the life of the contract from awarded Vendors. Item Description Unit of Measure (UIM) ACUITY SPECIALTY PROD DBA ZEP BEST JANITORIAL AND SUPPLIES CALICO INDUSTRIES CENTRAL POLY CORP *Line ltems 6 and 8 (tie break): Totalpack (Item 6) and Dermatec (Item 8) selected as Primary Vendors due to Delivery Time, Minimum Order Requirement and Delivery Charges terms more advantageous to the City. PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS When prices submitted in unit of measure other than specified, prices have been modified in this tab to appear as same unit of measure for comparison purposes. 1 CL-35 CLEAR TRASH BAGS 40X48,35 GAL, 1 MIL 150 bags per case $48.45 $21.45 $21.79 (P) $19.20 3 DOUBLE PLY TOILET TISSUE WHITE 96 rolls per case/500 sheets/roll $53.23 $35.80 $38.74 $34.60 2 BLACK CAN LINER XX TOUGH, 38x58, 60 GAL 1.5MIL 100 bags per case $52.24 $1 8.80 $18.53 (s) $1 7.80 4 MULTl FOLD TOWELS, WHITE 4M 20 packages of 200 towels per case $32.96 $1 7.89 $17.64 $1 7.60 7 WHITE SHEETS ALL COTTON, 24x24, 50LB BOX 5OLB/Box Price per LB $1.08 $0.90 $0.92 5 SINGLE FOLD TOWELS, WHITE 4M (250 per * package) 16 packages of 250 towels per case $31.67 (s) $18.5 (P) $17.66 6 ALL WHITE WIPING CLOTHS 25 LB or 50 LB per Box Price per L B $2.34 $1.10 $1.88
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 5-IOlll - PURCHASE AND DELIVERY OF JANITORIAL SUPPLIES Page 2 of 3 (P) Primary (S) Secondary Item Description Unit of Measure (UIM) ACUITY SPECIALTY PROD DBA ZEP BEST JANITORIAL AND SUPPLIES CALICO INDUSTRIES CENTRAL POLY CORP DERMATEC DIRECT ECOLAB FLAVOR SEAL HOSPITALITY PURCHASING HUDSON PLASTIC INTERBORO PACKAGING JANITOR'S SUPPLY OUTLET PRIDE ENTERPRISES PYRAMID SCHOOL PRODUCTS QUILL REX CHEMICAL SONGAHI, INC. STATE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS TOTALPACK TROY INDUSTRIES When prices submitted in unit of measure other than specified, prices have been modified in this tab to appear as same unit of measure for comparison purposes. ! UNlPAK CORPORATION 8 LATEX GLOVE, POWEDERED DISPOSABLE large 10 Boxes per Case (100 count/box) $98.20 $44.25 $51.10 $49.90 (P) $35.00 $45.00 $44.95 (s) $35.00 $50.31 $50.20 $48.90 $38.70 $44.76 $44.25 $43.85 $65.80 9 GLOVES, STRING KNIT DOUBLE PVC DOTS (DOZEN) 12 Each $12.39 (s) $5.40 (P) $5.11 $13.50 $8.19 $9.67 $5.75 10 LOBBY DUST PAN Each $19.95 (P) $6.69 $9.14 (s) $6.75 $12.38 $10.70 $7.99 $13.59 $1 1.63 $8.25 $7.02 $14.95 11 CLOROX ULTRA BLEACH OR EQUAL1 6-1 GAL BO'ITLE/CASE Price per Case $1 8.97 (s) $1 0.1 4 $10.36 $1 3.50 $10.92 $1 1.59 $23.95 $1 1.82 (P) $7.90 $1 3.44 $12.23 $1 2.75 12 411 PREM HID DEGREASER 1 :25 DILUTION RATIO rUlGal/Case $26.52 (P) $1 1.20 $29.40 $34.15 $17.15 $17.12 $22.80 $26.93 (s) $14.95 $83.50 $22.1 5 $24.55 13 CLEANER DEGREASER,4- 1 GAL 1 :5-1:20 DILUTION RATE Price per Case $26.52 (P) $11.00 $19.08 $48.80 $17.12 $22.80 $58.94 $14.95 $83.50 14 411 PINE CLEANR ?',L,uTIoN rUIGal/Case $44.56 $23.20 $19.11 - $72.45 $29.99 (P) $13.68 $16.30 $61.88 $47.00 (s) $14.95 $29.01 $25.00
.sasod~nd uos!~edwo~ JO~ amseaw 40 qun awes se ~eadde 03 qe3 s!q3 u! pay!pow uaaq aheq sayd 'paypads ueq3 ~aqjo amseaw jo j!un u! pau!wqns saq~d uayM hepuoaas (s) hEUJ!Jd (dl OP'Z9$ (s) 81'101$ 98'61 I$ 00'99$ P8'1L1$ 98'09$ (dl We3 A3H3 N3NlVlN03 lV3 EE 3U3t18 OZ 06'f 9$ (dl Z6'E€ 1$ (s) ase3 lad yaea ZL M3U8 1VlHlSnaNI HDll d33MS Ona ,,6 6 1 96'PZ$ 99' 1 E$ Z0'8Z$ P 1'9Z$ 9 1'9Z$ 9L'8Z$ (s) L6'9L$ (dl asea lad SlloW 9 - ,008X..8 ,008X,,8 NO ,9ZPX,,8 13MOl 11OH aNVH 8 1 9 1'zP$ 6Pm8E$ Lg'ZZ$ (s) 80'PP$ ~LW$ (dl oo'PP$ 98'66$ € C 'OP$ PP.OE$ 6Z'SZ$ asea lad Zo ZElo SalUoQ 8 H3V318 HllM H3NV313 13W03 L 1 L0'99$ OP'69$ 88'LP$ ZL'SC$ (dl 9z 1'P9$ 99'PE$ 08'81$ (s) 90'PE$ ZoZt/ZL lVIt1313V811NV N3NV313 SSVl3 9 1 asB8z$ (dl €P'gP$ 99'P9$ 00' LP$ L8'P€$ 96'PS$ 9P*09$ LZ'66$ 6'EE$ (s) P8'99$ S~POPL/ZL AmdS lNVl33dNISIQ AVS 3lA 9 L NOlltlt10dtl03 MVdlNn S3MlSnCINI AOtll M3VdlVlOl s13naotld ivitllsnaNI ~IVLS '~NI 'IHVDNOS lV3113H3 X3tl illno ~13na0tld 100~3~ alltltl~d S3Sltldtl3lN3 3Clltld 131lnO AlddnS S,trOllNVr DNIDVM3Vd OtlOBtl31NI 311SVld NOSanH 9NISVH3tlnd NllVlldSOH lV3S tlOAVlJ BV1033 133tl1a 3a~vutl3a dl403 AlOd lWlN33 s31tllsna~l 0311~3 S3llddnS aNV 1VWOlINVr IS38 d3~ ~9a a0tld ~1~133d~ NI~~V (WM) a~ns~aw 40 l!un uogd!~3sag Mall
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Request for Approval To Issue A Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the Operation of Snack Vending
Machine Concessions at Various City-Owned Properties and Facilities
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Increase resident satisfaction with level of services and facilities.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): Approximately 40% of retail businesses
surveyed, rank Miami Beach as one of the best places to do business and 61% of the same group would
recommend Miami Beach as a place to do business.
Issue: I Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the issuance of the RFP?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
On July 27, 2005, the Mayor and the City Commission authorized the Administration to negotiate and
enter into a contract with Brothers Vending for the operation of vending and snack machines at various
locations on City-owned properties and facilities. The initial contract term was for two (2) years
commencing November 1, 2005 and expiring October 31, 2007 with three (3) additional one (1) year
renewal options, that were all exercised.
On January 13, 2010, the City approved an agreement with the Superlative Group to proceed with Phase
2 of a citywide marketinglcorporate sponsorship program.
On September 15, 2010, the Finance and Citywide Project Committee recommended to retain Brothers
Vending on a month-to-month contract,~afterq;fh.expFation of the third and final option term (which was
expiring on October 31, 2010), until such time that the City developed and issued a competitive process
for an "official beverage sponsor." The City is finalizing its negotiations with an official beverage sponsor
and the sponsorship will not include snack vending.
As the previous beverage and snack machine vending contract is operating on a month-to-month basis, it
is recommended that the City Commission authorize an RFP for a snack vending contract so that the City
employees, the public and visitors to City-owned properties and facilities may continue to enjoy the
convenience of purchasing snacks from vending machines located on the premises of City-owned
properties and facilities. The Proposed RFP Scope of Services and Evaluation Criteria are attached,
subject to change.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Gus Lopez and Anna Parekh
Financial Information:
AGENDA fTeM ca~
DATE 7-13-//,
Account
Financial Impact Summary: NIA 1'. ' -. . .
1 ' *.
Amount
N/A
Source of
Funds:
OBPl
1
Total
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 City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
("RFP") FOR THE OPERATION OF SNACK VENDING MACHINE
CONCESSIONS AT VARIOUS CITY-OWNED PROPERTIES AND FACILITIES.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve the issuance of the RFP.
BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2005, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005- 25804, authorizing the
issuance of an RFP to solicit proposals for the operation of beverage and snack vending machine
concessions at various locations on City property and facilities
On June 3, 2005, the City Manager via Letter to Commission No. 141-2005, appointed an
Evaluation Committee (the "Committee") to evaluate the proposals received in response to RFP No.
09/04-05. The Committee recommended Brother's Vending Inc. ("Brothers Vending") and,
subsequently, on July 27,2005, the Mayor and the City Commission authorized the Administration to
negotiate and enter into a contract with Brothers Vending for the operation of beverage and snack
vending machines at various locations on City-owned properties and facilities. The initial contract
term was for two (2) years commencing November I, 2005 and expiring October 31,2007 with three
(3) additional one (1) yearrenewal options, that were all exercised.
On January 13,2010, the City approved an agreement with the Superlative Group to proceed with
Phase two of a citywide marketinglcorporate sponsorship program. On September 15, 201 0, the
Finance and Citywide Project Committee recommended to retain Brothers Vending on a month-to-
month contract, afterthe expiration of the third and final option term which was expiring on October
31,2010, until such time that the City developed and issued a competitive process for the broader
sponsorship program, for an "official beverage sponsor." The City is finalizing its negotiations with an
official beverage sponsor and the sponsorship will not include snack vending.
ANALYSIS
As the previous beverage and snack machine vending contract is operating on a month-to-month
basis, and the City is negotiating a beverage vending program as part of a sponsorship deal, it is
recommended that the City Commission authorize an RFP for a snack vending contract so that the
City Commission Memorandum - RFP Vending Machines
July 13, 201 1
City employees, the public and visitors to City-owned properties and facilities may continue to enjoy
the convenience of purchasing snacks from vending machines located on the premises of City-
owned properties and facilities. The proposed RFP Scope of Services and Evaluation Criteria are
attached, subject to change.
The snack vending machine RFP is very similar to the last RFP used by the City when this program
was last bid and reflects a current list of City facilities in which machines are located.
Scope of Services
The intent of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to award an exclusive snack vending machine
concession agreement for the location of snack vending machines on City of Miami Beach property.
Said concession agreement shall provide for the installation and maintenance of vending machine
equipment at the sole cost of the successful proposer1Concessionaire.
Vendins Eauipment
All equipment installed under this concession agreement shall be new or remanufactured in
excellent condition prior to installation. The City may also request vandal proof and weatherproof
machines be provided at certain outdoor City parks.
All snack vending machines must be equipped with coin mechanisms accepting any combination of
nickels, dimes and quarters. The Concessionaire must supply a dollar bill changer at each interior
location where two or more vending machines are situated. Concessionaire shall identify if credit
card snack vending machines are being proposed.
Each machine must be equipped with a transaction counter, or other control acceptable to the City,
and must be licensed as provided in the "Permits" section below.
An initial list of locations at which snack vending machines shall be located is provided as an
Attachment to this RFP on page 34.
Written approval shall be obtained from the City Manager or the City Manager's designee prior to
the installation, transfer or removal of any snack vending machines.
UTILITIES
Electrical service, including outlets, shall be furnished by the City at the vending locations at no cost
to the Concessionaire. No water service will be provided by the City in connection with the operation
of snack vending machines under this concession agreement.
MAINTENANCE
The Concessionaire shall be responsible for all maintenance and repair of snack vending machines
as follows:
Cleaning and polishing of equipment and removal of litter within vending area created by
filling and/or servicing of machines. The Concessionaire shall provide route drivers time to
thoroughly clean each machine as it is replenished. This includes cleaning with a sanitizing
solution the interior and exterior of each machine.
City Commission Memorandum - RFP Vending Machines
July 13, 201 I
Routine - all equipment shall be checked weekly and a record of service calls are to be
maintained and forwarded to the City. In addition, a financial report shall be provided to the
City monthly.
Each machine must have posted the name and telephone number of the service, repair and
refund facility, immediately adjacent to the coin slot, of a size no less than 4" x 6.
The Concessionaire shall maintain all equipment in good working order and shall repair, or replace
any equipment not repairable, within two business days.
REFUNDS
The proposer must include in his proposal a statement describing the procedure whereby refunds
will be provided to the public. Additionally, the Concessionaire is to provide a "bank of $100 in cash
which shall be provided to the City of Miami Beach City Hall cashier, who will distribute refunds due
to mechanical malfunctions of the vending machines. An itemized refund list, including the names of
the persons the funds were refunded to, will be maintained by the City Hall cashier and submitted to
the Concessionaire upon requested replenishment of the funds.
PRICING AND AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES
The services as outlined herein shall be offered to the public on a daily basis at all times that a
reasonable commercial demand for such services exist, as determined by the City.
All initial prices for products must be included in the proposal and approved by the City. Any
subsequent changes must be submitted in writing to the City Manager or designee, and written
approval must be secured before implementing changes.
The City Manager or his designee may request services at additional locations or request additional
products for vending equipment on City property. The Concessionaire may, at its sole cost and
expense, test market these additional services for a sixty day period. If the Concessionaire
demonstrates to the City's satisfaction that the commercial demand does not exist for the additional
services, the Concessionaire will not be obligated to continue the additional services.
STANDARDS FOR REPORTS
The Concessionaire will prepare true and complete records and accounts of all gross receipts for
each contract year in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles consistently
followed, and report formats shall be subject to the approval of the City's Internal Auditor. Written
recommendations by the Internal Auditor for changes in accounting practices, reporting or controls
will be complied with by the Concessionaire.
GROSS RECEIPTS
The term "gross receipts" as used herein, shall mean all monies paid into the Concessionaire's
vending machines, for sales related to this concession.
SHORTAGES
All cash shortages, regardless of the reason, are to be absorbed by the Concessionaire and are not
to be deductedfrom gross receipts.
City Commission Memorandum - RFP Vending Machines
July 13, 201 I
RECORD RETENTION
The Concessionaire will maintain during the term of the agreement and for three years thereafter all
books of accounts, reports, and records, including sales slips, bank deposit slips, bank statements,
and such other sales records as an independent Certified Public Accountant would need to examine
in order to certify the Concessionaire's Annual Statement of Gross Receipts pursuant to generally
accepted accounting standards.
EXAMINATION OF BOOKS AND RECORDS
The Concessionaire will permit the auditors or the City to audit and examine the Concessionaire's
books of account, reports, and records during the term of this agreement, during normal business
hours and upon reasonable notice.
ANNUAL REPORT
The Concessionaire will submit an annual CPA Certified Statement of Gross Receipts to the City
within sixty days after the end of each twelve-month fiscal year. Such Certified Statement will
include an opinion by the CPA as to the accuracy of the Concessionaire's Gross Receipts as
defined by the concession agreement.
FACILITIESIPREMISES
The Attachment "Initially Authorized Locations" lists sites where snack vending machines may be
placed under this agreement. The Concessionaire accepts the current locations of snack vending
machines and space provided in their as-is condition and is responsible for any interior modifications
and maintenance which may be necessary, including security doors, windows and screens.
The Concessionaire must first obtain the City's written approval of any alteration of the physical
facilities and then must pay for such modifications, which become City assets upon expiration of the
agreement, unless the City decides not to retain said asset, at which time Concessionaire shall
remove same at its sole cost and expense.
ADVERTISING AND SIGNS
All advertising, signage, and postings shall be approved by the City Manager or his designee and
must comply with the requirements of the City's Planning Department and all other applicable
regulatory agencies.
COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, LICENSING AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
The Concessionaire shall comply with all rules, regulations, laws, and permitting requirements of the
City of Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, the State of Florida, and the U.S. Government now in
force or hereafter to be adopted.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The procedure for proposal evaluation and selection is as follows:
1. Request for Proposals issued.
2. Receipt of proposals.
3. Opening and listing of all proposals received.
4. An Evaluation Committee, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate
each proposal in accordance with the requirements of this RFP. If further
information is desired, proposers may be requested to make additional written
submissions or oral presentations to the Evaluation Committee.
5. The Evaluation Committee shall recommend to the City Manager the proposal or
proposals acceptance of which the Evaluation Committee deems to be in the best
interest of the City.
The Evaluation Committee shall base its recommendations on the following factors:
Evaluation CriterialFactors: Wei~ht
Experience, Financial Qualifications and Professional Reputation 25%
Operational Concept for the Concessions 10%
Commitment of Equipment andlor Capital Expenditures 10%
Quality and Variety of Proposed Products 1 5%
Pricing to the Public 20%
Fees to be Paid to the City 20%
Total I00 %
-
6. After considering the recommendation(s) of the Evaluation Committee, the City
Manager shall recommend to the City Commission the proposal or proposals,
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 proposal or
proposals.
8. In any case, City Commission shall select the proposal or proposals acceptance of
which the City Commission deems to be in the best interest of the City. The City
Commission may also reject all proposals.
9. Negotiations between the selected proposer and the City Manager 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 proposer other than the top-ranked proposer if
the negotiations with the top-ranked proposer fail to produce a mutually acceptable
contract within a reasonable period of time.
10. A proposed contract or contracts are presented to the City Commission for approval,
modification and approval, or rejection.
I 1 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.
lm~ortant Note:
By submitting a proposal, all proposers shall be deemed to understand and agree that no
property interest or legal right of any kind shall be created at any point during the aforesaid
evaluation/selection process until and unless a contract has been agreed to and signed by both
parties.
CONCLUSION
The previous beverage and snack machine vending contract is operating on a month-to-month
basis, pending the conclusion of negotiations for an official non-alcoholic beverage sponsorship
program. This program does not include snack vending machines. As such, it is recommended
that the City Commission authorize an RFP for a snack vending contract so that the City
employees, the public and visitors to City-owned properties and facilities may continue to enjoy
the convenience of purchasing snacks from vending machines located on the premises of City-
owned properties and facilities.
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\Vending Machine RFP MEMO-doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
1 Reauest For ADD~OV~~ To Award A Contract To TM Sound And Linhtinn, Inc., Pursuant To Invitation To Bid I
(ITB) No. 23-1 0jl1 For Audio System Replacement And upgrade For The Miami Beach Convention Center
In the Estimated Annual Amount of $149,332.53, Plus A Ten Percent Project Contingency, For A Grand
Total Of $164,265.78
Key Intended Outcome Supported: I Increase Community Satisfaction With City Services.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
Issue: I Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the award a contract? 1
Item SummarylRecommendation:
The DurDose of Invitation to Bid No. 23-1011 1 (the "Bid") is to establish a contract, by means of competitive 1
sealed bids, for audio system replacement and upgrade for the Miami Beach convention center. The
equipment being replaced and upgraded includes, but is not limited to the following: mixers, amplifiers and
equalizers. The successful bidder will provide and install appropriate connectors for all existing wiring. The
contractor must clean and repair all existing input wall panels.
The awarded contract shall remain in effect for two (2) years from date of contract execution by the Mayor
and City Clerk, and may be renewed by mutual agreement for two (2) additional years, on a year-to-year
basis.
Based on the analysis of the bids received, it is recommended that the City award contract to TM Sound
and Lighting, Inc.
APPROVE THE AWARD OF CONTRACT.
Advisory Board Recommendation: I NIA
Financial Information:
1 Source of 1 1 Amount 1 Account I
I Financial Impact Summary: I
Funds:
OBPl
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: (I 1 Gus Lopez Procurement Division Director @ 6641 I]L
'
2
Total
49!332'53
514T933'25
$164,265.78
FY 201012011 Miami Beach Convention Center
442-2545-069358 - Construction
FY 201 01201 1 Miami Beach Convention Center Acct. #
442-2545-069358 - Contingency
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 M
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO TM SOUND
AND LIGHTING COMPANY PURSUANT TO INVITATION TO BID (ITB) NO.
23-10111 FOR AUDIO SYSTEM REPLACEMENT AND UPGRADE FOR THE
MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER, IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL
AMOUNT OF $149,332.53, PLUS A TEN PERCENT PROJECT
CONTINGENCY, FOR A GRAND TOTAL OF $1 64,265.78.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Award of Contract.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Increase community satisfaction with City services.
FUNDING
Funding in the amount of $300,000 has been previously appropriated in Fiscal Year
201 01201 1.
Construction:
$149,332.53 FY 201 01201 1 Miami Beach Convention Center Acct. # 442-2545-069358
Contingency:
$14,933.25 FY 201 01201 1 Miami Beach Convention Center Acct. # 442-2545-069358
$1 64,265.78 Grand Total
ANALYSIS
The purpose of Invitation to Bid No. 23-1011 1 (the "ITB) is to establish a contract, by
means of competitive sealed bids, for audio system replacement and upgrade for the
Miami Beach Convention Center. The awarded contract shall remain in effect for two (2)
years from date of contract execution by the Mayor and City Clerk, and may be renewed
by mutual agreement for two (2) additional years, on a year-to-year basis.
The Convention Center's audio system was installed in1989, with a minimal upgrade in
1996 to the west side of the building. The proposed upgradelreplacement consists of
mixers, amplifiers and equalizers.
Commission Memo
July 13, 201 1
ITB-23-10-11 Audio system Replacement and Upgrade for the MBCC
The successful bidder ("contractor") will provide and install appropriate connectors for all
existing wiring. The contractor must clean and repair all existing input wall panels. The
Contractor must also test functionality of the newly installed equipment, set levels and
equalize for optimal use with existing speakers in venue. Project includes removing
existing mixers, amplifiers, and equalizer panels.
BID PROCESS
The ITB was issued on April 14, 201 1, with an opening date of May 23, 201 1. BidSync
issued bid notices to 58 prospective bidders, and Bidnet issued bid notices to 60
prospective bidders. Additionally, the Procurement Division sent notices to four (4)
prospective bidders. The notices resulted in the receipt of five (5) bids from the following
firms: TM Sound and Lighting, Teer Engineering, Pro Sound Inc., Communication
Access and NDR Corporation.
On May 25, 201 1, the Procurement Division sent the bids received to the following
individuals for evaluation:
Angelo Grande, MBCC Director of Operations
Paul Ramstetter, Prestige Director of OperationsIProject Manager
Ryan Fielding, Prestige Audio SpecialisffProject Manager
The individuals evaluated the five (5) bids received. The lowest and best was submitted
by TM Sound and Lighting. The Miami Beach Convention Center management company
stated that after reviewing the five (5) Bids they feel comfortable awarding a contract to
the lowest bidder.
TM Sound and Lighting has been in business over 35 years providing sound and video
installation, with a staff of approximately 15 employees. They have provided services to
City of Pembroke Pines and City of Oakland Park among other clients.
The Miami Beach Convention Center's estimated budget for this project is $300,000. By
awarding the contract to the lowest total bid, the City realizes a cost savings of
$1 35,734.22.
BID RESULTS
The bid results are tabulated and attached.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis of the bids received, the Administration recommends that the City
award a contract to TM Sound and Lighting Inc. pursuant to ITB 23-1011 1 for
Replacement and Upgrade to the Audio System forte Convention Center.
Lump Sum I $ 149,332.53 I $ 152,880.00 1 $ 198,112.00 1 $ 200,958.58 1 $ 222,000.00 10 calendar I 23-10-11 AUDIO SYSTEM REPLACEMENT AND UPGRADE FOR THE MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER NDR Corporation Total a. Delivery Time b. Labor Rate c. Warranty d. Guarantee e. Yearly Main. Communication Access Services, Inc. Total Pro Sound, Inc. dba Pro Sound 8 Video Total TM Sound and Lighting Item Total 30 calendar days $ 65.00 1 year for parts 1 year for labor $ 2,400.00 Teer Engineering Total 60 calendar days 55 1 year for parts 1 year for labor $ 16,000.00 quarterly full service visits for complete systems checks 120 calendar days 64.40 per hour 1 year for parts 1 year for labor $ 15,850.00 days $ 75.00 1 year for parts I year for labor $ 19,350.00 200 calendar days $ 52.00 1 year for parts 2 year for labor $ 4,000.00 10-years rnax 10% increase per year After first.
@ MIAMIBEACH
Cify 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
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: Referral 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.
INTRODUCTION
At the May 18, 201 1 meeting, the Land Use and Development Committee discussed the - -
issue related to the short-term rental ordinance for less than 3 units in the Flamingo Park
neighborhood. 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. A motion was made by Commissioner
Gongora and seconded by Commissioner Libbin (vote 3-0) 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 use1' to a different nomenclature.
RECOMMENDATION
Refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for its review and recommendation.
JMGI /M L
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\Referral to PI3 - short term rental arnendrnent.doc
1 Agenda Item C c/A
Date 7-/3-//
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
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: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: Referral to the Planning Board g8 - An amendment to the Land
Development Regulations requiring a Maintenance Bond or Security
lnstrument to ensure abandoned construction sites meet property
maintenance standards.
INTRODUCTION
On July 26,2010 and again on March 16,201 1, the Land Use and Development Committee -.
discussed the potential adoption of an ordinance requiring a Maintenance Bond or Security
lnstrument to ensure construction meets property maintenance and security standards. At
the May 18, 201 1 meeting, the Committee again discussed the issue, and agreed to an
ordinance requiring a Maintenance Bond or Security lnstrument for certain development
approvals. The intention would be to further enhance the monitoring and management of
vacant properties within the current means of the City until such time as the domestic
economy recovers and positive private redevelopment of these properties resumes.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gongora and seconded by Commissioner Libbin
(vote 3-0) to refer to the Planning Board an amendment to the Land Development
Regulations requiring a Maintenance Bond or Security lnstrument for certain development
approvals to ensure abandoned construction sites meet property maintenance standards.
RECOMMENDATION
Refer the proposed amendment to the Planning Board for its review and recommendation.
&RL
JMGI IRGL
t:\agenda\2011\7-I 3-1 l\referral to pb - rnaintentance instrurnent.docx
Agenda Item C Yg
Date 7-1341
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MIAMIBEACH
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 City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBIECT: REFERRAL TO THE FINANCEMD CITYWIDE PROJECT COMMITTEE TO
DISCUSS THE PROPOSED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH FOR THE PROVISION OF A BI-
DIRECTIONAL TRANSIT CIRCULATOR ROUTE SERVICE KNOWN AS THE
"SOUTH BEACH LOCAL".
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Refer the proposed Interlocal Agreement (ILA) between Miami-Dade County (the County) and
the City of Miami Beach for the provision of the South Beach Local (SBL) to the Finance and
Citywide Projects Committee for discussion.
ANALYSIS
Under the provisions of an ILA the County has been operating a bi-directional transit circulator
route service in Miami Beach since September 25, 2005. The SBL ILA expired on October 11,
2010. Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) has continued service after the expiration of the SBL ILA.
Prior to and since then, City staff has been conducting negotiations with the County for a new
agreement. At the start of negotiations the County insisted on a 50150% split on the annual
operating costs, this would have represented a $548,264 cost increase for the City. In 2005
when the MDT ILA was signed, the annual operating cost split was 46% City and 54% County.
The existing agreement has a 34% City and 66% County operating cost split, or $1,177,787 City
contribution and $2,228,433 County share. The new proposed agreement has a 38% City and
62% County split, or $1,213,121 City contribution and $1,979,303 County share. The County will
continue the same level of service, and the $0.25 fare will remain the same. The County has
also agreed to the terms of the annual operating cost increase.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission refer the new proposed
SBL ILA to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee for discussion.
T:WGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\Referral to FCWPC SBL IL4 Memo 7-201 1 .doc
I Agenda Item C qc
Date 7-1.3-1)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
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: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: REFERRAL TO THE FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE A
DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PROFESSIONAL TENNIS
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS SERVICES AT THE CITY'S FLAMINGO PARK
AND NORTH SHORE PARK TENNIS CENTERS -.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Refer the matter to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee for discussion.
BACKGROUND
The current agreement with Greensquare Inc., for the management and operations of the City's
tennis centers is due to expire in April, 2012. It has been the Administration's intention to issue a
Request For Proposals (RFP) in a timely manner to avoid any break in quality operations or
services to the City's tennis-playing residents and guests.
The RFP is intended to secure a qualified professional management company for the operation
of these public tennis facilities, to include the operation of the tennis courts; pro shop; a food
and beverage concession; and other tennis-related operations as approved by the City.
Services also include those customarily associated with the operation of a public tennis center,
including permitted special events related to the tennis center activities.
The final price and terms for the contracts would be negotiated after the City Commission
approves authorization to negotiate with the selected entity. The new management agreement
is expected to be for a three (3) year term, with two (2) one-year renewal options at the City's
option.
The issue at this time has to do with the timing of the issuance of this RFP, taking into
consideration that the Flamingo Park Tennis Center will be soon be under complete
reconstruction.
In fact, Commission action is being requested on July 13, 2011 for the Administration to
proceed with the actions necessary to secure the construction company to provide the GMP
pre-construction and construction services for the Flamingo Park Tennis Center project. As it is
planned, the Flamingo Park Tennis Center will remain open for play throughout the
construction of the new facility. The construction will be phased to enable a temporary pro shop
and a number of tennis courts to be available until the new facility is ready.
1 Agenda Item C YC)
Date 7-13-/I
FCWPC Referral - City's Tennis Centers Management RFP Discussion
Commission Memorandum
July 13,2011
Page 2 of 2
The Administration requests that a discussion be held to determine if it is logical to issue the
RFP at this time and have the selected tennis management company in position to begin
operations in April of 2012 when the current agreement expires, or whether it is a better option
for the City and our tennis-playing residents and guests for the City to extend the current
agreement with Greensquare on a month-to-month basis until such time as the new Flamingo
Park Tennis Center is nearing completion, and coordinate the issuance of the RFP in a manner
to have the selected operator in place to coincide with the grand opening of the new facility.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and the City Commission refer the matter to the
Citywide Projects Committee for discussion.
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\Referral to FCWPC - Tennis Centers Management RFP Discussion.doc
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 Manag
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: REFERRAL TO THE FINANC L! AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE TO
DISCUSS AUTHORIZING THE ClTY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO
TEMPORARY LICENSING-USE AGREEMENTS WlTH CONTRACTORS REQUIRING
THE USE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAGING AND/OR
STORAGE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT IN CONNECTION WlTH ClTY OR
PRIVATELY FUNDED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. -:
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Refer the matter to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee for discussion.
BACKGROUND
The City currently has no formal fee structure for Contractors requesting the use of City-owned
land for construction staging and/or construction equipment storage. Current use agreements are
developed on a case-by-case basis, interdepartmentally, depending on the proposed use of the
land. Because the proposed use of City-owned fee simple land would not be governed by a
conventional lease agreement or by the existing mechanism and fee structure identified for use of
right-of-ways, a Temporary Licensing-Use Agreement could be the mechanism to govern the use
of this type of City property for this purpose. An analysis of comparable market rates for the use
of land for construction staging resulted in widely varying scenarios for the City's consideration in
determining a fee structure. The Administration proposes discussion of options by the Finance
and Citywide Projects Committee at its next available meeting because there is a present need to
negotiate fees for three imminent projects.
For example, David Mancini & Sons (DMSI) is currently occupying City-owned vacant lots located
between 85th and 86 Streets along Collins Avenue; the current area of the lots comprises
approximately 52,500 square feet. DMSI is currently working on a watermain Installation Project
as the City's horizontal right-of-way JOC Contractor, and has occupied this site since May 4, 201 1,
for construction staging, parking, and material storage purposes. Mancini has provided proof of
liability insurance coverage which shows the City as Additional Named Insured; however, a fee
structure for the use of the property for the project's approximately 120 days duration is yet to be
determined.
In addition, in the near future, DMSI, as well as other City Contractors, will begin to pursue the
availability of lands for staging and storage as the City begins to escalate its right-of-way (ROW)
infrastructure Improvements Projects. A perfect opportunity for the City to implement a licensing
, Agenda Item
Date 7-/3-//
FCWPC Referral - Licensing Agreements for Use of City-Owned Property
July 13,201 1
Page 2 of 2
agreement is the upcoming Biscayne Point Neighborhood project, which is scheduled to
commence this summer and where DMSl will necessitate the continued use of the same site on
Collins Avenue for approximately 15 months additional time. Other projects which may encounter
similar conditions, depending on the Contractor's logistics, include the Bayshore and Sunset
Islands programs, which are also scheduled to begin construction this year and for which other
contractors will require lands for staging and storage.
The City has also been approached by the City of Bal Harbour in connection with its force main
repair project, which will involve construction in the City's ROW. Bal Harbour has requested
temporary use of one or more of the vacant City-owned lots on Collins Avenue between ~6'~ and
~7'~ streets for its construction staging between July gth and the end of September. Those vacant
lots also comprise 52,500 square feet.
ANALYSIS
While there is no fee structure in place for construction staging on fee simple land, a mechanism
and fee structure exists regarding obstruction of City right-of-way space during construction
staging. Section 82-151 of the City Code cites the 2005 market rate for obstruction of ROW as :
$10.53 per square foot, and requires that contractors also be required to provide commercial -
general liability insurance naming the City as an additional insured, as well as worker's
compensation and employer's liability as approved by the City's Risk Manager.
Since the property currently occupied by DMSl and the site requested by the City of Bal Harbour
are not right-of-way properties, the Administration is recommending the development of a
Temporary Licensing-Use Agreement fee structure that will govern the use of the site@) for the
duration of the previously described construction projects.
In the future, terms for Temporary Licensing-Use Agreements for use of City-owned fee-simple
property could be negotiated and entered into on a case-by-case basis by the City Manager or his
designee, and would include fair market use fees, occupancy terms and use restrictions. The use
of vacant City-owned property for construction-related staging, particularly by privately funded
projects, provides an excellent opportunity to generate much-needed revenue for the City.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and the City Commission refer the matter to the
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee for discussion.
J MGIH M FIAPIKOB
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-11 \Referral to FCWPC Licensing Agreements for Use of City Property.doc
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION
TO: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
FROM: Jonah Wolfson, Commissioner
DATE: June 3oth, 201 1
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Agenda ltem Referral to Finance Committee
Please place on the July 1 3th1 201 1 , Commission Meeting Agenda a referral to the -:
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee for a discussion concerning oversight
board for recommendations concerning new liquor licenses.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office at extension
6437.
We ore commlt;ed fo prowd~ng excellenf publrc senlrce ond sofey to oil who /we, work, ond ploy m our vd Agenda ltem CYF
, Date 7-/,?-I,/
119
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager
FROM: Michael Gongora, Commissione
DATE: July 5, 201 1 \
SUBJECT: Referral ltem for July 13 Commission Meeting
.-
Please place on the July Commission meeting consent agenda a referral to the
Finance Committee for a discussion concerning city fees and charges for Gay
Pride 2012. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my aide Diana
Fontani at ext 6087.
I Agenda Item c (76
Date 7-/13-//
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO : Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager
FROM: Michael Gongora, Commissioner
DATE: July 11, 2011
SUBJECT: Referral Item for July 13 Commission Meeting
Please place on the July 13 Commission meeting consent agenda a referral to the Land
Use Committee for discussion regarding the development north of Lincoln Road. If you
have any questions please feel free to contact my aide Diana Fontani at ext 6087.
M Gldf
a Agenda Item cL/k/
Date 7-134)
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager
FROM: Michael Gongora, Commissioner
DATE: July 5, 201 1
SUBJECT: Referral Item for July 13 Commission Meeting
A I
Please place on the July1 3 Commission meeting consent agenda a referral to
the Land Use Committee for discussion concerning the special events ordinance.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact my aide Diana Fontani at
ext 6087.
1 Agenda Item C $'z
I
I Date 7-13-//
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
FROM: Jonah Wolfson, Commissioner
DATE: July 6'" 201 1
SUBJECT: Agenda ltem
Please place on the July 13'" 201 1 Commission Meeting Agenda a referral to the
Land Use & Development Committee to discuss appeals from historic preservation
board, planning board, and board of adjustment. :
If you have any questions, please contact Leonor Hernandez at extension 6437.
J Wll h
We ore cornrn~/!ed to prov~drng excellen! publrc seMce and sale/y to oll who bve work and play ~n our v14
Agenda ltem c qT
Date 7-/3-)/
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
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 -@@& w
DATE: J~l~l3,2011 YI
SUBJECT: A REFERRAL TO THE FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE
TO DISCUSS THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL STORMWATER REVENUE
BONDS
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Refer the item for discussion
BACKGROUND
In November 2000, the City issued its first series of Stormwater Bonds in the amount of
$52.17 million. The Administration, in concert with the City's Financial Advisor, has
determined that the City now has the need and the capacity to issue additional
Stormwater Revenue Bonds. The City has the opportunity to achieve a financing at tax-
exempt rates for new capital projects for the Stormwater System and the possibility of
refunding a portion of the outstanding Series 2000 Stormwater Bonds.
On June 30,2008, the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee recommended that two
series of Stormwater Revenue Bonds be issued to fund the approximately $94.6 million
needed for projects. The first issue was proposed to be $39.1 million in Fiscal Year
200912010 and the second issue in Fiscal Year 201 112012 for $55.5 million. In Fiscal
Year 201012011 the Adopted Capital Budget included funding for the Citywide
Stormwater Master Plan and several new projects bringing the proposed program total
to $1 06.8M.
In an effort to defer issuing debt; to expedite the spend down of existing Stormwater
bond proceeds and to comply with State law requirements that funds be available at the
time a contract is awarded, the City obtained a Line of Credit (LOC) for $30 million to
award scheduled Stormwater projects in anticipation of the new bond issue. On January
19, 201 I, the City Commission authorized the execution of the LOC agreement between
the City and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and to date we have committed approximately
$23 million from this line for Stormwater projects.
Based on the current Capital Plan and Fiscal Year 201012011 Capital Budget, the
recommended amount for the next bond issue is $50 million plus a refunding of a
substantial portion of the remaining outstanding Series 2000 bonds.
JM
Agenda Item
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\Referral to FCW Stormwater Bonds First Traunch.docx Date 7-/3~/1
129
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
AM1 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 oft e City Commission /"
From: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
Date: July 13, 201 1
Subject: REPORT OF THE CAPITAL IMPRO~ENT PROJECTS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
MEETING OF MAY 9,2011
The meeting was called to order at 5:46 p.m.
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:
http:ll www.miamibeachfl.~ov/video/video.asp
, -:
, .
1. ATTENDANCE
See attendance sheet copy attached
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
5:46
No one came forward for Public Comments
3. PRESENTATIONS
Scott Rakow Youth Center Refund Check 5:47
Fernando Vazquez, Director, Office of Capital Improvement Projects, explained that the
contractor delivered a return check to the City that represents a savings of $171,000. Bert
Cabanas, Capital Project Coordinator and the project manager for the Scott Rakow Youth Center
renovation project, introduced Ellen Vargas, the facility manager of the Youth Center and Vic
Crespin, representing KVC Constructors. Mr. Cabanas explained that the contract was written
under new guidelines developed with the Procurement Department for CM@Risk construction
management. CIP felt that CM @Risk was the best delivery method for this project. There was a
savings clause built into the contract stating that should the Construction Manager at Risk realize
any savings from the negotiated schedule of values, the City would be the recipient of 75% of
those savings. Ellen Vargas spoke very favorably about the renovation and how the project was
handled, praising the contractor and the Office of CIP. Vic Crespin of KVC Constructors
presented the check. The project was completed on time as well as under budget. He praised the
Best Value process and the CM@Risk delivery method. He stated that seeking alternative
construction delivery methods benefits the city.
Eleanor Carney asked where the savings were specifically realized. Vic Crespin said that the
estimate was based on assessment of general conditions and best guess at how certain
components would be phased or carried out. As work progressed, they realized where they could
speed up certain timeframes and in cost of some materials. Throughout the project, the City and
the contractor worked together to carry out the job in the most efficient manner.
Dwight Kraai asked how close the savings of $171,000 brought the cost to the lowest bidder. It
was clarified that the project was not bid; the job was worked off of a JOC price.
Agenda Item C6A
Date 7-/3-//
ClPOC Committee Meeting Minutes
May 9, 201 1
Page 2 of 5
Status of Permanent Generators 6:Ol
Hector Castro, Assistant Director, Public Works, explained that the City operates 10 stormwater
pump stations. All discharge directly into Biscayne Bay or into the inland canals. Under the new
Stormwater Master Plan, approximately 13 new pump stations will be added. A typical station is a
submersible station with two pumps (duplex), ranging from 20 -100 HP. FDOT will be installing as
many as four new stations that will be of the larger size. For standby power, PWD uses trailer-
mounted portable generators. These contain 500gal fuel (most are diesel) storage tanks, which
enable the generator to run for about one week, but poses refueling challenges. Each portable
generator costs $40,000 - $70,000 new (based on state contract).
Saul Gross asked if the source of fuel was natural gas, eliminating the need for a collector or a
tank, would the generators be smaller. The answer is that diesel is more efficient and the
generator would actually be smaller. (Mr. Castro presented photos within a Powerpoint
presentation of what the stations and generators would look like). Natural gas, if available, is
preferable, for a number of reasons. Diesel fuel storage can be problematic, because of
secondary containment requirements for code compliance and because the permitting and
monitoring processes are tedious.
The issues for permanent standby generators are:
- Installation cost ($150,000 +) (It would cost over $1 million to install generators for all ten
existing pump stations)
- Operation and maintenance costs ($1 5,000+ annually)
- Land requirements (requires approx 400 additional feet)
- Design criteria
- Fuel issues
- Diesel requires additional storage and containment
- Aesthetics 1 Nuisance complaints (for maintenance, there is a series of test runs under load)
There are six portable generators available, not enough to operate all of the current existing
stations should they all be inoperable. PWD has to move the generators around. Mr. Castro
pointed out that in the case of an emergency such as a hurricane; wastewater operations take
precedence over stormwater.
The cost of the generator itself is essentially the same whether permanent or portable, but there
is additional cost for the permanent structures. There are also costs involved when addressing
the aesthetics (hiding or masking panels with structures or landscaping).
The discussion turned to the FDOT plan for stormwater drainage on state roads and how they tie
in to the systems that the City is expanding/adding/buiIding. Mr. Castro noted that the City
approached the State, noticing that the plan for their stormwater drainage system was "myopic,"
and asked that they work to tie in the City's system, and negotiations with the State have been
favorable.
Staff is not making any specific recommendations at this time, the presentation was just to
present the information on portable vs. permanent generators for the pump stations. Fernando
Vazquez asked Chair Gross if the Committee had any opinion at this time.
Saul Gross said that looking at the cost differential and the upkeep in the efforts to combat any
aesthetic issues, unless there would be a "mission-critical" station, there is a preference for
portable generators. Mr. Castro said that from Public Works1 perspective, there is an operational
benefit to having a sufficient amount of portable generators, which would serve not just the pump
stations, but various purposes. The City would still need to purchase better and more pumps.
ClPOC Committee Meeting Minutes
May 9, 201 1
Page 3 of 5
Rick Kendle suggested that PWD speak with TECO about the impact of installing natural gas
lines to all the stations, considering the possibility of limited mobility should trees come down
during a storm. Mr. Gross noted that most residents choose natural gas for their own generators
in areas where it is available.
The Committee had no specific recommendation, but the Chair asked that if Public Works and
CIP develop a recommendation that they bring it to the Commission via the Finance and Citywide
Project Committee. He also asked that the PowerPoint presentation be made available on the
City's website.
ACTION ITEM: A report on the portable generators will be given to the Finance and Citywide
Projects Committee by Public Works.
ACTION ITEM: The PowerPoint presentation on the portable generators will be placed on the
website and a copy of the presentation will be sent to Fred Karlton.
4. REQUESTEDREPORTS
Status Report on Lower North Bay Road Neiahborhood 6:27
Commission approved the amendments that were brought in order to work further with the
Engineer on the design for this project. Janette Fernandez-Arencibia, Capital Project Coordinator,
construction is anticipated to begin in the third quarter of this year, should all the plan finalization,
value engineering and if all requests are brought and approved by Commission. CH2MHill is
anticipated to complete revisions in 60 days (in process at time of meeting). The challenge is
getting this to Commission in time to meet a third quarter construction start date.
ACTION ITEM: CIP to report back on the status of Lower North Bay Road.
Status Report on Normandy Isle Neiahborhood 6:32
The most important component is the additional lighting for Marseilles Drive area. Daniel Veitia, a
community activist in Normandy Isle is working with the City on this. There are about 30 total
lights, approximately 19 have been installed. Nine more lights have been recommended. An
additional photometric study is being completed. Additional funding has been requested through
PTP funds in conjunction with Public Works. Final recommendation from the AIE is pending and
then the project can be completed. Public Works also provided funding assistance for the pavers
that are being installed in certain crosswalks. Commercial District pavers and some landscaping
are also being worked on as finding is being identified. Some components are now under a
capital budget request. This is likely to come before the Finance and Citywide Projects
Committee in July for the 201 112012 budget cycle.
ACTION ITEM: CIP to check when the additional items for the Normandy Isles Capital
Improvement project will be going to the FCWP Committee for budget allocation.
5. OLD BUSINESS
Status Report: Venetian Island Neighborhood Improvement Proiect 6:38
Roberto Rodriguez, Capital Projects Coordinator, reported that the ITB will be delayed HOA
meeting April 20, County announced that they ran into unforeseen conflicts which inhibited their
construction on the causeway and they are behind schedule. The City's schedule is 14 months of
construction, and we want to coordinate with the County. Now with the delays in the County
construction, the decision (made by the project team with consulting engineer, Schwebke Shiskin)
is to hold off construction commencement so that the 14-month schedule can be met. The County
has been working on the causeway for four months, but has only completed 6% of their project.
The ITB could be brought to Commission in September, rather than July. Depending on the
ClPOC Committee Meeting Minutes
May 9, 201 1
Page 4 of 5
progress of the County's project, the City has a window enabling a delay into October to issue the
ITB.
Eleanor Carney asked if the County project managers could attend the July ClPOC meeting so
that they could hear the concerns of the Committee.
ACTION ITEM: Fernando Vazquez informed the Committee that the County project manager
would be invited to the July meeting.
Dwight Kraai asked if encroachment notices have been distributed and who is responsible for
paying for the removal. Mr. Rodriguez presented the letters that were written and are ready for
distribution and informed Mr. Kraai that removal of encroachments are within the scope of work of
the project. Mr. Vazquez pointed out that the City removes certain encroachments, we do not
cover cost of removing structures or certain large trees. Most of the encroachments are
hardscape driveway aprons or smaller landscaping. No structures.
Mr. Kraai also inquired about the County project and removal of large trees on the causeway.
This will be answered when the County project managers attend the July ClPOC meeting.
ACTION ITEM: CIP will check with the County on tree removals and relocations within their
project on the Venetian Causeway.
Status Report: Sunset Islands I & I1 6:47
Maria Hernandez, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator, reported that the ITB went out the week of
May 2. A pre-bid meeting was scheduled for May 17, bids due June 3. Hoping to award the
contract July 13. Construction has begun for outfalls #I and #2. The structure for outfall #I has
been installed. Outfall #2 installation follows behind it.
Status Report: Sunset Islands 111 & IV 6:48
Mattie Reyes, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator, introduced Rick Saltrick, from Public Works,
who explained that public works-met with the HOA and worked out an arrangement which was
approved by the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee, whereby the City will pay $50,000 for
a new guardhouse and the HOA would pay the difference (total is estimated at $75,000-$80,000
for the guardhouse). The City will still cover the complete entrance renovation. This will go before
the Design Review Board in June.
Mattie Reyes further discussed the status of the ROW project. CH2MHill is the engineer of
record. There was no consensus among the HOA about the streets being one-way or not, so this
will be brought up again at another meeting with Public Works (HOA is seeking a
recommendation).
Status Report: Palm & Hibiscus Island Underwounding 6:52
Grace Escalante, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator, stated that FPL submitted the revised
drawings to the HOA, the City is reviewing the drawings and the locations are chosen for the
transformers, the HOA will inform the City, who can ask for a binding estimate from FPL.
In response to Eleanor Carney's question from the last ClPOC meeting, the construction does not
have to take place within the 180 days, but design will proceed and once construction starts FPL
will honor their estimate. The City and County Attorneys will work out the interlocal agreement as
soon as the binding estimate is received.
Eleanor Carney cautioned that the terms be worked out before the binding estimate is received.
ClPOC Committee Meeting Minutes
May 9, 201 I
Page 5 of 5
ACTION ITEM: CIP will make sure that terms are worked out before a binding estimate is
received from FPL for Palm and Hibiscus Island Undergrounding.
6. Discussion Item: Construction Manaqement Options 654
Fernando Vazquez explained that City Staff was asked to look into Construction Management
opportunities. CIP and Public Works can, at a future meeting, provide a list of projects and the
options of construction management for them. Commodity projects like seawalls, surface lots and
some vertical facilities provide opportunities to begin a process of engaging staff as program
manager as the projects are outsourced. The City is looking at potential savings for bundling
projects and operating as an owner's rep vs. cost of bringing in an outside owner's rep. Staff has
held some discussions with professionals in the private sector. After discussion with the City
Manager, more detailed information can be brought back to the Committee.
ACTION ITEM: CIP will provide updates on developments to the Committee as the City continues
evaluating the various construction management model options.
7. REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES * :
No quorum, therefore the Minutes of April 11,201 1 were not approved.
One correction was noted Tony Trujillo stated that Carla Probus' name was misspelled.
ACTION ITEM: CIP to check with the City Clerk's office on what constitutes a quorum for the
Committee and whether Chair Saul Gross is considered an ad hoc member or a voting member.
ACTION ITEM: A copy of the corrected minutes will again be included in the July 11, 201 1
agenda packet.
Meeting Adjourned: 7:01 p.m.
T:WGENDA\2011\7-13-1 I\CIPOC Mintues of May 9, 201 I .docx
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
AMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM
TO : Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: City Manager Jorge M. Gonzale
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE FINANCE A~&~T?WIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE
MEETING OF May 19,201 1.
OLD BUSINESS
A :
1. Follow up: Discussion regarding the Miami Beach Festival of the Arts and
potentially contracting with a professional art festival company to produce
the Festival for the City
The Committee recommended that the Administration ask the Miami Beach Visitor
and Convention Authority to consider developing a partner for the replacement in
lieu of the arts festival or the arts festival itself, possibly coming up with another
entity to do an arts festival and that a status report is given to the Finance &
Citywide Projects Committee at a future date.
Max Sklar, Director of Tourism & Cultural Development, presented the item and gave a
brief synopsis of the memo.
Following the 2010 Festival of the Arts, the Administration met with Mr. Howard Alan,
whose company, Howard Alan Events, produced art festivals all across the country,
including the Las Olas festivals and the Key Biscayne festival. Mr. Alan recommended
repositioning the festival as more of a crafts-oriented event with the focus more on
crafts, food, flowers and some art (but not high end art), and move the date to mid-April
when it fits more into the calendar for arts and crafts events. The Fine Arts Board
discussed his recommendation at their July and August 2010 meetings and unanimously
recommended in favor of this change. Additionally, they recommended the City contract
with Howard Alan Events to produce the Festival for the City. In making this
recommendation, the Fine Arts Board felt Mr. Alan must retain full control of the event.
The Miami Beach Arts and Crafts Festival took place on April 9-10, 201 1. Attendance
was very poor and the vendors reported very low sales over the course of the two day
event. Sales were so poor that vendors said they would not return and the producer had
to refund their registration fees. The Fine Arts Board discussed the 201 1 Festival at
their regularly scheduled meeting on April 14, 2011. The members agreed that the
Festival was not a success, and that marketing and promotion of the Festival was poor.
The Board recommended by unanimous vote that the City permanently cease
presentation of the Festival and seek other ways to promote activity in North Beach.
i ~genda Item C68
I Date 7-/3-//
Chairperson Deede Weithorn asked what the trend was in art festivals. Mr. Sklar stated
that it depends on the area, and that at the time this festival was created it was one of
the only art festivals in the county but today there are several festivals offered frequently.
North Beach Resident Daniel Veitia stated his concern over discontinuing the festival
without replacing it with something else. Commissioner Jonah Wolfson also stated that
the festival should not be discontinued until there was something to replace it with.
Chairperson Deede Weithorn suggested a working group is created to come up with
something to replace the festival and asked that an event is budgeted for. Discussion
ensued. The Committee recommended that the Administration ask the Miami Beach
Visitor and Convention Authority to consider developing a partner for the replacement in
lieu of the arts festival or the arts festival itself, possibly coming up with another entity to
do an arts festival and that a status report is given to the Finance & Citywide Projects
Committee at a future date.
2. Discussion on updated VCA budget
None Required
Elsie Howard, Chair of the Visitor and Convention Authority, presented the item and
reviewed their FY 201 11201 2 Investment Budget.
The Miami Beach Visitor and Convention Authority (MBVCA) is a seven member
authority. Each member is appointed by the City of Miami Beach Commission, with the
goal of encouraging, developing and promoting the image of Miami Beach locally,
nationally, and internationally as a vibrant community and tourist destination. A budget
projection is provided to the MBVCA by the City of Miami Beach (CMB) Budget Office
annually based on 5% of the 2% Resort Tax calculated on 96% of the collections. The
MBVCA budget is wholly derived from resort taxes; the majority of the City's budget is
derived from property taxes and these funds are not correlated. The MBVCA usually
funds below the City's projection, as the collection of funds can differ substantially from
projection, andlor the result of unanticipated problems like an airline strike, terrorism,
economic issues or storms. When and if there are funds remaining at year's end, those
funds are either deposited in the bank or are rolled over into funding for the year to
come. By statute, the MBVCA can only fund for one year at a time. The MBVCA is also
required by law to maintain reserve bank accounts in approved public depositories, with
sufficient reserves to cover two years of funding, which it does. Reserves are
maintained to pay grant recipients (contracted) for the previous cycle and to ensure that
sufficient funds can be invested to stimulate tourism in the future. Ms. Howard stated
that the reinvestment plan for the unrestricted funds consisted of $565,000 for
Marketing/Communications and PR, $175,000 in IT Development, $30,000 for the Visual
Memoirs history project, $75,000 for the Mobile Visitor initiative, and $1,127 for
contingencies which totals $846,127 in planned expenditures for the next three years.
Commissioner Jorge Exposito asked Max Sklar, Director of Tourism and Cultural
Development, if he had received any feedback from conventioneers or meeting planners
on what type of applications or technology that they would like to see or would find
helpful. Mr. Sklar stated that feedback included requests for a City map and points of
interest. Chairperson Deede Weithorn asked if Global Spectrum has requested an
application. Mr. Sklar stated that they had not asked Global Spectrum about an
application but that they are currently looking into technology that included a map of the
building, where concession stands are located, etc. that could be customized for the
group attending. Ms. Howard stated that she would get in contact with the Convention
Center to discuss any feedback they may have received and explore the matter further.
3. Discussion regarding renewal of agreement with Clear Channel ADSHEL,
Inc. to construct, operate, and maintain bus shelters
ACTION
The Committee
asked that the deadline to renew be extended from June 1,201 1 to October
1, 201 1 and that the negotiated proposal to renew the current agreement is
brought to the full Commission
recommended that the structures pending construction or capital
investment are put in abeyance until the agreement is renewed
asked that an amendment to the agreement be developed to incorporate
the interactive digital shelters and is brought back to the Finance &
Citywide Projects Committee
Assistant City Manager Duncan Ballantyne introduced the item and gave a brief
synopsis of the memo.
At its March meeting in determining whether to approve a five-year renewal to the City's
agreement with Clear Channel Adshel (Clear Channel) to construct, operate and
maintain bus shelter structures and other street furniture throughout the City, the
Finance & Citywide Projects Committee requested that staff provide additional
information on comparable rates for advertising, how other cities handle this, and to
identify Clear Channel's competitors. Under the terms of the Agreement, the initial term
of ten (10) years terminates on October 1, 2011. At the end of the initial term, the
Agreement automatically renews for a five (5) year term, provided, however, that the
City, at its sole option and discretion, may, after the initial ten (10) year term, elect not to
renew the Agreement by notifying Adshel of its intent not to renew, in writing 120 days
(June 1, 2011) prior to the expiration of the initial ten (10) year term. Clear Channel
submitted a proposal which provides for increases in the revenue sharing percentage for
static displays (from 20% currently and 25% upon renewal to 30% upon renewal and
35% upon an additional five year renewal) and an increase in the minimum payment
form $240,000 annually to $260,000 annually. It also provides a proposal for
incorporating a new technology known as interactive digital displays. The proposal
addresses both the current static advertising program, which currently provided the City
with $486,647 in 2010, and a proposal to replace a limited number of the static
advertising displays with digital displays that have interactive features. Chairperson
Deede Weithorn suggested that the City negotiate further. The Administration
recommended that the City notify Clear Channel prior to June 1, 2011, of the City's
intent to not automatically renew the agreement and negotiate further. The Committee
asked that the deadline to renew be extended from June 1,201 1 to October 1, 201 1 and
that the negotiated proposal to renew the current agreement is brought to the full
Commission. Pedro Milian Jr, Clear Channel Outdoor, was concerned with changing the
renewal date to October 1, 201 1 because there are still some bus shelters that were
scheduled to be constructed between June 1 and October 1. Discussion ensued. The
Committee recommended that the structures pending construction or capital investment
be put in abeyance until the agreement is renewed.
Jordy Ford, Vice President of Digital Media in San Francisco for Clear Channel Outdoor,
presented the interactive digital transit shelters in use currently in San Francisco. The
interactive digital transit shelters feature 72" LCD touch screens, which allow consumers
to not only view but also interact with the content. Yahoo! is the first advertiser to create
a campaign exclusively for the interactive touch screen shelters. The Yahoo! Bus Stop
Derby campaign uses interactive games to showcase yahoo!'^ mobile application
offerings to San Francisco residents and commuters, many of whom spend their down
time at transit shelters using smartphones to get information and stay connected on the
go. The San Francisco bus shelter network delivers free Wi-Fi access to the
surrounding area, creating opportunities to deliver a new level of creativity in integrating
the Outdoor advertising medium with mobile and social media. Furthermore, the touch
screens have been developed to withstand harsh outdoor elements including rain, direct
sun and temperature variations. Chairperson Weithorn asked if the advertising on the
shelter would still be static or digital. Mr. Ford stated that one side would be static, as it
is today and the other side, inside the shelter, would be digital. The Committee asked
that an amendment to the agreement be developed to incorporate the interactive digital
shelters and is brought back to the Finance & Citywide Projects Committee.
NEW BUSINESS
4. Discussion on resources assigned to address proliferation of homeless on
Washington Avenue
ACTION
The Committee asked that the item be brought back to a future Finance & Citywide
Projects Committee meeting and that pan-handling be included.
Assistant City Manager Hilda Fernandez presented the item and went on to introduce
Katherine Martinez, Homeless Programs Coordinator. Chairperson Deede Weithom
asked what resources we have and how they are being allocated. Ms. Martinez stated
that there are two teams that are divided between north and south beach; one team
roving around from 41St Street north and one team roving from 41St Street south. Ms.
Martinez also stated that the team roving South Beach spends a lot of time at Lummus
Park, on Ocean Drive and Lincoln Road. Ms. Martinez then stated that when
Washington Avenue has been targeted, in conjunction with the Police Department, that
they have found that a lot of the people who look homeless are in fact not homeless and
reside at the Oceanside Extended Care Center and that these are the people most often
seen pan-handling on Washington Avenue. The Committee asked that the item be
brought back to a future Finance & Citywide Projects Committee meeting and that pan-
handling be included.
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: July 13, 201 1
MEETING OF May 25,2011.
SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
1. Discussion regarding ordinances related to modifications to the Building,
Fire, Planning and Public Works Department Fees and resident and
business concerns that Building Department Fees are too high
The Committee asked that the revised ordinance be brought back to the June 23,
2011 Finance & Citywide Projects Committee meeting for review prior to
presentation at the July Commission meeting.
The Committee also recommended that the City should continue to evaluate the
fee comparisons to other jurisdictions' for all departments combined, and provide
those findings to the Committee.
City Manager Jorge Gonzalez presented and gave a brief history of the item.
The Building Development Process in the City of Miami Beach includes the Building
Department, the Fire Department's Prevention Services Division, the Public Works'
Engineering Division, and the Planning Department.
Budget & Performance Improvement Director Kathie Brooks stated that JRD &
Associates had been retained to compare fees to other jurisdictions and that Maximus
Consulting had been retained to review the status of implementation. Assistant Building
Director Kristin Tigner stated that the jurisdictions examined by JRD & Associates were
Coral Gables, Doral, Miami, Miami-Dade County, and Pinecrest. JRD conducted a
comparative analysis of the 20 most common/revenue-producing permit types for the
Building Department and six (6) Right of Way permit types, and proposed new fees for
12 of these permit types. Additionally, it appears that, currently, for new commercial
' Agenda Item C@ C
Date 7-/3-//
construction, Miami Beach's fees are significantly lower that the others analyzed. The
findings by JRD & Associates state that they concur with Maximus Consulting's
approach and methodology in determining the building permit fees for Miami Beach;
JRD also concurs, in general, with the time associated with building plan reviews and
inspections, as determined by Maximus and the City; and JRD strongly recommends
that City staff performing plan reviews and inspections track their times to perform these
functions and that technology be utilized to the fullest extent to assist in the recording of
these times.
Jorge Duyos, President of JRD & Associates, presented the fee comparisons.
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson stated that the comparisons needed to include all fees
(Fire, Planning and Zoning, and Public Works fees), and not just Building Department
fees, in order to assess whether the fees are inline with other jurisdictions.
Chairperson Deede Weithorn stated that the decision that should be made is whether
the City wants to be inline with other cities or use a cost recovery method. Discussion
ensued.
Chairperson Weithorn stated that the average cost of the fee, for all fees, should be
determined, and then compared to the City's fee currently in place and if the City's fee is
15-20% outside of the average, the fee should be changed.
Public comment included concerns with the fees for existing buildings and not new
construction.
Ms. Brooks reviewed the Maximus findings and stated that Maximus had determined
that the objectives of moving to a simplified fee structure, having a "revenue neutral"
impact with the new fee structure, and applying fees correctly have been met. Ms,
Brooks stated that at the time of the fee study in 2009, Maximus had determined that
revenue recovery for the Building Department was approximately 100 percent
($9.5 million in cost versus $9.7 million in revenues), but only 90% for all four
departments in the building development process ($14.3 million in cost versus $1 1.5
million in revenues), Under the fee structure recommended by Maximus, revenues for
the Building Department were expected to decline to $8.1 million (to be offset by the use
of Building reserves), and revenues for Planning, Public Works and Fire were projected
to increase by $1.5 million, although still not reflecting recovery of 100 percent of costs
as the proposed fee structure contemplated discounts for residential permits, small
projects, and for "green" initiatives. The total revenues were projected to remain at levels
similar to prior to the change in the fee structure.
Per Maximus1 review, actual revenues collected by the Building department over the
past year did in fact decline to $7.8 million while revenues for the other departments
increased, The total revenues collected across all four departments was $1 1 .I million
as compared to the $1 1.5 million collected prior to the change in the fee structure. In
fact revenues collected as a percent of the 2009 costs declined from 80 percent to 78
percent. Based on Maximus' estimates of FY 201011 1 costs, cost recovery is now at 74
percent.
Ms. Tigner stated the following proposed modifications recommended by the
Administration and some of the Committee members during individual briefings:
specialty permits: additional fee categories are recommended for frequently
requested smaller permits that are interdisciplinary in nature
new categories: to account for less commonly pulled permit types
revised permit fees: revisited times allocated to a process based on concerns
raised by staff and/or customers
multiple fee levels: creating multiple fee levels for a category based on the level
of complexity of the work
add language related to permits for Fire, Planning and Public Works consistent
with the language which already exists for Building regarding discretion by the
specific departments if there is not a permit type for a permit application
modify the expired permit renewal fee to incentivize compliance
o reapplications within 180 days of expiration of permit: proposing a fee of
25% of the original permit fee (effectively a 75% credit), plus a $57
processing fee
o reapplications after 180 days of the expiration date of the permit:
proposing a fee 25% of the original permit fee (also a 75% credit) plus
20% of the new permit fee
incentivize installation of storm shutters by feeing permit applications with a flat
fee of $25 or $30 per opening
further decrease crane fees based on time blocking the road (half day or full day)
if new condolnew hotel construction permit fees are low, they should be raised to
the rates they should be and offer a short-term discount
add language so that permit fees are re-evaluated (for example, every 3 years)
add a trigger on higher-level evaluation of fees
o Building Director has to approve all fees in excess of certain dollar
amount and/or certain percentage of value of construction
The Committee asked that the revised ordinance be brought back to the June 23, 201 1
Finance & Citywide Projects Committee meeting for review prior to presentation at the
July Commission meeting.
The Committee also recommended that the City should continue to evaluate the fee
comparisons to other jurisdictions' for all departments combined, and provide those
findings to the Committee.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
I
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: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE NElGHBORHOODSlCOMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING
HELD ON FRIDAY, JUNE 3,201 1.
A meeting of the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee was held on Friday, June 3,201 1 at
3:00 pm in the City Manager's Large Conference Room, 4th Floor, City Hall. Commissioners in
attendance: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower (arrived at 4:14pm), Commissioners Edward L. Tobin, Jerry
Libbin (arrived at 3:45 pm), and Deede Weithorn. Members from the Administration and the public ,
-- .
were also in attendance. Please see the attached sign-in sheet.
THE MEETING OPENED A T3:05 PM
1. PRESENTATION REGARDING FDOT ALTON ROAD PROJECTS FROM FIFTH STREET TO
NORTH MICHIGAN AVENUE. (FINS 24991 1-1 AND 24991 1-3). (3:37 PM)
Commissioner Tobin stated that he has reviewed the plans and they seem very aggressive.
Daniel Iglesias, District 6 Project Manager for the Alton Road reconstruction project reviewed the
plans for this project. The project includes reconstructing the roadway from right-of-way to right-
of-way, new drainage system, new signalization, new lighting, signage and marking,
reconstructing the pavement. The project currently involves the inclusion of three (3) pump
stations with outfalls to Biscayne Bay as well as new inlets with piping to take care of the drainage
and flooding issues. Landscaping will be provided throughout the project and currently the
department has plans to advance the drainage improvement project so that it can be built within
the next few years. This will include the installation of pump stations at Fifth, Tenth, and
Fourteenth Streets in 201 3 and the overall reconstruction project will come alon a few years after R that. Due to changes in the State Statutes, bicycle lanes will be included from 7 Street to Lincoln
Road and the remaining portions of the project will include sharrows or shared lane markings.
There will also be bulb outs included throughout the project corridor based on comments that
were received during the PD&E study.
Commissioner Tobin asked FDOT representatives to meet with the City's Capital Improvements
Director.
Commissioner Weithorn asked what the loss of parking will be as a result of this project. Mr.
lglesias stated that there is a loss of ninety (90) spaces throughout the corridor.
Commissioner Libbin arrived at 3:45pm.
I I Agenda Item C 6
I Date 7-/3-)/
City Commission Memorandum
July 13,201 1
Report of the Neighborhoods /Community Affairs Committee of June 3, 201 1
Page 2 of 7
After some discussion regarding bike lanes, Commissioner Tobin suggested the City
Administration meet with FDOT regarding this project. Commissioner Weithorn expressed her
concern with losing 90 spaces and the plan for a bicycle lane on Alton Road.
Mark Weithorn, Chair of the Transportation and Parking Committee, spoke on his concerns with
the loss of parking and its related revenue. He also commented on the danger of having bike
lanes on Alton Road instead of West Avenue, as well as his concern with the fact that there are
no longer beautiful medians as you enter the City via Alton Road as there were in earlier plans of
this project.
Mr. Weithorn added that there is also a loss of parking on side streets. Commissioner Weithorn
asked that FDOT get a number on that parking loss also.
Commissioner Tobin confirmed with Assistant City Managers Duncan Ballantyne and Jorge
Gomez that they will be working together to work through this project. Mr. Gomez asked for
direction in terms of what to explore in the way of options that may include State Statutes.
Commissioner Weithorn stated that she wants the Administration to explore everything as she is
not happy with what she is seeing and if the City has the possibility of potentially mitigating any of
the items that the Committee is unhappy about, she wants it done. Mr. Ballantyne confirmed the ,
areas of concern include the loss of parking, sidewalks, the bike lanes, harmonization when the
road is raised, and the lack of shade trees.
Sheryl Gold spoke.
Mr. lglesias stated that he has and will be working with the Public Works Department and will be
taking the concerns raised today to his director.
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Tobin, Libbin, and Weithorn present) directed the
Administration to go over this project with FDOT, addressing the areas of concern with great detail
and provide an update through a Letter to Commission (LTC).
2. DISCUSSION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE NORTH
BEACH DOG PARK. (3:05 PM)
Kevin Smith, Parks and Recreation Department Director, explained the history on the item.
Hilda M. Fernandez, Assistant City Manager, explained the process that has brought this item to
the Committee for its approval of the park's location.
Commissioner Weithorn moved to accept the location of the North Beach Dog Park as
recommended with a second from Commissioner Tobin.
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioner Tobin and Weithorn present) moved to accept the
location of the North Beach Dog Park as recommended. (Vote: 2-0)
3. 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
City Commission Memorandum
July 13, 201 1
Report of the Neighborhoods /Community Affairs Committee of June 3, 201 1
Page 3 of 7
AMENDING THE QUORUM REQUIREMENT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, REPEALER,
SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (3:10 PM)
Commissioner Weithorn explained that she referred this item to the committee to discuss the
reason for the requested increased membership of the Disability Access Committee (DAC) and to
memorialize the specific roles intended for its members.
David New explained that the reason he has requested an increase in membership of the DAC
was to enable the committee to have more information about the departments and certain other
committees within the city. This would allow the committee to have a representative at each of the
meetings and each of the departments so that information can be brought back to the DAC. Mr.
New explained that the DAC members would not be voting members of these committees that
they would be reporting on; that they would simply attend and report back to the DAC as to the
status of issues, such as CIPOC. This would allow the DAC to address issues early on with
regard to any ADA issues.
Commissioner Weithorn asked if the purpose is to have non-voting, but reporting members at
meetings; how is this intent put into this ordinance. It is important to specify the intended roles of
the members so that in the event a member is not fulfilling their role, they would be able to be /
removed.
Commissioner Tobin stated that the Legal Department will work on appropriate wording for some
specific criteria with Mr. New,
Commissioner Weithorn made the motion to move the item to the Commission pending any
changes to the ordinance by the Legal Department Motion seconded by Commissioner Tobin.
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Tobin and Weithorn present) moved to send the
ordinance back to the City Commission pending any changes by the Legal Department.
(Vote: 2-0)
4. DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE FLAMINGO PARK NEIGHBORHOOD BECOMING
FLORIDA'S MOST PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD. (4:25 PM)
Hilda M. Fernandez, Assistant City Manager stated that there is a request by the neighborhood to
defer this discussion.
ACTION: No action; discussion was deferred.
5. QUARTERLY CRIME STATISTICS. (4:26 PM)
Carlos Noriega, Chief of Police, reviewed statistics for the first quarter of 201 1 (January 1 -March
31). He stated that there are eleven (1 1) more incidents this year than last year for the same time
period. One highlight this year is that there are no homicides this year as compared to four (4) at
this time last year, and that violent crime is down 17.23% when compared to last year.
Major Angel Vazquez reported on crime trends in the City and explained that his division meets
weekly to analyze crime trends.
Commissioner Tobin asked to be provided information as to where the burglaries and aggravated
assaults are happening by neighborhood and whether they occurred in an apartment,
condominium, or single-family home for the next meeting.
City Commission Memorandum
July 13, 201 1
Report of the Neighborhoods /Community Affairs Committee of June 3, 201 1
Page 4 of 7
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Tobin, Libbin and Weithorn present) directed Police
staff to provide more detailed information regarding where the burglaries and aggravated assaults
are happening by neighborhood and whether they occurred in an apartment, condominium, or
single-family home for the next meeting.
6. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE LACK OF ACCESSIBILITY OF THE CITY'S WEBSITE TO
THE DISABLED. (3:25 PM)
Gladys Gonzalez, lnformation Technology Division Director, explained the work that has been
done over the last two (2) years to make the City's website ADA compliant. She explained that
the City's website is ADA compliant; however, there is another component which is compatibility
with the screen reader software.
Hilda M. Fernandez, Assistant City Manager, explained that screen reader software is privately
purchased software that is purchased for the purpose of trying to read websites and materials.
Ms. Gonzalez explained that the City plans to issue an invitation to bid to see what companies are
out there to evaluate the City's website for compatibility with the top two (2) screen reader
software products. The City will seek grant funding.
Ms. Fernandez explained the difference between the website being accessible versus being
compatible with software.
David New explained that Miami Beach High School students worked last summer on the
accessibility issue utilizing grant funding and that they will be able to work again this summer
through funding obtained from the County.
Commissioner Tobin suggested moving this item for a status report in September 201 1, allowing
time for the Disability Access Committee (DAC) and Gladys Gonzalez to meet and work together
on the issue of accessibility and compatibility. Mr. New explained concern with the many
documents that are not readable, such as forms and applications, that he hopes will be worked on
this summer. Ms. Gonzalez stated that the City's individual departments have identified the top
Adobe Acrobat documents on the City's website that are downloaded and the summer interns will
be working on those by converting them to a readable format.
Mr. New asked to have the summer interns attend a meeting of the DAC.
Ms. Fernandez explained that the plan is to take the list of the most frequently downloaded Adobe
Acrobat documents on the City's website, as developed with the input from the individual City
departments, and provide that list to the DAC for their review and comments to ensure that the
summer interns are working on the items that are deemed a priority.
Commissioner Weithorn stated that there will be dialogue and meetings between the lnformation
Technology staff and the DAC; however, Mr. New is to advise the Committee if there is a problem
and the discussion will come back to the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee (NCAC).
Commissioner Tobin reiterated to Mr. New to contact his office if he feels it is necessary to
discuss earlier than the September status report at the September NCAC meeting.
City Commission Memorandum
July 13,201 1
Report of the Neighborhoods /Community Affairs Committee of June 3, 201 1
Page 5 of 7
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Tobin and Weithorn present) directed staff to return to
the September NCAC meeting with a status report on the work to improve accessibility and
compatibility of the website to the disabled.
7. DISCUSSION REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE Ill, DIVISION
26, SECTIONS 2-1 90.1 07 AND SECTION 2-1 90.1 10 OF THE ClTY CODE, ESTABLISHING THE
CITY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVSORY COMMITTEE, TO AMEND THE ClTY
AFFILIATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. (4:45 PM)
Hilda M. Fernandez, Assistant City Manager, explained the options to be considered and the
current makeup of the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC).
Commissioner Weithorn added that finding people to be on the committee and then attend the
meeting and become engaged is where she has been finding difficulty. She added that the maps
that are used to identify target areas are often old; for instance south of 5jth Street was considered
an area where now you could live at the Continuum and serve on this board, whereas if you were :
on the board of Unidad but lived outside of this area you would not be eligible to be on this board.
She believes that people holding board or community leadership positions should be eligible to be
on CDAC.
Anna Parekh, Real Estate, Housing, and Community Development Director, explained that the
CDAC is an advisory committee that is convened at the beginning of the Request for Proposal
(RFP) process; they review the RFP and its advertisement before they are published, they attend
presentations by each of the applicants responding to the RFP, after which they will meet again to
allocate the funds fairly and make a recommendation to the Administration on how to allocate the
funding. The Administration reviews CDAC's recommendations and makes a recommendation to
the Commission for final decisions.
Raul Aguila, Chief Deputy City Attorney, explained the requirements to be on a board, which
include living in the City or owning a business for at least six months. He added that this
committee has an additional requirement that those members owning a business must own a
business in a target area. The proposed ordinance will remove the membership requirement that
one must come from a target area and make it more consistent with the rest of the City Code.
Ms. Fernandez explained that the website currently reflects 17 applicants for this board and she
suggested as one option to review these 17 to determine their interest and eligibility based on
current requirements.
Commissioner Tobin advised the Administration to review other boards and if they are not
functioning as they should, to review and contact those on the list without having to come to the
Commission.
Commissioner Weithorn stated that she wanted to be able to broaden the pool of applicants that
would allow someone on a board of a church or synagogue to be eligible.
Mayor Bower stated that she is willing to compromise with a percentage or a number and that the
important thing is the membership needs to be made up of people that care about the welfare of
the community. Additionally, those living in the community are best able to express what is
happening in the community and what the community really needs.
City Commission Memorandum
July 13, 201 1
Report of the Neighborhoods /Community Affairs Committee of June 3, 201 1
Page 6 of 7
Mr. Aguila suggested reducing the residency requirement to a certain number of members.
Mayor Bower suggested requiring attendance at presentation meetings.
Commissioner Weithorn agreed with Mayor Bower and stated that she would accept a
compromise of 50% of the members must live in the target areas and that she thinks there should
be added an inclusion through work to those who have leadership positions in certain agencies.
Ms. Fernandez clarified expanding membership to include those that hold leadership positions in
organizations that serve persons that would be eligible for these services; however, they could not
be an organization that would receive funding.
ACTION: The Committee moved to have Administration return to the NCAC with its
recommendations.
8. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE SAFETY ISSUES WITH THE FUNKSHION FASHION EVENT
HELD IN CITY OF MIAMI BEACH. (4:08 PM) -
Hilda M. Fernandez, Assistant City Manager, referred the Committee to the LTC included in the
agenda package and reviewed the information.
Commissioner Tobin asked how to avoid the problems that the City experienced in the future.
Ms. Fernandez stated that the City will not be authorizing a live event of the nature of what
happened earlier this year on public property again. She added that there have been live
concerts in the past, such as NASCAR. There is a difference between having an event like that
during a down period versus during a major event period where the City's resources are already
stretched.
Commissioner Libbin suggested requiring tickets sales go through a ticket management company
to limit tickets. There should be a penalty assessed for permits when an applicant has had a
problem previously, such as doubling the security deposit.
Ms. Fernandez stated that the City may be able to require an audit of ticket sales prior to an event
in order to ensure they are not exceeding permitted capacity load.
Commissioner Libbin asked if the City would have a right to require an applicant to release funds
to the City resulting from the sale of tickets exceeding permitted capacity. Jose Smith, City
Attorney, stated that if it could be written into the security deposit form.
Commissioner Tobin asked that the Administration provide an LTC addressing recommended
solutions for the overselling of concerts. Commissioner Tobin asked to be provided a copy of the
documentlpermit that states capacity and the Standard Operating Procedures that cover how
occupancy and load matters are managed.
Commissioner Weithorn stated that the security deposit is insufficient and the City paid for the
cost of police that were held over or came in early to deal with issues during this event. She
added that she would like to discourage these unseated events, as counterfeiting is not
preventable.
City Commission Memorandum
July 13, 201 1
Report of the Neighborhoods /Community Affairs Committee of June 3, 201 1
Page 7 of 7
Mayor Bower arrived at 4:14 pm.
ACTION: The Committee (Commissioners Tobin, Libbin, and Weithorn present) directed the
Administration to provide an LTC addressing recommended solutions for the overselling of
concerts.
9. DISCUSSION CONCERNING NOTICING FOR SIDEWALK CAFE PERMIT RENEWAL.
(4:25 PM)
Discussion was deferred.
ACTION: No action; discussion was deferred.
THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:04 PM.
Note: The remaining meetings of the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee for 201 1 are: -
July 7, 201 1 (Thursday)
August (No Meeting Scheduled)
September 1, 20 1 1 (Thursday]
October 6, 201 1 (Thursday)
November 10,20 1 1 (Thursday)
December 8,201 1 (Thursday)
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\NCAC Report- JUNE 3 201 I .doc
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
J
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: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE JUNE 6, 2011 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE MEETING
A meeting of the Land Use and Development Committee was held on June 6, 201 1.
Members in attendance were Commissioners Wolfson and Exposito; Commissioners
Libbin and Weithorn 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 4:25 pm.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. 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.
AFTER-ACTION: DEFERRED TO JULY 20 LUDC MEETING.
1. b) DISCUSSION REGARDING THE BAYWALK CONSERVATION DISTRICT
PROPOSAL PUT FORTH BY MEMBERS OF THE LINCOLN WEST
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AFTER-ACTION: Commissioner Wolfson introduced the item. Jorge Gomez
explained the history of this item and the differences between the RM-2 and the RM-
3 districts. Arthur Marcus explained the Lincoln West neighborhood association's
concerns relative to the introduction of commercial uses into the Capri apartment
building. Michael Larkin representing the Capri expressed the opinion that there
should be no outright prohibition on commercial uses in these areas. Tim Nardi,
chairman of the Greater Miami Hotel Association, expressed opposition to broad
restrictions on commercial uses in the RM-3 district. Sheryl Gold, of Palm View
neighborhood, expressed support for a conservation district limiting
commercialization of the Baywalk. Christina Labuzetta spoke. Morris Sunshine read
into the record a message opposing the addition of commercial uses in RM-2.
Charlie Urstadt mentioned possibly grandfathering existing commercial uses. Mike
Burke spoke. Commissioner Weithorn asked the City Attorney if this set a
precedent, and Jose Smith indicated that it did not. Commissioner Wolfson
discussed with Arthur Marcus and staff that the main issue was not the RM-3 areas,
but the RM-2 district intensification.
, Agenda Item C 6 E
Date 7-13-11
City Commission Memorandum
Report of the Land Use 8 Development Committee Meeting of June 6,2011
Page 2 of 3
AFTER-ACTION: DEFERRED TO JULY 20 LUDC MEETING.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE GALE HOTEL HEIGHT LIMITS.
AFTER-ACTION: DEFERRED TO JULY 20 LUDC MEETING.
3. DISCUSSION ON THE OCEAN BEACH HISTORIC DISTRICT R-PS4 ZONING
AMENDMENT.
AFTER-ACTION: DEFERRED TO A SPECIAL LAND USE COMMITTEE
MEETING SCHEDULED FOR JULY 7, 2011, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE
JOINT NEIGHBORHOODILANDUSE COMMITTEE MEETING.
4. AN ORDINANCE CLARIFYING THE QUALIFICATIONS AND CATEGORIES OF
MEMBERS TO BE APPOINTED TO THE CITY'S LAND USE BOARDS.
AFTER-ACTION: Gary Held and Jorge Gomez introduced the item. The committee
discussed whether lawyers should be limited to those licensed within Florida or a
wider eligibility.
MOTION: DEFERRED TO NEXT MEETING TO MAKE CHANGES TO LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS.
5. DISCUSSION CONCERNING A LOCATION FOR A SKATE PARK IN MIAMI
BEACH INCLUDING THE FUNDING SOURCES AVAILABLE.
AFTER-ACTION: Commissioner Libbin introduced the item. Kevin Smith updated
the Committee on the North Beach meeting that was held on May 12. Joyce Meyers
also discussed the proposal and explained that the proposed design was not
presented or discussed, only. the location and desirability of the facility. Jorge
Gomez indicated the various funding options. Daniel Veitia of North Beach
expressed support for the proposal. Arthur Marcus spoke. Eric Stromborn spoke.
Jose Smith discussed the state statute exempting the City from liability.
MOTION: LibbinIExposito (vote 3-0) Place the proposed 81'' Street site on the
agenda for capital budget committee, expressing the preference that the skatepark
facility be free for residents.
6. DISCUSSON ON THE BAYWALK.
AFTER-ACTION: Jorge Gomez gave the committee an update on the status of
various Baywalk projects, including the Bentley Bay and Floridian condo buildings
and the removal of a wall impeding through access; the South Bay Club condo;
Southgate Towers; the CMB loth Street street-end; the Mondrian and Mirador
properties and the associated application to the State for approval of an overwater
baywalk; 1228 West Avenue and their consent to the City building a baywalk; Monad
Terrace; the Waverly; and the Flamingo, which is scheduled to be completed by
December.
City Commission Memorandum
Repott of the Land Use & Development Committee Meeting of June 6,2011
Page 3 of 3
DISCUSSION REGARDING A POTENTIAL METHOD OF REPLACING PlNE
TREES ON HISTORIC PlNE TREE DRIVE.
AFTER-ACTION: Kevin Smith introduced the item and discussed the results of the
tree autopsy, indicating that some of the trees were fully diseased and some were
still viable. The committee discussed with staff the ability to request a waiver of the
regulations for invasive species, and decided to direct the Administration to contact
our local legislators to inform them of the City's desire to be able to replant the pine
trees. Jose Smith added information regarding the history of the Pinetree Drive
historic designation.
MOTION: ExpositoMlolfson (vote 2-0) Direct the Administration to go through the
process of requesting a waiver to permit the planting of Australian pine trees,
including going through our state legislature, and also try planting Slash Pine
seedlings of our own.
Attachment
M:\$CMB\CCUPDATES\Land Use and Development Committee\June 6,201 I\LUDC Meeting of June 6,201 l.docx
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING June 6,201 1 @ 4:00 pm City Manager's Large Conference Room Attendance Sheet NAME CONTACT NUMBER I WISH TO RECEIVE THE LINK TO THE ELECTRONIC AGENDA E-MAIL ADDRESS )) 22. s F FF 3ar3317k~3L 23. b I I I M:\$CMB\CCUPDATES\Land Use and Development Committee\Sign In Sheet 201 1.docx I I
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
AMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.miarnibeachfl.gov
COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: City Manager Jorge M. Gonzalez
DATE: July 13, 201 1 w
SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE
MEETING OF June 23,2011.
OLD BUSINESS
/
1. Discussion regarding ordinances related to modifications to the Building,
Fire, Planning and Public Works Department Fees and resident and
business concerns that Building Department Fees are too high
ACTION
The Committee recommended:
that the item is brought to the full Commission
the full Commission is given individual briefings to discuss the proposed
changes
extending the short-term decreases that were built into the fee structure for
one year and then reviewing them again
waiving the CPI adjustments for 201 1 and 2012
a "trigger" for permit fees be included in the ordinances
Assistant City Manager Jorge Gomez presented and gave a brief history of the item.
The Administration asked for direction on the following:
When the current fee structure was adopted, there were some short-term
decreases (discounts) built into to the fee structure that were set to expire on /
September 30, 201 1. The Committee recommended extending the decreases
for one year and then reviewing them again.
The existing language includes an annual adjustment of fees based on the
Consumer Price Index (CPI), given current discussions; the Administration
recommended waiving the CPI adjustments for 201 1 and 2012. The Committee
recommended waiving the CPI adjustments for 201 1 and 2012.
It had been suggested that the draft ordinances include a "trigger" whereby if
permit fees exceeded more than a certain dollar amount and/or a certain
percentage of the value of construction, the Building Official would be required to
review the permit fees being charged. The Committee recommended that a
"trigger" for permit fees be included in the ordinances.
Agenda Item CGF
I I Date 7-134)
The Committee recommended bringing the item to the full Commission and that
the full Commission receives individual briefings on the proposed changes.
2. Discussion on resources assigned to address proliferation of homeless on
Washington Avenue
ACTION
The Committee asked that staff analyze how resources are currently being
allocated and come up with a potential enhancement to be included during the
budget briefing meetings.
NEW BUSINESS
3. Request for approval to purchase American Darling Fire Hydrants from
American Flow Control, the manufacturer of the American Darling Fire
Hydrants, in the estimated annual amount of $40,000
ACTION
The Committee recommended that purchases continue on a proprietary basis,
with appropriate continuous checks for market conditions by Public Works and
Procurement Departments and that authorizations above the $25,000 thresholds
be routinely approved as part of each year's budget authorization process.
Public Works Director Fred Beckmann presented the item.
The City's Public Works Department provides a comprehensive inspection and
maintenance program designed to insure the proper operation of all meters and hydrants
throughout the City. Water meters are "read" monthly and, depending on meter size, are
replaced at intervals recommended by the American Water Works Association (which
presently recommends an eight-year rotation of domestic water meters to insure
accuracy). Every fire hydrant in the City's inventory is inspected, tested and maintained
at least once per year. Historically, these two programs have resulted in the need to
replace approximately 1,200 water meters of various sizes (approximately 9% of the
total 13,050 meters in the system), and 50 of the City's 1.050 hydrants each and every
year (5%).
The Mayor and City Commission approved Sensus Metering Systems, Inc., as a sole
source vendor on October I I, 2006. Similarly, on October 19, 2005, the Mayor and City
Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-26026, waiving 517th~ vote, the formal
competitive bidding requirements, and approving the purchase of American Darling fire
hydrants from American Flow Control. Each Fiscal Year thereafter, the Administration
has requested approval from the Mayor and City Commission to purchase water meters
(and associated appurtenances) and fire hydrants from these manufacturers on a
proprietary basis, when the purchase amount exceeds $25,000 for each item group. In
all prior years, purchases for meters, manifolds, meter parts and hydrants purchased
varies significantly year to year as needs are determined. Inventories of water meters
and fire hydrants are kept at relatively low levels. Average year-end inventory of water
meter (all sizes) represent about 4% of installed operational meters (an average of 548
meters out of 13,050 in-service). Annual fire hydrant purchases average 50 per year.
Current pricing is checked against state and local contracts to insure that the proprietary
purchases compare favorably with current market conditions. Presently, the City is
purchasing fire hydrants at $755 each. Miami-Dade's current contract for the same
model fire hydrant is $764.75 each. The Committee recommended that purchases
continue on a proprietary basis, with appropriate continuous checks for market
conditions by Public Works and Procurement Departments and that authorizations
above the $25,000 thresholds be routinely approved as part of each year's budget
authorization process.
4. Discussion regarding a proposed ordinance which will require mandatory
recycling, via the establishment of a City of Miami Beach Recycling
Program, for multifamily residences and commercial establishments in the
City
ACTION
The Committee recommended approving the amendment to the ordinance without
including the penalties for non-compliance, asked that the level of compliance be
tracked, the number of staff required be reanalyzed and reduced, that the program
be developed to be revenue neutral, asked if the funding could come from the
Sanitation Fund, that this program not be funded from the general fund, and
discuss if the revenue contribution that is paid by waste haulers to the City be
used to fund the recycling program.
Public Works Director Fred Beckmann presented and gave a brief synopsis of the
memo.
Currently, Miami-Dade County Code (Sections 15-2.2 to 15-2.4) requires multifamily and
commercial establishments to have a recycling program. However, as a result of
multiple issues, including fiscal constraints at the County level, the County Code
requirement to demonstrate a recycling program is not adequately or comprehensively
enforced. It is believed that approximately 1,588 multifamily residential buildings and
commercial establishments within the City of Miami Beach are currently not participating
in the County-required recycling program. This is approximately 30% of all known
commercial and multi-family accounts. The proposed ordinance, which is an
amendment to Chapter 90 of the City Code, would establish more stringent requirements
than the County and require multifamily residences and commercial establishments in
the City to recycle pursuant to the requirements of a City of Miami Beach Recycling
Program. This proposed program would require that multifamily and commercial
establishments not only have a recycling program in place, but it would also mandate
that recyclables be recycled. Multifamily and commercial establishments would receive
fines if recyclables were found comingled with their solid waste or vice versa. The
County Code (Section 15-2.5) gives the City the authority to establish and enforce its
own ordinance, provided such ordinance is equivalent to or more stringent than the
County's provisions.
The proposed ordinance is more stringent than the County's requirements because it
expands the scope of required recyclables. The City would develop a process by which
all multifamily residences with eight (8) units or more would be required to use a single-
stream recycling process that includes all five (5) of the following recyclable materials:
newspaper, glass, metal food and beverage containers, other metal containers, and
plastics. In addition, at least three (3) of the following recyclable materials must also be
recycled: corrugated cardboard, magazines and catalogs, telephone books, office paper
or organic material. Commercial establishments would be required to recycle at least
three (3) materials from the following: mixed paper, glass, metal food or beverage
containers, other metal containers, plastics, textiles, wood or organic materials.
Enforcement of the proposed ordinance would require recycling inspectors to inspect the
contents of both the solid waste and recycling containers in order to ascertain
compliance. These enforcement efforts can be complaint-driven, through a proactive
inspection schedule, or through a combination approach. The Sustainability Committee
recommended that a hybrid approach be utilized to achieve the greatest level of
compliance. According to the parameters of the proposed recycling ordinance, if
commercial establishments, multifamily residences, or waste haulers are found to be in
non-compliance with the proposed amendments, the following penalties would be
prescribed:
For the first violation, a warning or a fine up to $350.80
For the second violation, a fine of up to $500.00
For the third violation, a fine up to $1,000.00
For the fourth and subsequent violations, a fine of up to $5,000.00
The proposed ordinance calls for one (1) year of education and community outreach
followed by a six (6) month warning period before penalties would be issued.
Based on the requirements and parameters set forth in the proposed ordinance, Code
Compliance Officers would need to inspect and assess 3,624 commercial units and
approximately 1,500 multifamily residential buildings with more than eight (8) units in
order to determine compliance. In order to achieve the level of compliance expected to
be achieved with this ordinance, the Administration determined that quarterly pro-active
inspections for the commercial establishments would be needed, and assuming a 50%
compliance rate, this would require additional inspections for non-compliance. Based on
the expected level of compliance for the multifamily residential buildings, the
Administration determined that two (2) proactive inspections per year, again with 50%
compliance rate assumption, and additional inspections for non-compliance would be
recommended. It was noted that recycling ordinance enforcement would need to be
done with additional positions, not within the current Code Compliance staff, as current
staff does not have the capacity to implement this program with current Code
Compliance demands. The staffing plan submitted included an additional administrative
support person. Using these enforcement assumptions, it was determined that a total of
eleven (I I) additional full-time Code staff would be required to effectively address the
parameters of the proposed recycling ordinance. The ongoing annual operating costs
are projected to be approximately $630,611, with a total implementation cost of
approximately $754,235. Chairperson Deede Weithorn asked what the funding source
would be. Chief Financial Officer, Patricia Walker stated that funding could come from
the Sanitation Fund. The Committee was concerned with the cost of implementation.
Debra Leibowitz, of the Sustainability Committee, stated that she felt that the educational
time of 18 months was too long and could be significantly shortened. The Committee
recommended approving the amendment to the ordinance without including the
penalties for non-compliance, asked that the level of compliance be tracked, the number
of staff required be reanalyzed and reduced, that the program be developed to be
revenue neutral, asked if the funding could come from the Sanitation Fund, that this
program not be funded from the general fund, and discuss if the revenue contribution
that is paid by waste haulers to the City be used to fund the recycling program.
5. Discussion regarding extending the amount of time residents have to pay
their utility bill
ACTION
The Committee recommended that the due date for all water, sewer, and
stormwater utility bills be changed to 21 days from 15 and that the change be
implemented for FY2011112.
Chief Financial Officer Patricia Walker presented the item.
Presently, the Miami Beach City Code states that all water, sewer, and stormwater utility
bills (Utility Bill) shall be paid within 15 days from the date of the bill. A comparison of
local Utility Bills from neighboring communities, as well as, two other energy utility
providers in Miami Beach was conducted and showed that bills were considered past
due on average after 21 days. The Committee recommended that the due date for all
water, sewer, and stormwater utility bills be changed to 21 days from 15 and that the
change be implemented for FY2011112.
6. Discussion regarding Security Alliance
Item Deferred
7. Discussion regarding a new voluntary benefit
ACTION
The Committee recommended bringing the accident plan, with the updated
information, to the full Commission and recommended not moving forward with
the BMG Money Loans at Work program.
Human Resources Director Ramiro lnguanzo presented the item and gave a brief
synopsis of the item.
At the April 13, 201 1 City Commission meeting, the City Commission passed Resolution
No. 201 1-27632 providing for new employee funded voluntary benefit plans that included
Universal Life, Critical Illness, Accident and Hospital Indemnity Plans, as well as a
choice of two legal service plans. In addition, the resolution authorized the
Administration to work directly with the individual voluntary benefit plan carriers to select
an enrollment firm to provide annual enrollment support and benefit communication
materials for all of the City's benefit programs (at no cost to the City). The Resolution
also referred the discussion of a program that is currently not being provided to City
employees that provides a loan program to employees that is repaid through payroll
deductions (also at no cost to the City).
At the direction of the City Administration, the City's consultant of record, Gallagher
Benefit Services (Gallagher) issued their Request for Proposals (RFP) for the City's
voluntary benefit program. As a result of this RFP, Gallagher recommended that the
City Administration offer the Trustmark Accident Plan to its employees. Disagreeing with
this recommendation, Colonial Life (one of the insurance carriers responding to
Gallagher's RFP) requested the Administration to re-examine their proposed plan
coverage and cost, as Colonial Life believed their plan was more competitive than the
plan proposed by Trustmark. In response, the Administration requested that Gallagher
complete a thorough comparison of the two plans, listing all plan benefits and monthly
premium cost based on the proposals submitted in response to the RFP, thus
highlighting the advantages under each plan. After a thorough re-examination,
Gallagher again deemed that the Trustmark Accident Plan provided the best benefit for
the cost the employee would pay. Charles Citrin, Citrin Financial & Insurance, Inc, an
insurance broker working with Colonial Life was present at the meeting and stated that
the description of the benefits and the numbers provided in the memo were incorrect.
After a brief discussion, the Committee asked that the accident plan, with the updated
information, be brought to the full Commission.
The Committee also briefly discussed the Loan at Work program, which is a direct to
consumer loan, designed for employees who do not have access to traditional credit
options, such as banks, credit unions, credit cards, deferred compensation and/or
retirement accounts. These loans are unsecured and the program is at no cost to the
City.
The Committee recommended not moving forward with the BMG Money Loans at Work
program.
8. Discussion regarding an amendment to the NSPI agreement between the
state of Florida DCA and the related agreement between the City and Miami
Beach Community Development Corporation, to permit and outline the
process for construction draw downs
ACTION
The Committee recommended authorization of an amendment to both NSPI
agreements with DCA and with MBCDC, to facilitate a draw down reimbursement
basis instead of a reimbursement basis for disbursement of NSPI funds and that
an additional guideline be added to include the termination of the draw down
provision should anything in the audit be found improper.
Assistant City Manager Hilda Fernandez presented the item.
Resolution No. 2009-27039 was adopted by the City Commission on March 18, 2009,
approving the City's application for and planned use of the funds available through the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Neighborhood
Stabilization Program 1 (NSPI). The funds are to be used for the purchase and
rehabilitation of one or more multi-family buildings to be kept as rental properties to
benefit income-qualified households in accordance with the NSPI regulations, with an
end goal of stabilizing neighborhoods impacted by foreclosures. On September 9, 2009,
the City approved Resolution No. 2009-271 75 authorizing the execution of the Federally-
funded Subgrant Agreement with the State's Department of Community Affairs (DAC),
the pass-through entity handling HUD1s NSPI allocation to the City of Miami Beach.
After conduction a duly-noticed procurement process, the City Commission awarded the
City's NSPI allocation to the Miami Beach Community Development Corporation
(MBCDC) for the acquisition and rehabilitation of three buildings. Current economic and
banking conditions impacted MBCDC's ability to obtain construction lines of credit and,
as a result, this has delayed completion of the contractually required rehabilitation
activities. After conferring with DACINSPI representatives, City staff was informed that
the majority of its NSPI sub-recipients are likewise experiencing similar delays and
financing hardships. Also as a result, many other communities have requested and
have been granted permission to "draw down" funds for rehabilitation activities. This
alternative payment methodology means that instead of having the non-profit developer
secure construction loans or otherwise pay the reimbursement packages submitted by
their general contractors (GC) and then submit a reimbursement request to their funders,
the general contractor's reimbursement request is submitted to the funding agency (in
this case the City) for review and payment. Draw requests would require standard AIA
forms and documentation. This "drawn down" process is permitted by the USHUD
regulations.
On June 20, 2012, the City's Loan Review Committee unanimously passed a motion to
accept Real Estate Housing and Community Development's Draft Policy and Procedure
for Affordable Housing Construction Draw Downs with some proposed amendments.
Chairperson Deede Weithorn asked that an additional guideline be added that states
that in the event that the City audits the material submitted and anything improper is
found that the draw down provision is terminated. The Committee recommended
authorization of an amendment to both NSPl agreements with DCA and with MBCDC,
to facilitate a draw down reimbursement basis instead of a reimbursement basis for
disbursement of NSPl funds and that an additional guideline be added to include the
termination of the draw down provision should anything in the audit be found improper.
9. Discussion regarding advertising on Deco Bike stations, its economic
impact to the City and the enhancement of the Deco Bike
ACTION
The Committee recommended that the item be brought to the full Commission and
that community outreach be done to obtain feedback regarding advertising on the
stations.
Assistant City Manager Jorge Gomez presented the item.
Phase One of the Deco Bike sharing program launched on March 14, 2011, with 60
stations and 500 bicycles in South Beach and portions of Middle Beach. When Phase
Two is launched, it will provide the full complement of bike stations citywide (loo+
stations and 900 bicycles). The concession agreement with Deco Bike provides for
revenue sharing for bicycle rentals and advertising. The agreement specifically identifies
the bicycle basket sponsorship program as the only advertising that is permissible.
Permissible advertising shall not include firearms, alcohol, or tobacco products, or be of
a sexually explicit nature. Any advertisement beyond that which is contemplated in the
concession agreement would require an amendment to the concession agreement.
Additionally, the only way to permit this type of proposed advertising on the kiosk would
be to amend the City Code. Chairperson Deede Weithorn asked what the impact would
be to the program if advertising on the station kiosks would be denied. Colby Reese of
Deco Bike, LLC stated that they are not meeting the revenue projections on the bike
basket advertising and that they are currently approximately $2 million over their
proposed budget. Mr. Reese stated that some of causes for the low advertising sales
include the negative feedback regarding advertising on the size and shape of the
medium and that business stated that they would be unable to display their product on
this type of medium; the downtime to change the artwork on the bikes is approximately
10 days, which is 10 days of lost sellable time; and the production cost to change the
artwork is significantly higher than what it would be to add a vinyl advertisement on to
the existing surface on the station and that the station ad would generate considerably
greater revenue. Commissioner Jorge Exposito stated that he has consistently received
positive feedback regarding the program and asked if this would be the only way to
generate revenue. Commissioner Exposito also asked if the City's portion of the
revenue share could be reduced rather than advertise on the station. Mr. Gomez
suggested that before moving forward that an outreach to the community stakeholders
be done. Chairperson Weithorn asked if Mr. Reese contacted stakeholders regarding
advertising on the stations. Mr. Reese stated that he has received positive feedback
about the program from local business which requested more stations be added.
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson stated that he would also be willing to consider reducing
the City's portion of the revenue share. Mr. Reese stated that they would rather look to
a new revenue stream than reduce the City's portion of the revenue sharing and that the
City's portion would not cover the shortfall from basket advertising. Commissioner
Exposito asked for a legal opinion regarding advertising in the City and wanted to know
how advertising on the parking meters differed from advertising on the bike station.
Assistant City Manager Hilda Fernandez stated that the difference is that on the meter
stations there is a map that shows where businesses are located rather than an
advertisement for a product or service. The Committee recommended that the item be
brought to the full Commission and that community outreach be done to obtain feedback
regarding advertising on the stations.
10. Discussion regarding Miami-Dade County ADA Parking Fines Program, for
funding in the approximate amount of $90,000 for eligible ADA projects and
the best usage for the grant dollars
ACTION
The Committee recommended the item be deferred and reviewed as part of the
Capital Budget.
Public Works Director Fred Beckmann presented and gave a brief history of the item.
Over the past four years, the City has received $361,715 from the Miami-Dade County
ADA Parking Fines Program. These funds are generated as the result of parking fines
levied against those who illegally park in Handicap parking spaces. The County
distributes the revenue generated from the collected fines to cities throughout the
County. The City receives its portion of the funds in the form of a Grant and the funds
are designated to be used to enhance accessibility, maintain existing points of ADA
accessibly 'and promote ADA awareness Citywide.
For more than a year, both the Disabilities Access Committee (DAC) and various City
Officials have addressed concerns from both ADA Advocate Groups and from those who
are physically challenged in regards to the difficulty and challenges they encounter while
attempting to traverse the Pedra Portuguesa Stone surface on the I100 block of Lincoln
Road. This surface spans the entire 1100 block of Lincoln Road Mall between Alton
Road and Lenox Avenue.
In response to these concerns the City Administration has submitted a FY2012 capital
budget project to install an ADA pedestrian pathway on the 11 00 block of Lincoln Road;
the ADA pathway will be made of a smooth top face Pedra Portuguesa stone. The
capital budget estimate is $87,000. Funding for this project could be provided from the
Miami-Dade ADA Parking Fines Grant; however, by funding it through the ADA Grant
the available balance would be reduced to $6,345.00. The Committee recommended
that the item be deferred and reviewed as part of the Capital Budget.
11. Discussion regarding an extension of the lease agreement between the City
of Miami Beach, as tenant, and Meridian Miami, LLC, as Landlord, for use of
approximately 5,311 square feet of space from September 1, 2011, through
April 30,201 2 at a monthly rent of $1 1,949.75
The Committee recommended approving the proposed eight month lease
extension between the City and Meridian Miami, LLC for office space located at
1680 Meridian Avenue.
Anna Parekh, Director of Real Estate Housing and Community Development, presented
the item and gave a brief synopsis of the memo.
The planned construction of Fire Station No. 2 and the renovation of the existing historic
building into administrative offices for the City's Fire Department required the relocation
of the Fire Department's Administration and Fire Prevention offices. At that time, there
was no vacant City-owned property available that could accommodate the Fire
Department's needs, and comparable market rent was approved to be paid in order to
house the Fire Department's offices in a privately-owned building at 1680 Meridian
Avenue. Prior to the January 201 0 expiration of the Lease and following comprehensive
review of the City's office space use and the projected timeline (at that time) of the
completion of construction of Fire Station No. 2, staff determined that it would be
necessary to extend the private Lease until such time that the Fire Administration and
Fire Prevention offices could be relocated to the second (2") floor and a portion of the
fourth (4th) floor of the City owned property located at 1701 Meridian Avenue (a.k.a. 777
Building).
In the fall of 2010, all of the improvements to the space in the 777 building to
accommodate Fire Administration and Fire Prevention had not been completed, but the
2"d floor space that would accommodate Fire Prevention was expected to be completed
by November 2010. Consequently, on September 15, 2010, the City Commission
approved: 1) a two month extension of the lease for all of the lease space for Fire
Administration and Fire Prevention staff; and, 2) a new lease agreement for a reduction
of space at 1680 Meridian Avenue to accommodate only the Fire Administration staff for
nine months (12-1/10 - 8/31/11). Due to unforeseen regulatory requirements which
affected the scope and associated timelines for the 4th floor renovations, the new
projected substantial completion of the 4th floor renovations is now December 2011.
Concurrently, staff had been advised by the Capital Improvements Projects Department
that the renovations to Fire Station 2 will be completed by March 31, 2012 - nine months
sooner that was originally expected. Extending the Lease for an additional eight months
allows the Fire Department's Administration offices to remain in their current location
instead of relocating twice in an eight month period - something that would be costly and
cause disruption to their operation.
The new eight (8) month extension will commence on September 1, 201 1 and terminate
on April 30, 2012. All other terms and provisions of the Lease remain in full force and
effect, including the rental rate.
The Committee recommended approving the proposed eight month lease extension
between the City and Meridian Miami, LLC for office space located at 1680 Meridian
Avenue.
Additional Item [not on the agenda): Discussion regarding CWA Collective
Bargaining Agreement
Commissioner Weithorn requested that the CWA requests be cost-out and added as
add-alternates and be brought to the budget briefing meetings for review and discussion
Commissioner Exposito stated that he believed the collective bargaining process should
be followed and that no further action should be taken at this time.
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for and accept two (2) grants.
Key Intended Outcomes Supported:
1)and 2) Maintain crime rates at or below national trends;
Supporting Data - 2009 Community Survey: I) and 2) 83% of residents rated the overall quality of
City Police as either 'excellent' or 'good', police appeared as one of the top three areas that has a positive
impact on the quality of life in Miami Beach.
Issue:
Shall the City support the following funding requests and execute the related agreements?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
Approval is requested to submit grant applications to: 1) US Department of Justice, FY 201 1 Edward Byrne
M'emorial ~ustice Assistance rant program for funds in the approximate amount of $79,359 for a portable
observation tower for the Police Department; and 2) Miami-Dade County for FY 2012 Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant funds in the approximate amount of $1 1,606 for the City's Police
Department initiatives; appropriating the above grants, matching funds, and city expenses for the above
projects, if approved and accepted by the City, and authorizing the execution of all necessary documents
related to these applications.
Advisory Board Recommendation: NIA
Financial I
Source
of
funds
iformation:
# I Grant Name1 1 Grant Approximate
Project ( Amount
1 I US DOJ FY 2011 1 $79,359
Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant
(Local)/
Observation Tower
Match AmountlCity
MDC FY 2012
Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant
Program1 E-
ticketing
ExpenseiSource
No Match Required for grant.
However, total cost of observation
tower is approximately $140,000.
The grant will cover $79,359 and the
$1 1,606
city's expense is approximately
$60,000. The Police Department will
fund the expense of approximately
$60,000 from State Confiscation
funds.
No Match Required for grant.
The City's expense for this project is
anticipated to be $681; the Police
Dept will fund the additional expense
in the estimated amount of $681
from State Confiscation funds.
[ Financial Impact Summary: 1
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Judy Hoanshelt, Grants Manager, Office of Budget and Performance Improvement
DATE 7-13-1
MIAMIBEACH
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 City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
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 THE FOLLOWING GRANT
APPLICATIONS: I) US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FY 2011 EDWARD
BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM FOR
FUNDING IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $79,359 FOR A POLICE
OBSERVATION TOWER; AND, 2) MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FOR FY 2012
EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM
FUNDS IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $11,606 FOR THE POLICE :
DEPARTMENT'S E-TICKETING INITIATIVE; APPROPRIATING THE ABOVE
GRANTS, MATCHING FUNDS, AND ClTY EXPENSES RELATED TO THE
ABOVE PROJECTS; IF APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
RELATED TO THESE APPLICATIONS
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
ANALYSIS
1. Approval to submit an application to the US De~artment of Justice, Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) for FY 201 1 funding in the approximate
amount of $79,359 for a Police Observation Tower
This application is for federal funding directly from the US Department of Justice. The
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Local Solicitation Program is the
primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions.
JAG supports all components of the criminal justice system, from multijurisdictional drug and
gang task forces to crime prevention and domestic violence programs, courts, corrections,
treatment, and justice information sharing initiatives. JAG funded projects may address
crime through the provision of services directly to individuals and/or communities and by
improving the effectiveness and efficiency of criminal justice systems, processes, and
procedures.
JAG funds may be used on the following areas: Law enforcement programs; prosecution
and court programs; prevention and education programs; corrections and community
corrections programs; drug treatment and enforcement programs; planning, evaluation, and
technology improvement programs; and crime victim and witness programs
Commission Memorandum
Page 2
The City's proposed project for this grant application is being made public by means of this
agenda item. The Police Department will utilize these funds to procure a portable
observation tower. Although the grant does not require matching funds, the estimated cost
of this purchase will be approximately $140,000. The grant will cover $79,359, leaving the
city with an expense of approximately $60,000. The Police Department will cover this
expense in the approximate amount of $60,000 with State Confiscation Funds.
Federal funds cannot be used to supplement existing funds for program activities and
cannot replace or supplant nonfederal funds that have been appropriated for the same
purpose. Supplanting is prohibited under JAG. Due to the late passage of FY 2011
appropriations, the Department of Justice has released this solicitation later than usual for
201 1 funding. This grant supports the key intended outcome maintain crime rates at or
below national trends.
2. Approval to submit an application to Miami-Dade Countv for FY 201 2 Edward Bvrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Proqram funds in the approximate amount of
$1 1,606 for the Police Department's E-ticketing Initiative
This application is for federal funds that are passed through from the US Department of - :
Justice to the State of Florida, Florida Department of Law Enforcement and then to Miami-
Dade County. Miami-Dade County disburses these funds to cities. It is the Administration's
intent to apply for funds from the County's allocation for the continuation of the City's
Records lmprovement Program, through E-ticketing. This Edward Byrne Memorial JAG
grant is in addition to the federal funding mentioned in the item above.
The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program is the primary
provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. JAG funds support
all components of the criminal justice system, from multijurisdictional drug and gang task
forces to crime prevention and domestic violence programs, courts, corrections, treatment,
technology improvement programs and justice information sharing initiatives.
The City is applying for funding in the amount of $1 1,606 for the continuation of the Police
Department's Records lmprovement Program. Funding will be used to purchase ten (10) E-
ticket bundles to enable the Police Department to comply with Florida Department of Law
Enforcement's requirements. Although the grant does not require matching funds, the total
cost for this E-citation program is $1 2,286.38. The city's expense for the cost of this project
is $681 and will be covered from State Confiscation funds. This project supports the key
intended outcome: maintain crime rates at or below national trends.
CONCLUSION
The Administration requests approval to authorize the City Manager or his designee to
submit the following grant applications: 1) US Department of Justice, Edward Byme
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant for funds in the approximate amount of $79,359 for a
portable observation tower for the Police Department; and 2) Miami-Dade Countyfor Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant funds in the approximate amount of $1 1,606 for
the City's Police Department E-ticketing initiative; appropriating the above grants, matching
funds and city expense related to the above projects, if approved and accepted by the City,
and authorizing the execution of all necessary 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 THE FOLLOWING GRANT APPLICATION: 1) US
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) FOR FUNDING IN THE
APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $79,359 FOR A POLICE
OBSERVATION TOWER; AND, 2) MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FOR
EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT
PROGRAM FUNDS IN THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF $11,606
FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S E-TICKETING INITIATIVE;
APPROPRIATING THE ABOVE GRANTS, MATCHING FUNDS,
AND ClTY EXPENSES RELATED TO THE ABOVE PROJECTS, IF
APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, AND AUTHORIZING
THE EXECUTION OF ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS RELATED
TO THESE APPLICATIONS :
WHEREAS, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Local
Program is the primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local
jurisdictions and JAG supports all components of the criminal justice system; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department intends to utilize these funds to procure a
portable observation tower; and
WHEREAS, although the grant does not require matching funds, the estimated
cost of this purchase will be approximately $140,000, therefore, the grant will cover
$79,359, leaving the city with an expense of approximately $60,000; and
WHEREAS, the Police Department will cover this expense in the approximate
amount of $60,000 with State Confiscation Funds.
WHEREAS, matching funds are not required to support this grant, however as
mentioned above there is an expense to be covered by the city for this project; and
WHEREAS, this grant supports the key intended outcome maintain crime rates
at or below national trends; and
WHEREAS, federal funds cannot be used to supplement existing funds for
program activities and cannot replace or supplant nonfederal funds that have been
appropriated for the same purpose and due to the late passage of FY 2011
appropriations, the Department of Justice has released this solicitation later than usual
for 201 1 funding; and
WHEREAS, approval is requested to submit an application to the US Department
of Justice, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) for funding in the
approximate amount of $79,359, for an Observation Tower for the Police Department;
and
WHEREAS, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
Program is the primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local
jurisdictions and JAG funds support all components of the criminal justice system; and
WHEREAS, this application is for federal funds that are passed through from the
US Department of Justice to the State of Florida, Florida Department of Law
Enforcement and then to Miami-Dade County, and Miami-Dade County disburses these
funds to cities; and
WHEREAS, this source of funding is in addition to the federal funding mentioned
in previous item of this Commission Memorandum; and
WHEREAS, the Administration plans to apply for funding in the amount of
$1 1,606 for the continuation of the Police Department's Records Improvement Program
and funding will be used to purchase ten (10) E-ticket bundles to enable the Police
Department to comply with Florida Department of Law Enforcement's requirements; and
WHEREAS, although the grant does not require matching funds, the total cost for
this E-citation program is $12,286.38., therefore, the city's expense for the cost of this
project is $681 and will be covered from State Confiscation funds; and
WHEREAS, this project supports the key intended outcome: maintain crime rates
at or below national trends; and
WHEREAS, approval is requested to submit a grant application to the Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance program in the approximate amount of $1 1,606 for
the Police Department's E-ticketing initiative.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND ClTY
COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH hereby approve and authorize the City
Manager or his designee to submit the following application: 1) US Department of
Justice, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) for funding in the
approximate amount of $79,359 for a portable observation tower for the Police
Department; and, 2) Miami-Dade County for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant Program funds in the approximate amount of $1 1,606 for the Police Department's
E-ticketing initiative; appropriating the above grants, matching funds, and city expenses
related to the above projects, if approved and accepted by the City, and authorizing the
execution of all necessary documents related to these applications.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,201 1
ATTEST:
MAYOR
ClTY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
!
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution retroactively authorizing the acceptance of $13,000 dollars in cash donations (including
sponsorships) made to the City for the annual Fourth of July celebration, a free event; and further
appropriating said funds for the Fourth of July celebration; and accepting and appropriating future
donations for this purpose; and authorizing the City Manager or his designee to make such expenditures
and/or reimbursements from the aforestated donations, in furtherance of and consistent with the
aforestated event.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Increase community ratings of cultural activities.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): The 2009 Community Satisfaction Survey reported
more than one-fifth of all resident respondents feel there are "too few" family friendly activities (24.6%) and
cultural activities (24.1 %). Additionally, on average, residents attended 10.61 cultural activities per year and
7.19 family friendly activities per year.
Issue: I Should the City accept sponsorships for July Fourth?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
I In 1991. the Citv of Miami Beach launched the first "An American Celebration" as a means to attract more
visitors to this area during the 4th of July. This celebration, due to its great success, has been carried on
year after year as a vehicle to continue to bring more visitors to the city. In order to generate interest in all
areas of the city, the event's location used to alternates between the North Beach community (72" Street
beach front) and the South Beach Community (Ocean Drive Beach Front) areas. When taking place in
North Beach, the fireworks were discharged from a barge in the Atlantic Ocean. Unfortunately, due to the
extremely high costs of procuring a barge, the City has produced the July 4th event from South Beach
since 2007. However, the City has implemented a free shuttle from North Beach.
The event took place at 9th Street east of Ocean Drive at Lummus park. This year's program featured
performances DJ Maximus, Big Poppa E and E Band and the South Florida Jazz Orchestra under the
direction of Chuck Bergeron, with special guest vocalist Nicole Henry. The City also partnered with
I Classical South Florida Radio 89.7 FM to broadcast the program live on the radio. The fireworks show
was accompanied by patriotic melodies compiled by Classical South Florida. The program began at noon
with the aforementioned performances followed by a sixteen (16) minute firework show at 9pm.
I July 4th is an all day event and it is open to the general public at no charge. I
Advisory Board Recommendation:
i
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1
OBPl Total
Financial Impact Summary:
These sponsors are providing a total of $13,000 in funding and in-kind contributions to offset the costs for July
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Max Sklar, Tourism and Cultural Development Director
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 Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, RETROACTIVELY AUTHORIZING THE
ACCEPTANCE OF $13,000 DOLLARS IN CASH DONATIONS (INCLUDING
SPONSORSHIPS) MADE TO THE CITY FOR THE ANNUAL FOURTH OF JULY
CELEBRATION, A FREE EVENT; AND FURTHER APPROPRIATING SAID
FUNDS FOR THE FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION; AND ACCEPTING AND
APPROPRIATING FUTURE DONATIONS FOR THIS PURPOSE; AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO MAKE SUCH -:
EXPENDITURES AND/OR REIMBURSEMENTS FROM THE AFORESTATED
DONATIONS, IN FURTHERANCE OF AND CONSISTENT WITH THE
AFORESTATED EVENT.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution.
ANALYSIS
In 1991, the City of Miami Beach launched the first "An American Celebration" as a means to
attract more visitors to this area during the 4th of July. This celebration, due to its great
success, has been carried on year after year as a vehicle to continue to bring more visitors
to the city. In order to generate interest in all areas of the city, the event's location used to
alternates between the North Beach community (72nd Street beach front) and the South
Beach Community (Ocean Drive Beach Front) areas. When taking place in North Beach,
the fireworks were discharged from a barge in the Atlantic Ocean. Unfortunately, due to the
extremely high costs of procuring a barge, the City has produced the July 4th event from
South Beach since 2007. However, the City provides FREE transportation from the 72"d
Street and 81'' Street parking lots in North Beach.
On July 4th, 201 I, the City of Miami Beach hosted its 1 8th annual July 4th celebration. The
event took place at 9th Street east of Ocean Drive at Lummus park. This year's program
featured performances by DJ Maximus; Big Poppa E and the E Band; and the South Florida
Jazz Orchestra under the direction of Chuck Bergeron, with special guest vocalist Nicole
Henry. The City also partnered with Classical South Florida Radio 89.7 FM to broadcast the
program live on the radio. The fireworks show was accompanied by patriotic melodies
compiled by Classical South Florida. The program began at noon with the aforementioned
performances followed by a sixteen (16) minute firework show at 9pm.
~uly4'~ is an all day event and it is open to the general public at no charge. Marketing efforts
for this event include PSAs and printed ads starting a month prior to the event. The media
plan included news and local programming coverage for the event, including MB77, the
July 4th
July 13, 201 1
City Commission Meeting
Page 2 of 2
Miami Beach government channel, as well as radio, television, and newspaper calendars
around South Florida.
The City secured the following sponsors for the event at varying levels of support:
o Waste Management
o Monster Energy Drink
o Mangos Tropical Cafe
o Ocean Drive Association
o New York Times
This year's media sponsors included:
1. The Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald and Miami.com
2. The Miami New Times
3. Classical South Florida
4. Atlantic Broadband
5. Welcome Channel
CONCLUSION
Staff worked diligently to identify funding sources to off-set the costs of producing this event.
The Administration recommends the adoption of the attached Resolution authorizing the
acceptance of these donations, their appropriation to cover costs of July 4th.
JMGIHMFIMAS
T:\AGENDAY2011\7-13-11Wuly 4th Sponsorship Acceptance Memo.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, RETROACTIVELY AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE
OF $13,000 DOLLARS IN CASH DONATIONS (INCLUDING SPONSORSHIPS)
MADE TO THE ClTY FOR THE ANNUAL FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION, A
FREE EVENT; AND FURTHER APPROPRIATING SAID FUNDS FOR THE FOURTH
OF JULY CELEBRATION; AND ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING FUTURE
DONATIONS FOR THIS PURPOSE; AND AUTHORIZING THE ClTY MANAGER OR
HIS DESIGNEE TO MAKE SUCH EXPENDITURES AND/OR REIMBURSEMENTS
FROM THE AFORESTATED DONATIONS, IN FURTHERANCE OF AND
CONSISTENT WITH THE AFORESTATED EVENT.
WHEREAS, in 1991, the City of Miami Beach launched the first "An American Celebration" as a
means to attract more visitors to this area during the 4th of July; and
WHEREAS, this celebration has been carried out year after year as a vehicle to continue to bring
more visitors to the city; and
WHEREAS, the event includes performances for the public and a fireworks show, all free of
charge; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the City's July 4th 2011 event, following entities have made
Donations to the City and shall be recognized as event sponsors:
o Waste Management -:
o Monster Energy Drink
o Mangos Tropical Cafe
o Ocean Drive Association
o New York Times; and
WHEREAS, it is hereby recommended that the Mayor and City Commission accept the
aforestated donations on behalf of the City for July Fourth, and further authorize the City Manager to
accept future sponsorships on behalf of the City (which may be made following the effective date of this
Resolution) in furtherance of July Fourth 201 1, subject to ratification of same by the City Commission at
its July meeting; and
WHEREAS, it is further recommended that the Mayor and City Commission hereby authorize the
City Manager or his designee to make any necessary reimbursements and/or expenditures of the
aforestated donations, as well as future donations, in furtherance of and consistent with the aforestated
July Fourth 201 1 event.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby
retroactively authorizes the acceptance $1 3,000 dollars in cash donations (including sponsorships) made
to the city for the annual fourth of July celebration, a free event; and further appropriating said funds for
the fourth of July celebration; and accepting and appropriating future donations for this purpose; and
authorizing the city manager or his designee to make such expenditures and/or reimbursements from the
aforestated donations, in furtherance of and consistent with the aforestated event.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2011.
ATTEST:
MAYOR
ClTY CLERK
T:MGENDA\2011\7-13-1 I\July 4th Sponsorship Acceptance Reso.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOH EXECUTION
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute Amendment No. 2 to the
Agreement Between The City And UNIDAD Of Miami Beach, Inc., A Florida Not-For-Profit Corporation, Dated
March 25,201 1, For Project Management Services Relative To The Design, Development And Construction
Of Certain Improvements At Bandshell Park Including A Terrace, Tree Relocation, And Utilities, Adjacent To
The North Begch Community Center; Said Amendment For The Design And Construction Of The Northeast
Quadrant Of The Bandshell Park As Per Adopted Master Plan, In The Not-to-Exceed Amount Of $167,550,
Including A 10% Contingency; With Funding In The Amount Of $54,000, from Previously Appropriated Fund
161 Quality of Life Funds, And An additional Appropriation Advancing $1 13,500 From Fund 161 Quality Of
Life Funds (North Beach); With All Such Funds To Be Reimbursed From Future Miami-Dade County General
Obligation Bond Funds.
Key Intended Outcome Supported: I Ensure well-designed, quality capital projects. I
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): 63% of North Beach residents surveyed rated
Overall Quality of Life within the City of Miami Beach as excellent & good, compared to 75% of residents in the
City overall.
- - -
Issue: I Shall the City Commission adopt the Resolution authorizing Amendment No. 2 to the Unidad Agreement? I
Item Summary/Recommendation:
I UNIDAD is overseeing the construction and development of the North Beach Community Center that has 1
been designed by ~eie Gonzalez Architect, and is being constructed by KM Plaza (the "Project"). The scope
of work for the Project includes the demolition of an existing structure on the site. The new two story building
will be approximately 8,000 sq. ft. with additional terraces, and is located at 7251 Collins Avenue, in Bandshell
Park. It is anticipated that the project will be completed in the Fall of 201 1. On January 19,201 1, the Mayor
and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 201 1-27573 approving the execution of an Agreement between
the City of Miami Beach and UNIDAD of Miami Beach, Inc., for Project Management Services relative to the
design, development and construction of certain improvements at Bandshell Park including a terrace, tree
relocation, and utilities adjacent to the North Beach Community Center. Given the fact that the renovation of
the Bandshell Facility has already been completed, and that the construction of the new North Beach
Community Center will be completed in the fall of 201 1, the Administratjon would like to expedite the
construction of the northeast quadrant of the park, as per the Master Plan adopted by the City Commission on
February 9,201 1. The scope of work includes the main promenade approach to the new Community Center,
a service drive, and underground electrical for future lighting installations. The Administration and UNIDAD
have reviewed the proposed preliminary cost estimate in the amount of $152,318, for this work, and find said
estimate to be fair and reasonable. Funding for this task includes $54,000, from previously appropriated Fund
161 Quality of Life funds, as well as an additional appropriation advancing $1 13,500 from Fund 161 Quality of
Life (North Beach) funds. Although the Bandshell Park project was originally scheduled to receive Miami-Dade
General Obligation Bond (GOB) funds in late 2009, the funding was delayed due to a revised Miami-Dade
bond funding schedule. However, the funding commitment remains, as outlined in an April 12, 201 1, letter
from Miami-Dade County Commissioner Sally Heyman (See Attachment 4). Based on conversations with
County staff, it is now anticipated that these funds will be available in approximately six months.
The Administration recommends approval of this resolution.
Advisory Board Recommendation: I NIA
Financial Information:
I I I Amount Account I Approved I I Source of Funds:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
I
I I
( $167,550 1 161-2538 Quality of Life Resort Tax (
OBPl I
Total
MIAMIBEACH AGENDA ITEM C
DATE 7-13-11
$1 67,550
Fund I
MIAMIBEACH
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 City Cpmmission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ClTY
CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AGREEMENT, BETWEEN
THE ClTY AND UNIDAD OF MIAMI BEACH , INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-
PROFIT CORPORATION, DATED MARCH 25, 2011, FOR PROJECT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATIVE TO THE DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT AND
CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS AT BANDSHELL PARK
INCLUDING A TERRACE, TREE RELOCATION, AND UTILITIES ADJACENT
TO THE NORTH BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER; SAID AMENDMENT FORTHE
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE
BANDSHELL PARK AS PERTHE ADOPTED MASTER PLAN, IN THE NOT-TO-
EXCEED AMOUNT OF $167,550, INCLUDING A 10% CONTINGENCY; WITH
PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED FUNDS.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution authorizing Amendment No. 2 to the Unidad Agreement.
FUNDING
Funding for this task includes $54,000 from previously appropriated Fund 161 Quality of Life
funds as well as an additional appropriation' advancing $1 13,500 from Fund 161 ~uality of
Life (North Beach) funds. Although the Bandshell Park project was originally scheduled to
receive Miami-Dade General Obligation Bond (GOB) funds in late 2009, the funding was
delayed due to a revised Miami-Dade bond funding schedule. However, the funding
commitment remains, as outlined in an April 12, 201 1, letter from Miami-Dade County
Commissioner Sally Heyman (See Attachment 4). Based on conversations with County
staff, it is now anticipated that these funds will be available in approximately six months. It
should be noted that reimbursement allocations are made not later than 18 months after the
later of: (A) The date the original expenditure is paid; or (B) The date the project is placed in
service or abandoned, but in no event more than 3 years after the original expenditure is
paid. In addition, expenditures that are more than 3 years old or that are for projects that
have been complete more than 18 months generally will not qualify for reimbursement under
applicable federal tax rules governing use of bond proceeds.
Commission Memorandum
Unidad Amendment No. 2
July 13, 201 1
Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS
UNIDAD is overseeing the construction and development of the North Beach Community
Center located at 7251 Collins Avenue, in Bandshell Park that has been designed by Rene
Gonzalez Architect, and is being constructed by KM Plaza (the "Project"). The scope of work
for the Project includes the demolition of an existing structure on the site. The new two story
building will be approximately 8,000 sq. ft. with additional terraces, and is located at 7251
Collins Avenue, in Bandshell Park.
The proposed building, which includes public restrooms, will be iconic in nature and the
North Beach Community Center will be operated therein, when completed, by UNIDAD. The
existing structure and land is owned by the City of Miami Beach, which is a party to a long
term management agreement with UNIDAD. The new two (2) story building will also be
owned by the City of Miami Beach and operated by UNIDAD pursuant to a management
agreement with the City. It is anticipated that the project will be completed in the Fall of 201 1.
On January 19,201 1, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 201 1-27573
approving the execution of an Agreement between the City of Miami Beach and UNIDAD of -:
Miami Beach, Inc., for Project Management Services relative to the design, development and
construction of certain improvements at Bandshell Park including a terrace, tree relocation,
and utilities adjacent to the North Beach Community Center.
Given the fact that the renovation of the Bandshell Facility has already been completed, and
that the construction of the new North Beach Community Center will be completed in the fall
of 201 1, the Administration would like to expedite the construction of the northeast quadrant
of the park, as per the Master Plan adopted by the City Commission on February 9, 201 1.
The scope of work includes the main promenade approach to the new Community Center,
the service drive for the Bandshell Facility as well as the Community Center, and
underground electrical for future lighting installations.
The Administration and UNIDAD have reviewed the proposed preliminary cost estimate in
the amount of $1 52,318, which includes soft costs and hard costs, and finds said estimate to
be fair and reasonable.
UNIDAD, as a not-for-profit entity, will oversee the Project to ensure that all work elements
are completed at the agreed upon cost without any delays to the Project. The proposed
costs are architectural, engineering, permitting, project management fees for project's
owner's representative, and hard costs and as a result, UNIDAD will not receive any
additional compensation for providing project management services.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission approve and authorize
the Mayor And City Clerk to execute Amendment No.2 to the Agreement between the City
and Unidad of Miami Beach, Inc., a Florida Not-For-Profit Corporation, dated March 25,
201 1, for Project Management Services relative to the design, development and construction
of certain improvements at Bandshell Park including a terrace, tree relocation, and utilities
adjacent to the North Beach Community Center; said Amendment for design and
construction of the northeast quadrant of the Bandshell Park as per the adopted master
plan, in the not-to-exceed amount of $1 67,550, including a 10% contingency; with previously
appropriated Fund 161 Quality of Life funds, and an additional appropriation advancing
Commission Memorandum
Unidad Amendment No.2
July 13, 201 1
Page 3 of 3
$1 13,500 from Fund 161 Quality of Life funds (North Beach); with all such funds to be
reimbursed from future Miami-Dade County bonds.
Attachments:
1. Sketch of proposed scope of work
2. Rough order of magnitude for scope of work
3. Amendment No.2 (draft)
4. April 12, 201 1 letter from Miami-Dade Co. Commissioner Sally A. Heyman
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\Unidad Amendment No2 - Memo.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AGREEMENT, BETWEEN
THE CITY AND UNIDAD OF MIAMI BEACH , INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-
PROFIT CORPORATION, DATED MARCH 25, 2011, FOR PROJECT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATIVE TO THE DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT AND
CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS AT BANDSHELL PARK
INCLUDING A TERRACE, TREE RELOCATION, AND UTILITIES ADJACENT
TO THE NORTH BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER; SAID AMENDMENT FOR THE
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE
BANDSHELL PARK AS PER THE ADOPTED MASTER PLAN, IN THE NOT-TO-
EXCEED AMOUNT OF $167,550, INCLUDING A 10% CONTINGENCY; WITH
PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED FUNDS.
WHEREAS, UNIDAD is overseeing the construction and development of the North
Beach Community Center that has been designed by Rene Gonzalez Architect, and is being
constructed by KM Plaza (the "Project"); and - :
WHEREAS, the new two-story building will be approximately 8,000 sq. ft. with
additional terraces, as specified in the Project Documents, and will be located at 7251 Collins
Avenue, Miami Beach, FL, 33141, in Bandshell Park; and
WHEREAS, the existing structure and land is owned by the City of Miami Beach,
which is a party to a long term management agreement with UNIDAD; and
WHEREAS, the new two (2) story building will also be owned by the City of Miami
Beach and operated by UNIDAD pursuant to a management agreement with the City; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 201 1, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution
No. 201 1-27573 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 Mayor and City
Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with the Consultant (the Agreement); and
WHEREAS, the Agreement provides for project management services relative to the
design, development and construction of certain improvements at Bandshell Park, including a
terrace, tree relocation, and utilities, adjacent to the North Beach Community Center, located
at 7251 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement was executed in the amount of $407,291.76; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 201 1, Amendment No.1 was executed in the amount of
$6,408.48, for the additional cost associated with City requested changes pertaining to the
elimination of the concrete bench along the west side of the terrace, and for the added
terrazzo finish to a portion of the terrace (originally supposed to receive concrete finish); and
WHEREAS, the Administration would like to expedite the construction of the northeast
quadrant of the park, as per Master Plan adopted by the City Commission on February 9,
201 1 ; and
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 I\UNIDAD Amendment No. 2\Unidad Amendment No 2 - Reso.doc
WHEREAS, the scope of work includes the main promenade approach to the new
Community Center, a service drive for the Bandshell Facility as well as the Community
Center, and underground electrical for future lighting installations; and
WHEREAS, the Administration and UNIDAD have reviewed the proposed cost
estimate in the amount of $152,318, for this work, and finds said estimate to be fair and
reasonable; and
WHEREAS, the proposed costs are architectural, engineering, permitting, project
management fees for project's owner's representative and hard costs and as a result,
UNIDAD will not receive any additional compensation for providing project management;
and
WHEREAS, UNIDAD, as a not-for-profit entity, will oversee the Project to ensure that
all work elements are completed at the agreed upon cost without any delays to the Project.
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 Amendment No.2 to the
Agreement between the City and Unidad of Miami Beach, Inc., a Florida Not-For-Profit -:
Corporation, dated March 25, 201 1, for Project Management Services relative to the design,
development and construction of certain improvements at Bandshell Park including a terrace,
tree relocation, and utilities adjacent to the North Beach Community Center; said Amendment
for design and construction of the northeast quadrant of the Bandshell Park as per the
adopted master plan, in the not-to-exceed amount of $167,550, including a 10% contingency;
with previously appropriated funds.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ,2011.
ATTEST:
ClTY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO
EQRM & LANGUAGE
MAYOR
T:\AGENDA\20I 1\7-13-1 I\UNIDAD Amendment No. Bunidad Amendment No2 - Reso.doc
190
Attachment 2
~1 aro
development
BANDSHELL PARK - NORTHSIDE PARK IMPROVEMENTS
ROUGH ORDER OF MAGNITUDE
Cost Submitted to CMB: 6/22/2011
Cost Approved by CMB:
Soft costs
Architecture
Civil Engineer
Coastal / DEP Consulting
ERP Permit
MEP Engineer
Permit Expeditor
Permit Fees
Project Management
Cost Comments
3,500.00
3,880.00
3,820.00
3,390.00
1,850.00
2,000.00 Hourly Cap
- City of Miami Beach
4,600.00 Hourly Cap
Total Soft Costs $ 23,040.00
Hard Costs Cost Comments
Demolition $ 11,500.00
Sitework / Earthwork $ 57,078.00
Landscape / Irrigation $ - byCMB
Concrete $ 26,250.00
Electrical $ 10,000.00
Fee $ 10,482.80
General Conditions $ 10,483.00 Assumes work during UNIDAD construction of NBOC
Insurance $ 2,018.00
Bond $ 1,467.00
Total Hard Cost $ 129,278.80
Total Costs $ 152,318.80
Attachment 3
AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA
AND
UNIDAD OF MlAMl BEACH, INC.,
DATED MARCH 25,201 1,
FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATIVE TO THE DESIGN,
DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS AT
BANDSHELL PARK INCLUDING A TERRACE, TREE RELOCATION, AND UTILITIES,
ADJACENT TO THE NORTH BEACH OCEANFRONT CENTER, LOCATED AT 7251
COLLINS AVENUE, MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA.
day of This Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement made and entered this
, 201 1, by and between the ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, a Municipal
Corporation existing under the laws of the State of Florida (hereinafter referred to as -:
CITY), having its principal offices at 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida
33139, and UNIDAD OF MlAMl BEACH, INC., a Florida Not for Profit Corporation,
whose address is 1701 Normandy Drive, Miami Beach, FL, 331 39-1821 (Consultant).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2011, the Mayor and City Commission adopted
Resolution No. 201 1-27573 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 Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Professional Services Agreement with the
Consultant (the Agreement); and
WHEREAS, the Agreement provides for project management services relative to
the design, development and construction of certain improvements at Bandshell Park,
including a terrace, tree relocation, and utilities, adjacent to the North Beach Community
Center, located at 7251 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement was executed in the amount of $407,291.76; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 201 1, Amendment No.1 was executed in the amount of
$6,408.48, for the additional cost associated with City requested changes pertaining to
the elimination of the concrete bench along the west side of the terrace, and for the
added terrazzo finish to a portion of the terrace (originally supposed to receive concrete
finish); and
WHEREAS, the following Amendment No.2 to the Agreement is for architectural
and engineering services, permit expediting, owner's representative project management
fees and construction of the northeast quadrant of the North Shore Bandshell Park, as
per adopted Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the scope of work includes the main promenade approach to the
North Beach Community Center, service drive, and electrical for future lighting
installations; and
WHEREAS, the aforestated work, as set forth in the following Amendment No. 2,
is for a not to exceed amount of $167,500, which includes a 10% contingency;
WHEREAS, unused amounts will not be paid out to Consultant.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, and in consideration of the mutual
promises, covenants, agreements, terms, and conditions herein contained, and other
good and valuable consideration, the respect and adequacy are hereby acknowledged,
do agree as follows:
1. ABOVE RECITALS
The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated as a part of this
Amendment No. 1.
2. MODIFICATIONS
The Agreement is amended to include and incorporate the additional work, as set
forth in Exhibit "2-A, attached hereto.
3. OTHER PROVISIONS.
All other provisions of the Agreement, as amended, are unchanged.
4. RATIFICATION.
The City and Consultant ratify the terms of the Agreement, as amended by this
Amendment No. 2.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 2
to be executed in their names by their duly authorized officials as of the date first set forth
above.
ATTEST: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
City Clerk
Robert Parcher
ATTEST :
BY
City Manager
Jorge M. Gonzalez
CONSULTANT:
UNIDAD OF MIAMI BEACH
Signature Signature
Print Name I Title Print Name I Title
SALLY A. HEYMAN
COMMISSIONER
April 12,201 1
Attachment 4
c -# 6/34 , h!//d&,
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY - FLORIDA
STEPHEN P. CLARK CENTER - 'a
111 N. W. FIRST STREET, SUITE 220
2111t.. .. !.. I*:: IL
MIAMI, FLORIDA 331 28-1963
. . (305) 375-51 28 . . . _. .._ - -- - -- -
Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drivc
Miami Beach, FL 33 139
Dear Manager, Mayor and Council:
In the next bond series, money has been allocated for a Capital Improvement GOB
Project in your municipality.
Site Description 2011A GOB Balance
Series Amount Coming
Lummus Park $868,103 $626,676
Miami Beach Convention Center $206,500 $4,2 1 1,973
Flamingo Park $2,000,000
Rand Shell Park $1,500,000
If you have any questions, please call Margie Amador Robinson at 305-375-5 128.
2010-11 Capital Budget 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan he - Band Shell Maater Plan lmprovements Title: Project #: Department: Manager: Category: Domain: Location: Description: Justification: Project Timeline: Band Shell Master Plan lmprovements pknbandshe CIP Office Thais Viera cip Parks northshore Operating Categories Cost Personnel Operating and Ma~ntenance Miscellaneous TOTAL OPERATING COSTS This project includes renovations and improvements to the oceanfront portion of North Shore Park, which has not seen significant upgrades in many years. Phase 1 will include the following elements: reconfiguratlon and addition of walkways throughout; new service driveway; installation of an electronic mequee; installation of the Beetles Mandala; demolition of the exlsting bus shelter; landscaping; irrigation; site lighting; redesigned entrances to the Bandshell Facility and new North Beach Oceanfront Center; fixtures and finishes for public restrooms; and site enhancements associated with the North Beach Oceanfront Center. Unfunded Phase 2 will include the widening of 73rd Street sidewalk allowing for the creation of a multi-purpose path, a new walkway connecting Collins Avenue to the North Beach Recreational Corridor at 72nd Street, and associated lighting and landscape. Improvements will discourage the existing homeless encampment and improve the image of safety and security. (Miami-Dade County Grant Pmject: 86 - Mlami Beach - Band Shell Park 7275 Collins Avenue). KlOs Supported: Ensure Value and Timely Delivery of Quality Capital Projects; Ensure Well-maintained Facilities; and Increase Satisfaction With Family Recreational Activities. Description MonthNear Description MonthNear AIE Agreement Award: Dec-09 Planning Starts: Design Starts: Dec-09 Bid Start: tbd Construction Contract Award: tbd Construction Starts: tbd F \CAPI\$all\Cap~tal Budget\Cap~tal Budget FWO-1 l\CIP BUDGET- FY2011 xls 06/30/2011 11 12 AM Planning Completion: Design Completion: Dec-10 Bid Completion: tbd Construction Completion: tbd \ Parks "
2010-11 Capital Budget 5 Year Capital Improvement Plan Cost Category ap161 Art in Publk Placw Fund 161 cm9W Conslnrctlm Manegenrent Fund 390 w390 Construction Fund 390 co181 CmsmKUon Fund 181 dl81 Contfngency Fund 161 do161 Deslgn Engimedng Fund 181 de390 Design & Engineering Fund 390 Total Prior Years Appropriated October 2010 20,595 107,418 (107,418) 156,418 187,300 54,000 (2538) pknbandehe - Band Shell aster Plan lmprovements Mid-year Total Commission Prior 2011112 2012113 Appropriation Appropriation 0 -6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.198.582 0 0 187,300 0 0 (187,300) Q 0 0 113,550 re7.ssO (113,55U) 0 "I , Beyond 201 5116 2016 Total (2538) pknbandshe -Band Shell Master Ptan Improvements Appropriated Mid-year Total Beyond Funding Prior Years October Commission Prior 2011l12 2012113 2013114 2014115 201 5116 2016 Total 2010 Appropriation Appropriation 161 Qual~ty of Life Tax Fund - 1% Q 418,313 113,550 531.863 (113,550) 0 0 0 0 0 418.313 390 Mtaml-Dade County Bond 1.500.000 0 (1 13,550) 1,386.450 113,550 0 0 0 0 0 1,500,000 Total Funded 1.500,OOO 418.313 Q 1.918.313 Q 0 Q 5! Q Q 1.918.313 Total 383unded Q 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T",'dqB_"yt , 1,500.000 . 418,313 0 1.918.313 0 0 0 0 O, 0 1,918,313 --. > -- nt, Ei~n~&~~~adan&fdd~apftet~ &d@t - ' (2538) pknbandshe - Band Shell Master Plan tmprovements Explanation Note: The request for addlt~onal funding will wver the cost associated wtth the construction of the new publtc restrooms and terrace at the new Senlor Center Bulldlng, and addtttonal deslgn for the DEP permlttlng process The request wlll also cover contlnpency, constructton management and art tn public places Note (2): Regarding UNIDAD's Pmfesslonal Management agreement wlth the City (going to Commission on July 13, 2011). Funding In the amount of $113,550 to be advancedfmm (2538) pknbandshe Band Shell Master Plan improvements Unfunded Budget % of Budget Funded % of Funded SW W8S UNF Funded SW Funded WBS Funded Other Art In Publlc Places 20.595 1 1% 20,595 11% 0 0 0 0 0 20,595 Construct~on Management 107,418 5 6% 107,418 5 6% 0 0 0 6 0% 0 0 107,418 Construct~on 1,542,300 80 4% 1,542,300 80 4% 0 0 0 0 0 1,542,300 Cont~ngency 0 0 01 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Design 248,000 12 9% 248,000 12 9% 0 0 0 0 0 248,000 Equipment 0 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Program Management: 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 F:\CAPl\$all\Capital Budget\Capital Budget FYlO-II\CIP BUDGET- FY20lI.xls 06/3012011 11:12 AM \ . Parks . +a.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
I
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, approving an increase to the
project contingencyfor the Renovation and Restoration of the Historical Fire Station No. 2 Project, in the amount of
$41 5,000, from previously appropriated Fund 304 Capital Reserve Funds in the project budget, for unforeseen
structural concrete spalling repairs.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Ensure well designed quality capital projects.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
The 2009 Community Satisfaction Survey noted that 75.7% of Mid-Beach & Islands respondents reported the
effort put forth by the City of Miami Beach on historic preservation is "about the right amount", compared to 77.1 %
for all respondents Citywide.
Issue: I Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the Resolution to increase the project contingency? I
Item SummarylRecommendation:
On July 14,201 0, the Mayor and City Commission authorized the award of a contract to Edgewater Construction
Group, Inc. (ECG) for the Renovation and Restoration of the Historic Fire Station No. 2 Project.
This Resolution requests an increase to the project contingency for the Renovation and Restoration of the
Historical Fire Station No. 2 and Hose Tower Project due to extensive additional unforeseen structural spalling
repairs that are required throughout the building. These additional unforeseen structural repairs were due to a
substantial amount of deterioration of the building which was not anticipated prior to the award of the construction
contract. Based on a standard amount of structural due diligence, some spalling repairs were expected and
budgeted for in the construction via a contract allowance of $100,000. However, ongoing repairs during
construction have uncovered an inordinate amount of additional repairs which have exceeded the budgeted
$100,000 allowance for this specific task. As a result, the costs of the additional repairs, above the budgeted
allowance, are being submitted and approved as change orders to the contract. These change orders will deplete
the available construction contingency that was originally budgeted for other project related cost overruns, not
solely for structural repairs, and require an increase to the same. The aforementioned repairs are currently
underway, progressing rapidly and must be performed in all required areas in order for the NE to certify that the
building is structurally sound. Based on the structural repairs completed to date and the balance of the estimated
structural spalling repair projection provided by the NE, staff anticipates the spalling repairs will cost an additional
$41 5,000 from the projected allowance. An increase to the project contingency will cover the cost of upcoming
change orders for the additional structural spalling repairs.
This Resolution approves an increase to the project contingency for the Renovation and Restoration of the
Historical Fire Station No. 2 Project and transfers available funds in the amount of $41 5,000, as recommended by
the project's NE Consultant, from previously appropriated Fund 304, Capital Reserve Funds for unforeseen
structural concrete spalling repairs.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
Financial Information:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Janette Femandez Arencibia, Capital Projects Coordinator, ext. 6596
OBPI
JMGIDBIFV u T:LAGENDA\20117-13-1 l\Fire Station No. 2 Contingency Increase\FS No.2 - Contingency Increase - SUMMARY.doc
Account
304-21 46-069357
BEACH ,,,
Amount
$41 5,000
Source of
Funds:
Financial Impact Summary:
3
Totat
AGENDA ITEM c7 D
DATE 7-/3-//
1
$41 5,000
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti H. Bower and Members of the City Commission
/'
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AN INCREASE TO THE PROJECT CONTINGENCY
FOR THE RENOVATION AND RESTORATION OF THE HISTORICAL FIRE STATION
NO. 2 PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $415,000, FROM PREVIOUSLY
APPROPRIATED FUND 304 CAPITAL RESERVE FUNDS IN THE PROJECT
BUDGET, FOR UNFORESEEN STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SPALLING REPAIRS.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME
Ensure value and the timely delivery of a quality capital project.
FUNDING
Funding in the amount of $41 5,000 has been previously appropriated from Fund 304, Account # 304-
2146-069357, in the Capital Budget. No additional appropriations are required.
BACKGROUND
On July 17, 1996, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 96-22068, approving and
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement with STA Architectural Group, Inc. (the
Consultant) for professional services for the Renovation and Expansion of Fire Station No. 2 and a
Master Plan for the site at 451 Dade Boulevard (the Project). As a result of the design services, two
project phases were proposed. The first phase of the Project consisted of Building B and its Emergency
Operations Center. The second phase consisted of Building A, the existing historical building and hose
tower. The first phase was completed in March 2008. The second phase of the project commenced in
December 2009.
On December 9,2009, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2009-27255, approving
and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement with the Consultant for additional
design, bid, and construction administration services for the rehabilitation of the historic building, Hose
Tower, and new construction on the Fire Station No. 2 Building A and Hose Tower Project. This final
phase of the Fire Station No. 2 project entailed the historic renovation and restoration of Building A and
the Hose Tower which would be converted into the Fire Department headquarters and administrative
offices.
The existing 1 1,000 sq. fi. structure is a 1939 building designed by architect Robert Law Weed and was
designated a Miami Beach Historic Site in 1999. It consists of a larger two story center building, with
smaller two story flanking structures to the north and south and infill connecting wings. The intent was to
renovate and preserve the exterior of the building, and largely return it to the original design per the
request of the City of Miami Beach Historic Preservation Board as denoted on their Final Order dated
October 23,2001 (see Attachment A).
Invitation to Bid (ITB) No. 26-0911 0 was issued on April 29,201 0, with an opening date of June 8,201 0.
A pre-bid conference for the project was held on May4,2010. Facility walk-throughs were also held on
May 12,201 0 and May 20,201 0. The Technical Review Panel (TRP) convened on June 22,201 0, to
shortlist and interview prospective bidders. After the interview and procurement process was completed,
it was recommended to the City Manager that the Renovation and Restoration of the Historic Fire
Station No. 2 Project contract be awarded to Edgewater Construction Group, Inc. (ECG) as the lowest
and best bidder for the project. On July 14,201 0, the Mayor and City Commission authorized the award
of a contract to ECG for the Renovation and Restoration of the Historic Fire Station No. 2 Project.
ANALYSIS
This Resolution requests an increase to the project contingency for the Renovation and Restoration of
the Historical Fire Station No. 2 and Hose Tower Project due to extensive additional unforeseen
structural concrete spalling repairs that are required throughout the building. Spalling is the chipping or
flaking of concrete or other masonry as a result of environmental stresses. It can be caused by many
factors of which the most common include freezing water, use of rock salt, and rebar corrosion. If left
untreated under prolonged environmental stresses, spalling can result in structural damage. The Fire -.
Station #2 building experienced rebar corrosion throughout the years which lead to the structural ,
concrete spalling (see Attachment B for reference).These additional unforeseen structural repairs were
due to a substantial amount of deterioration of the building which was not anticipated prior to the award
of the construction contract.
Based on a standard amount of structural due diligence some spalling repairs were expected and
budgeted for in the construction via a contract allowance. However, ongoing repairs during construction
have uncovered an inordinate amount of additional repairs. These repairs have depleted the allocated
project allowance and have begun to impact the project contingency, requiring an increase to the same.
Project contingencies are typically a set percentage of the construction contract amount budgeted so
the project can proceed with minimal interruption for small (non-scope) changes, design shortfalls, or
cost overruns that are identified after a construction project commences. For Fire Station #2, the
structural spalling repairs constitute a scope increase to the project, which are currently being approved
by the Administration as change orders against the project contingency in efforts to move the project
forward and meet the project schedule for occupation by the Fire Department. In this particular case,
the project contingency will also be expected to absorb costs due to overages for the brick repair
allowance item, outstanding change orders, and Fire Department requests that are outside the original
scope of work.
The Fire Station No. 2 building has served many functions in its life time. Several years ago the building
was vacated due to its poor condition. It remained open to the elements and the roof had been
compromised which allowed for further deterioration of the existing building. The fact that the building
was exposed to these conditions compounded the damage to the structure. Since structural repairs
were anticipated as part of the renovation project, the City hired a third party engineer to evaluate the
existing structural conditions of the building through the use of minor selective demolition. The
evaluation concluded that the structural systems of the building could be repaired; however, the repairs
would represent a significant expense to the City which could not be identified at that time.
Due to our understanding of structural conditions of the existing building, the Contractor's scope of work
for the project included partial demolition and structural repair to the existing structure. Since the full
extent of the structural concrete spalling repairs could not be determined at the time of award, an
allowance of $100,000 was included in the contract for the repairs. The budgeted allowance was
established based on the recommendations provided by the Architectural and Structural Engineering
Consultants for the project and were based on superficial visual observations of the building and the
evidence uncovered from the selective demolition prior to the commencement of construction as is
standard engineering practice. In some cases, spalling could be identified from a visual perspective;
however, the full extent of the damage could only be evaluated once affected areas were exposed and
stripped of all material.
Once construction began on the project and a substantial amount of the existing building finishes were
removed, the design and construction team were better able to evaluate the full extent of the structural
damages. The Special Structural Engineering Inspector managing the repairs has observed and
identified an extensive amount of structural spalling throughout the crawl space, grade beams, tie
beams, window openings and joists on the first and second floor, the hose tower and underside of the
roof structure. As such, it has become evident that the scope and allowance for structural spalling
repairs has increased substantially from what was originally anticipated and budgeted for in the project.
To date, the value of the structural spalling repairs has exceeded the budgeted $1 00,000 allowance for
this specific task. As a result, the costs of the additional repairs, above the budgeted allowance, are
being submitted and approved as change orders to the contract which will deplete the available
construction contingency that was originally budgeted for other project related cost overruns, not solely
for structural repairs. The aforementioned repairs are currently underway, progressing rapidly and must
be performed in all required areas in order for the Structural Engineer to certify that the building is
structurally sound.
This request is to transfer available funds in the amount of $415,000, as recommended by the A/E
* : Consultant (see Attachment C) that have been previously appropriated in the project budget from Fund ,
304, Capital Reserve Funds, to the Fire Station No. 2 construction contingency to cover the additional
unforeseen repairs. By approving this resolution and transferring these funds, the Commission would be
approving the replenishment of the project's construction contingency for the overages attributed to the
structural repairs.
CONCLUSION:
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission approve an increase to the
project contingencyfor the Renovation and Restoration of the Historical Fire Station No. 2 Project, in the
amount of $415,000, from previously appropriated Fund 304 Capital Reserve Funds in the project
budget, for unforeseen structural concrete spalling repairs.
Attachment A: Historic Preservation Final Order
Attachment B: Fire Station #2 Spalling Pictures
Attachment C: A/E Recommendation
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-I 3-1 I\Fire Station No. 2 Contingency Increase\FS No.2 - Contingency Increase - MEMO.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AN INCREASE TO THE
PROJECT CONTINGENCY FOR THE RENOVATION AND RESTORATION
OF THE HISTORICAL FIRE STATION NO. 2 PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $415,000, FROM PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED FUND 304 CAPITAL
RESERVE FUNDS IN THE PROJECT BUDGET, FOR UNFORESEEN
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SPALLING REPAIRS.
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2009, the Mayor and City Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2009-27255, approving and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
an Agreement with STA Architectural Group, Inc. (the Consultant) for additional design, bid,
and construction administration services for the Renovation and Rehabilitation of the Historic
Fire Station No. 2 and Hose Tower Project (the Project); and
WHEREAS, on April 29, 2010, Invitation to Bid No. 26-09/10 (the ITB) for
construction of the Project was issued, with an opening date of June 8,201 0; and - :
WHEREAS, on July 14,201 0, the Mayor and City Commission approved the award of
the construction contract pursuant to the ITB to Edgewater Construction Group, Inc. (the
Contractor); and
WHEREAS, the Administration anticipated structural spalling repairs would be
required and included an allowance of $100,000 in the construction contract; and
WHEREAS, the allowance amount was based upon the Consultant's visual
observations during the design phase of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Project has encountered an inordinate amount of additional
structural spalling repairs which have depleted the allocated project allowance and have
begun to impact the Project contingency; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the Administration recommends that the City Commission
approve an increase to the Project contingency, in the amount of $415,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Clerk hereby approve
and authorize an increase to the Project contingency for the Renovation and Restoration of
the Historical Fire Station No. 2 Project, in the amount of $415,000, from previously
appropriated Fund 304 Capital Reserve Funds in the Project budget, for unforeseen
structural concrete spalling repairs.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2011.
ATTEST:
ROBERT H. PARCHER, CITY CLERK S TO
UAGE
JMGIDBIFV
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\Fire Station No. 2 Contingency Increase\FS No.2 - Contin
203
11/08/2001 23:08 FAX 3058752954 STA-ARCHITECTURA a 01
ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH
ClTY HALL 1700 CONVENllON CENER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
vvwvr.ci-miarnkbeach.fl.us -
PLANNING OEPARTMENT Tekphond: 3OS73-7550
Facsimile; 305873.7559
Mr. Todd Tragash
STA Architectural Group
3526 hl. Miami Avenue
Miami, FL 33127
Re: Historic Pmervation File No. 1175 - 2300 Pine Tree Drive
Dear Todd:
a:
Enclosed, please flnd a ~JJY of the Final Order for the above noted pmject. As you will note an the last
page of the Order, a Full Building Permit for the project must be obtained within one (1) year of the
issuance of the original Certiiicate of Appropriabness.
The oti~inal copy of this Order must be recorded in the Public Recards of MiamCDede bunly, prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit. Please wntact the Board's Administrator, Chuck TaR, at the above number,
to obtain the original Order.
If you have any questions with regard to this matter, please contact me.
HOMAS R. MOONM, AIC 7;'
Design and Preservation Manager
TRM:ldq
c: HPB File No. 11 75
F:WHPBX)lHP~W1\117&.la.LTR&
11/08/2001 23:08 FAX 3058752954 STA-ARCHITECTURA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
City sf Miami Beach, Fl~rida
MEETING DATE: October 9,2001
IN RE; The Application for a revision to a previously issued Certificate of
Appropriateness for the partial demolition. rehabilitation, alteration
and restoration of an existing fire station, including a two (2) story
addition and conversion to administrative offices, as well as the
construction of a two (2) story fire apparatus and domitory facility.
Specifically, the applicant proposes to increase the height of the new
fire apparatus and dormitory facility from two (2) stories to three (3)
stories and to modify the approved exterior elevations.
FILE NO: 1175
PROPERN: 2300 Pinettee Drive
The applicant. the City of Miami Beach, filed an application with the City of Miami Beach
Planning Department for revisions to a previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness.
The City of Miami Beach Historic Presehvation Board makes the following FINDINGS OF
FACT, based upon the evidence, information, testimony and materials presented at the
public hearing and which are part of the record for this matter:
A- The project is located within the Dada Boulevard Fire Station Historic Site.
8. Based on the plans and documents submitted with the application, testimony and
infarmatian pmvided by the applicant, and the reasons set forth in the Planning
Department Staff Report, the ptpjeet as submitted is consistent with the Certificate
of Appropriateness Criteria in Section 11&564(a)(1) of the Miami Beach Code, is
not consistent with Certificate of Appropriateness Criteria c in Se-n 11 8564(a)(2)
of the Miami Beach mde, and is consistent with Certificate of Appropriateness
Criteria in Section 118-564(a)(3) of the Miami Beach Code.
C. The project wwould be consistent with the criteria and requirements of section 11 8-
564 if the following conditions are met:
f . Revised elevation, site plan and floor plan drawings shall be submitted to and
appmved by staff at a minimum, such drawings shall incorporate the
following:
a. Final design details and surface finishes and colors shall be subject
ta the review and approval of staff.
11/08/2001 23:08 FAX 3058752954 STA-ARCHITECTURA
Page 2 of 4
HPB File No. 1 1 75
Meeting pate: October 9,2001
2. A revised landscape plan, prepared by a Professional Landscape Architect,
registered in the State of Florida, and corresponding site plan, shall be
submitted fo and approved by staff. The species type. quantity, dimensions,
spacing, locatian and overall height of all plant material shall be dearly
delineated and subject to the review and approval of staff, At a minimum,
such plan shall incorporate the following:
a. All exterior walkways shall consist of decorative pavers, set in sand or
other equally semi-pewious material, subject to the review and
appmval of staff.
b. All landscape areas which abut driveways and parking spaces shall
be defined by continuous concrete' curb.. .
c. A fully automatic irrigation system with 100% coverage and an
automatic rain sensor in order to render the system inoperative in the
event of rain.
- 3. All building signage shall be consistent in type, composed of flush mounted,
nan-plastic individual letters and shall require a separate permit.
' 4. The final exterior surface color scheme, including color samples, shall be
subject to the review and appmvaI of staff and.shall require a sepacate
permit.
5- A traffic mitigation plan, which addresses all madway Level of Service (LOS)
deficiencies relative to the concurrency requirements of the City Code, if
required, shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit and the
final building plans shall meet all other requirements af the Land
Development Regulations of the City Code.
6. Manufacturers drawings and Dade County product approval numbers for ell
new wind~ws, do~rs and glass shall be required, pn'gr to the issuance of a
building permit.
7. All roof-top fixtures, air-conditioning units and mechanical devices shall be
clearly noted on a revised roof plan and shall be screened fmrn view, in a
manner to be approved by staff.
8. Revised drawings, with corresponding tolor photographs, thatare separate
from the construction documents, drawn to scale and dearly document the
existing conditions of the subject building, shall be submitted. Such drawings
and photographs shall include all four elevations and intericr floor plans of
the building, as well as a sits plan.
11/06/2001 23:08 FAX 3056752954
I
Page 3 of 4
HPB File No. 1 175
Meetjn~ Date: October 9,2001 .
9. An historic analysis of the existing structure, inclusive of a photographic and
written description of the history and evolution of the original building on site,
shall be submitted to and approved by staff, prior to the issuance of a
Building Permit; such historic analysis shall be displayed prnrninently within
the public area of the structure, in a location to be determined by staff.
10. All new and altered elements, spaces and areas shall meet the requirements
of the Florida Accessibility Cade (FAG).
11. The project shall comply with any landscaping or other sidewalWstreet
improvement standards as may be prescribed by a relevant Urban Design
Master Plan approved prior to the completion of the project and the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy.
1 A drawn plan and written procedure for the proposed demolition shall be
prepared and submitted by a registered architect ar licensed professional -
engineer in the State of Florida which fully ensures the protection of the
public safety as well as protection of all existing structures adjacent to the
subject site during the course af demolition.
13. The Certificate of Appropriateness for Demolition shall only remain in effect
for the period of time that thew is an active Certificate of Appropriateness for
the associated new oonstruction on the subject property.
14. The Final Order is not severable, and if any provision or condition hereof is
held void or unconstitutional in a final decision by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the order shall be returned to the Board for reconsideration as
ta whether the order meats the criteria for approval absent the stricken
pravision or condition, and/or it is appropriate to modify the remaining
conditions or impose new conditions.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the evidence,
information, testimony and materials presented at the public hearing, which are part of the
record for this matter, and the staff report and analysis, which are adopted herein, induding
the staff recommendations which were amended by the Board, that the application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness is GRANTED for the abovereferenced project subject to
those certain conditions specified in paragraph C of the Findings of Fact (Condition Nos.
1-14, inclusive) hereof, to which the applicant has agreed.
No building permit may be issued unless and until all conditions of approval as set forth
herein have been met The issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness does not relieve
the applicant from obtaining all other required Municipal, County and/or State reviews and
permits, including zoning approval. If adequate handicapped access is not pmided, this
approval does not mean that such handicapped access is not ~quired or that the Baard
11/08/2001 23:08 FAX 3056752954
Page 4 of 4 -
HPB File No. 11 75
Meeting Date: October 9,2001
supports an applicant's effort b seek waivers relating to handicapped accessibility
requirements.
When reuuestinq a buildinq permit. three (3) sets of ~lans approved bv the Board. modified
in accordance with the abave conditions. as well a$ annotated floor plans which clearly
delineate the Flmt Area Ratio (FAR1 calculations for the ~roiect; shall be submitted to the
Plannina Department. If all of the above-specified conditions are satisfactorily addressed,
the plans will be reviewed for building permit approval. Tw (2) sets will be returned to you
for submission for a building permit and one (1) set will be retained far the Historic
Preservation Road's file. If the Full Building Permit is not issued within one (1) year of the
meeting date at which the original Certificate of Appropriateness was granted and
construction does not commence and cantinue in accordance with the requirements of the
applicable Building Code, the Cetiicate of Appropriateness will expire and become null
and void.
Dated this day of
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
THOMAS R. MO
DESIGN AND PRESERVATION MANAGER
FOR THE CHAIR
STATE OF FLORIDA 1
COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE 1
The fore ~i? instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
d& @ 20K by Thomas R. Mooney, Design and Preservation
Manager, Planning Department, City of Miami Beach, Florida, a Florida Municipal
~orp&ation, on behalf df the ~or~or$ion. H
CL44T& ATAT
mir~4rmt4 m. fxaim Miami-Dade County, Florida
My mmrnissian expires:
Approved As To Form; ,
Legal Department: 7&& ( 19.2-1 -GI 1
d
Filed with the Clerk af the Historic Preservation Board on
ATTACHMENT B
Spalled Concrete Exposing Existing Steel Reinforcement for Joint
Picture #1
Spalled Concrete Exposing Existing Steel Reinforcement for Joint
Picture #2
Spalled Concrete Exposing Existing Steel Reinforcement for Beam
Picture #3
Spalled Concrete Exposing Existing Steel Reinforcement for Slab
Picture #4
Spalled Concrete Exposing Existing Steel Reinforcement for Beam
Picture #5
Fernandez Arencibia, Janette
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
John Guffey Ijohn@staarchitecturalgroup.com]
Tuesday, June 21,201 1 6:39 PM
Femandez Arencibia, Janette
FW: firestation cost
Janette,
STA's prior recommendation (04.26.1 1) was to request and additional $336k for completion of structural repairs, inclusive
of the tower, and based on the cost estimate summary of 04.22. With the original $look allowance the total structural
remediation would be $436k. We are now at $362K, with some work on the south annex roof and the tower pending.
We agree with your proposed request for an additional $41 5k as an upset figure.
John Guffey
STA ARCHITECTURAL GROUP
3526 North Miami Ave. Miami, FL 331 27
p. 305.571 .I81 1 x 207 f. 305.571 .I821
john@staarchitecturalarouo.com
www.staarchitecturalarouo.com
REDUCE YOUR FOOTPRINT.PRINT WISELY.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Guffey
Sent: Tuesday, June 21,2011 4:21 PM
To: Fernandez Arencibia, Janette
Subject: firestation cost
Janette,
Edgewater chooses not to give a guaranteed maximum price for the hose tower structural repairs.
Regarding brick repair the north and south wails of the center section, the south wall of the north annex, and the north wall
of the south annex (areas were the prior connectors were demolished) are covered in the base bid. The $30K allowance
is only for general repairs at other areas. This should be more than sufficient.
Working on any tower adjustment.
John Guffey
STA ARCHITECTURAL GROUP
3526 North Miami Ave. Miami, FL 331 27
p. 305.571 .I81 1 x207 f. 305.571 .I821
john@staarchitecturalarou~.com
www.staarchitecturalarou~.com
REDUCE YOUR FOOTPRINT.PRINT WISELY.
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Atkins for Resident Project Representative Services for the Central
Bayshore, Lower North Bay Road, and Lake Pancoast Neighborhood projects; for a total lump sum amount of $544,000;
with previously appropriated funding in the amount of $272,714; and further appropriating $271,286 from Fund 429,
Stormwater Projects Line of Credit, with such funds to be repaid from proposed future stormwater bonds.
A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute Amendment No. 22 to the professional services Agreement between the City, and 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, (the Agreement), in the negotiated
not-to-exceed amounts of $640,586, for Construction Administration services, for a period of twenty six(26) months for
the Bayshore Neighborhoods No. 8A, 8B, and 8C Packages, $59,414, for reimbursables, for a grand total not-to-exceed
amount of $700,000, with previously appropriated funding in the amount of $360,645; and further appropriating $339,355
from Fund 429, Stormwater Projects Line of Credit, with such funds to be repaid from proposed Future Stormwater I Bonds. I
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Ensure Well Maintained lnfrastructure and Ensure Well Designed, Quality Capital Projects.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): 43% of the residential respondents to the 2009 Community
Satisfaction Survey rated Storm Drainage (to avoid flooding) as Excellent and Good.
-----. I Shall the City Commission approve the Professional Services Agreement?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
1 On May 16,2001, the City of Miami Beach approved and authorized the execution of an agreement with CH2M Hill, Inc. 1 ,
(CH~M) for planning, design, and construction administration professional servicesfor the~ayshore and Sunset Islands
Neighborhood No. 8 Right-of-way lnfrastructure lmprovements Project. Resident Project Representative services were
not included as a part of CH2M's original scope of services.
During the design phase, the project was subdivided into five (5) separate individual packages; Central Bayshore
(Package 8A), Lower North Bay Road (Package 8B), Lake Pancoast (Package 8C), and the Sunset Islands (Package 8D
and 8E). Invitations to Bid were issued for Package 8B and Packages 8AI 8C which resulted in the award of Package 8B
to Trans Florida Development Corporation and Packages 8AI 8C to Lanzo Construction Corporation.
During the bid and award phases of Packages 8A, 88, and 8C, negotiations were undeway with CH2M to provide the
RPR services for all packages. Negotiations with CH2M ceased in March 201 1 after numerous negotiation sessions did
not yield an agreement that was acceptable to the Administration.
On May 11, 201 1, pursuant to RFQ No. 22-1011 1, the Mayor and City Commission accepted the rankings for RPR
Services for Packages 8A, 8B, and 8C, and authorized the Administration to enter into negotiations with the top ranked
firm of Atkins. The Administration successfully negotiated an acceptable Agreement, Atkins, in the lump sum amount of
$544,000.
The Administration recommends the approval of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida,
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 22 to the professional services Agreement between the
City, and 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, (the
Agreement), in the negotiated not-to-exceed amounts of $640,586, for Construction Administration services, for a period
of twenty six (26) months for the Bayshore Neighborhoods No. 8A, 8B, and 8C Packages, $59,414, for reimbursables,
for a grand total not-to-exceed amount of $700,000,
Advisory Board Recommendation:
NIA
AGENDA ITEM c7
DATE 7-13-1 I
Financial Information:
Approvad Source of
Funds:
Account.
302-2205-069357
420-2205-069357
1 Amount
1
2
$74,354.00
$1 00,232.00
I I
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Janette Fernandez Arencibia, P.E., Capital Projects Coordinator - x6596, Carla Dixon Ext 6264
- ~
f
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.rniornibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 A a
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl
BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ClTY CLERK TO EXECUTE A
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WlTH ATKINS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
PURSUANT TO THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS NO. 22-10111 FOR
RESIDENT PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES, FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO
TWENTY-SIX (26) MONTHS, FOR THE CENTRAL BAYSHORE NEIGHBORHOOD
8A, LOWER NORTH BAY ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD 8B, AND LAKE PANCOAST
NEIGHBORHOOD 8C PROJECTS; IN THE NEGOTIATED LUMP SUM AMOUNT OF
$542,000 AND AN ADDITIONAL LUMP SUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, FOR A TOTAL LUMP SUM AMOUNT OF $544,000;
WlTH PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $272,714;
AND FURTHER APPROPRIATING $271,286 FROM FUND 429, STORMWATER
PROJECTS LlNE OF CREDIT, WlTH SUCH FUNDS TO BE REPAID FROM
PROPOSED FUTURE STORMWATER BONDS.
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. 22 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA, AND CH2M HILL 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(THE AGREEMENT), IN THE NEGOTIATED NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNTS OF
$640,586.00, FOR CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES, FOR A PERIOD
OF TWENTY SIX (26) MONTHS FOR THE BAYSHORE NEIGHBORHOODS NO. 8A,
88, AND 8C PACKAGES, AND $59,414, FOR REIMBURSABLES, FOR A GRAND
TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $700,000, WlTH PREVIOUSLY
APPROPRIATED FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $360,645; AND FURTHER
APPROPRIATING $339,355, FROM FUND 429, STORMWATER PROJECTS LlNE
OF CREDIT, WlTH SUCH FUNDS TO BE REPAID FROM PROPOSED FUTURE
STORMWATER BONDS.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolutions.
Bayshore - Atkins RPR & CH2M Hill CA Services - Commission Memorandum
July 13,201 1
Page 2 of 5
FUNDING FOR ATKINS FOR RESIDENT PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE (RPR)
Funding in the amount of $360,645 has been previously appropriated in the Capital Budget; funding
in the amount of $339,355, to be appropriated from Fund 429, Stormwater Projects line of Credit, to
be repaid from proposed future stormwater bonds as follows:
Central Bavshore Neiahborhood (Package 8A):
$ 74,354.00 Pay-As-You-Go account #302-2205-069357
$1 00,232.00 Water and Sewer account #420-2205-069357
$1 89.894.00 Stormwater Projects Line of Credit account ~29-2205-069357(')
$364,480.00 Total (BP- 8A)
Lower North Bav Road Neighborhood (Packaqe 8B):
$ 8,127.00 2003 G.O. Bond Neighborhood account #384-2326-069357
$22,620.00 Water and Sewer account #423-2326-069357
$67.1 73.00 Stormwater Projects Line of Credit account #429-2326-069357
$97,920.00 Total (BP- 8B)
Lake Pancoast Neighborhood (Package 8C):
$42,085.00 2003 G.O. Bond Neighborhoods account #384-2325-069357
$25,296.00 Water and Sewer account #424-2325-069357
$1 4,219.00 Stormwater Projects Line of Credit account #429-2325-069357(')
$81,600.00 Total (BP- 8C)
Grand Total: $544,000
(1) Previously programmed in Capital Budget to be repaid from future Stormwater Bonds.
FUNDING FOR CH2M HILL AMENDMENT No. 22 FOR CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
SERVICES
Funding in the amount of $360,645, has been previously appropriated in the Capital Budget, and
funding in the amount of $339,355, to be appropriated from fund 429, Stormwater Projects Line of
Credit, to be repaid from proposed future stormwater bonds as follows:
Central Bavshore Neiahborhood - 8A
Design and Engineering /Construction Administration:
$ 72,006 Pay-as-you-go account # 302-2205-069357
$ 92,579 W&S GBL Series 201 0 account # 420-2205-061 357
$1 78,302 Stormwater Projects Line of Credit account # 429-2205-061 357*
$342,887 Total (BP- 8A)
Lower North Bav Road - Neiqhborhood - 8B
Design and Engineering IConstruction Administration:
$ 17,895 2003 G.O. Bond Neighborhood account # 384-2326-069357
$ 2,663 2003 G.O. Bond Neighborhood account # 384-2326-061 357
$ 43,171 Gulf Breeze 2006 account # 423-2326-061 357
$ 52,017 Stormwater Bonds 2000 Series account # 428-2326-061 357
$ 89,830 Stormwater Projects Line of Credit account # 428-2326-061 357*
$205,576 Total (BP- 8B)
Lake Pancoast Neighborhood - 8C
Design and Engineering /Construction Administration:
Bayshore - Atkins RPR & CH2M Hill CA Services - Commission Memorandum
July 13, 201 1
Page 3 of 5
$ 33,338 2003 G.O. Bond Neighborhoods account # 384-2325-069357
$ 42,016 2001 Series Water & Sewer # 424-2325-069357
71,223 $ Stormwater Projects Line of Credit account # 429-2325-069357* (1)
$151,537 Total (BP- 8C)
Grand Total: $700,000.00
* (1) Previously programmed in Capital Budget to be repaid from future Storm Water Bonds.
BACKGROUND
On May 16, 2001, the City of Miami Beach (City) adopted Resolution No. 2001-24387, approving
and authorizing the execution of an agreement with CH2M Hill, Inc. (CH2M Hill) for professional
services for the Right-of-way (ROW) Infrastructure lmprovements Program for Neighborhood No. 8
- Bayshore and Sunset Islands project pursuant to Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 134-99100.
The agreement was for planning, design, and construction administration services for the collective
Bayshore Neighborhoods which was originally one (1 ) project and was subsequently separated into
five (5) individual projects via amendments to the original agreement. These five projects included
Central Bayshore Neighborhood 8A (Package 8A), Lower North Bay Road Neighborhood 88
(Package 8B), Lake Pancoast Neighborhood 8C (Package 8C), and the Sunset Islands (Packages -: 8D and 8E). RPR services were not included as a part of CH2M Hill's original scope of services.
On April 9, 2003, the City Commission approved the Basis of Design Report (BODR), completed
and submitted by CH2M Hill for the Neighborhood No. 8 Bayshore 1 Sunset Islands Project. This
BODR was the culmination of a comprehensive planning effort that included input from and reviews
by residents, various City Departments, and the Design Review Board (DRB).
Since the execution of the original Agreement on May 16,2001, there have been a total of twenty-
one (21) amendments which have been either adopted by the City Commission or administratively
approved. The previous amendments have resulted in a total contract value of $3,118,090.97.
Amendment No. 22 is being presented herein for approval by the Mayor and City Commission.
ANALYSIS
The Bayshore Neighborhood No. 8 Right-of-way lmprovements Project was one of thirteen
neighborhood improvement projects included in a program developed by the City of Miami Beach to
improve the quality of life of its residents. The program included citywide water, wastewater and
stormwater improvements; as well as a variety of streetscape enhancement projects. This
Commission Memorandum addresses three (3) of the Bayshore sub-neighborhoods; Central
Bayshore Neighborhood No. 8A (Package 8A), Lower North Bay Road Neighborhood No. 8B
(Package 8B), Lake Pancoast Neighborhood No. 8C (Package 8C).
After the planning and design phases, Invitations to Bid (ITB) No. 02-09110 and 18-09/10 were
issued for Package 88 and Packages 8N8C on November 25, 2009 and December 31, 2009,
respectively. Bids were received and evaluated by separate Technical Review Panels (TRP), as part
of the City's standard Best Value Procurement process for the recommendation to award
construction contracts. Pursuant to the Technical Review Panel's and City Manager's
recommendation, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 201 0-27567 on
December 8,201 0 authorizing the award of Package 88 to Trans Florida Development Corporation.
Likewise, on January 20, 201 1, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 201 1-
27587 authorizing the award of Packages 8A and 8C to Lanzo Construction Co., Florida.
During the bid and award phas,es of the Central Bayshore Neighborhood 8A, Lower North Bay Road
Neighborhood 8B, and Lake Pancoast Neighborhood 8C projects, negotiations were underwaywith
Bayshore - Atkins RPR & CH2M Hill CA Services - Commission Memorandum
July 13,201 1
Page 4 of 5
CH2M Hill to provide the RPR services for each of the packages during the construction phases of
the projects. Negotiations with CH2M Hill continued after award of each of the projects. The final
amount negotiated with CH2M Hill for the RPR and Construction Administration services for all three
packages was $2,262,000, which represented ten percent (1 0%) of the Construction budget for the
projects. This amount was not acceptable to the Administration.
In order to separate the RPR services from the CH2M Hill contract, in the interest of allowing an
independent inspection services team, and obtain a more reasonable market driven fee proposal for
the services, the Administration determined that it would be in the City's best interest to seek
proposals for other firms equipped to provide said services. As such, on March 25, 201 1, the
Administration issued Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 22-1011 1 for RPR Services for the
Neighborhood No. 8 - Bayshore and Sunset Islands Right-of-way Improvement Projects, specifically
Central Bayshore Neighborhood No. 8A, Lower North Bay Road Neighborhood No. 8B, and the Lake
Pancoast Neighborhood No. 8C.
On May 11,201 1, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 201 1-27652 accepting
the ranking of proposals recommended by the City Manager and authorizing the Administration to
enter into negotiations with the top ranked firms pursuant to RFQ No. 22-1011 1. The Administration :
has since successfully negotiated an acceptable Agreement with the top ranked firm, Atkins (the
Consultant), in the lump sum amount of $544,000, which is approximately 2.4% of the budgeted
construction cost of approximately $22,900,000, for all three packages. The City's intent is to retain
CH2M Hill as the Engineer-of-Record who will remain involved in the projects by providing
construction administration services throughout the construction phase of the projects, and for final
certification of the projects.
ATKINS SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR RESIDENT PROJECT REPRESENTATION (RPR)
The scope of services for the Consultant's Professional Services Agreement (PSA) would entail
providing RPR services for Packages A, B, and C. These services are anticipated to occur
concurrently with the construction phases of all three (3) Bid Packages, administered under two (2)
separate contracts. The construction of the Projects will run concurrently, with Bid Package A
scheduled for twenty-four (24) months, Bid Package B for sixteen (16) months and Bid package C
for twelve (12) months. The Resident Project Representative's (RPR's) duties and responsibilities
are further detailed in the Professional Services Agreement.
CH2M HILL SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION (CAI SERVICES
In order to move forward with the Construction Phase of the Project, it will be necessary for the City
to provide additional services to CH2M Hill to perform Construction Administration services
necessary to certify the Project in accordance with Chapter 61G15-18 through 37 of the Florida
Administrative Code (FAC).
Additional Construction Administration Services:
The original 2001 Agreement between the City and the Consultant consisted of one (1) project,
requiring one (1) set of construction documents, permitting services, bidding and award services,
and construction phase assistance for only one (1) bid package. During the design phase of the
project the City required the Consultant to re-package the project into four (4) separate bid
packages, (Central Bayshore - Package 8A, Lower North Bay Road - Package B, Lake Pancoast-
Package C, and Sunset Islands 3 and 4 - Package D). The level of effort that is now required by
the Consultant for Construction Administration services has also increased as the Central Bayshore
- Package 8A and Lake Pancoast - Package C, will be administered under one construction
Bayshore - Atkins RPR & CH2M Hill CA Services - Commission Memorandum
July 13,201 1
Page 5 of 5
Contract awarded to Lanzo Construction Co., Florida; and Lower North Bay Road - Package B, will
be administered under a 2nd Contract with Trans Florida Development Corporation.
CH2M Hill's Construction Administration services will include ongoing participation in the critical
aspects of the project, coordination between the City, its Consultants and Contractors (Lanzo and
Trans Florida Development) project certification and close out. These services are further detailed in
the Amendment No. 22 (Attachment A).
The fee being requested by CH2M Hill for Construction Administration services and reimbursable
expenses for Neighborhood No. 8A- Central Bayshore, Bid Package B- Lower North bay Road, Bid
Package C - Lake Pancoast Projects is $700,000, which represents approximately three percent
(3%) of the Projects' total construction budget of $22,900,000. A detailed breakdown of the scope
of services and fee is included herein (Attachment A).
The total combined fee being requested by Atkins and CH2MHil1, for both Resident Project
Representative (RPR) services and Construction Administration (CA) services is $1,244,000, an
overall fee of five (5%) percent of the overall construction budget, which represents fifty (50%) of
the original fee of $2,262,000, originally requested by CH2M Hill to perform the same services. - "
CONCLUSION:
The Administration recommends that a Resolution of the Mavor and Citv Commission of the City of
Miami Beach, Florida, be authorized by the Mayor and City ~ierk to execute a Professional services
Agreement with Atkins pursuant to the Request for Qualifications No. 22-1 011 1 for Resident Project
Representative Services, for a period of up to twenty-six (26) months, for the Neighborhood No. 8 -
Bayshore and Sunset Islands Right-of-way lnfrastructure Improvement Projects, Central Bayshore,
Lower North Bay Road, and Lake Pancoast; in the negotiated lump sum amount of $542,000 and an
additional lump sum amount of $2,000 for reimbursable expenses, for a total lump sum amount of
$544,000; with previously appropriated funding in the amount of $272,714; and further appropriating
$271,286 from Fund 429, Stormwater Projects Line of Credit, with such funds to be repaid from
proposed future stormwater bonds.
The Administration also recommends that a Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the
City of Miami Beach, Florida, be authorized by the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No.
22 to the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Miami Beach, Florida, and CH2M Hill
for the Professional Landscape Architectural and Engineering Services for the Right-of-way
lnfrastructure Improvements Program for Neighborhood No. 8 Bayshore and Sunset Islands, dated
May 16, 2001 (the Agreement), in the negotiated not-to-exceed amount of $640,586, for
Construction Administration services, for a period of twenty six (26) months for the Bayshore
Neighborhoods No. 8A, 8B, 8C, and 8D Packages, and $59,414, for reimbursables, for a grand total
not-to-exceed amount of $700,000, with previously appropriated funding in the amount of $473,204;
and further appropriating $226,796, from fund 429, Stormwater Projects Line of Credit, with such
funds to be repaid from proposed future stormwater bonds.
Attachment: Attachment A - Construction Administration Services Fees & Reimbursables
JMGlDBlFVlDM
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 I\Bayshore - Atkins RPR PSA\Bayshore - Atkins RPR & CHPM HILL CA SERVICES MEMO.doc
Amendment 22 (Task Order)
Services During Con n for the City of Miami Beach
Neighborhood No. 8, &sign Packages AIC and B.
Tfbs'$z&Orderwhenexe.mted,shallbeinmrpora~in, and shallbecome anintegral part
05 fie SFNARD AGIEEMEW FOR PRO~ONALSWVICES, CI~W JMV 1~,m3.
PROJECT DESCRlPTiON
The af Piliami: Beach is Mp-ting adrainage andfiw-d bnpn,v~W
pmpm in the vic5nityof the Baylshare GoX Coznse. !3pecECan.y, &the Lower NorthBay awt
identifkd as Neighbokhood No. 8 @aysbre/Sm Idad ~0-v)~ Co-m
ikao&tedwi&~ei~bdNo,8Mndes~a~~ Impmv~%h~8the
&onnwater drainage spstem and asmxhkd utility and roadway impmvernc~~fs. This work
will help reduce,stommter dkdwge ~Biscayne&~andpmvidcBaod &din fhe -.
North &y area.
For the ease of corn-n management Neighborhd No. 8 was &vided into four
packap by &e City. These i.cEade:
Package A - CentnlBayshDre
Package B -Lower Notth3ay Road
Package C - take Pancoast
Padcage D - Sxurset Islands
This TaskOrder addrksses Services During Coxs"tnrclion for oily Factages A/C and B.
During Comtructim for PackageD will headdressRd in h future once&e dedgn
prwess is comp1ekd. Backages A and Chave been bid bgefber as a single eo-on
confract. Resident PmW RepmfSve @PI41 or ddpproject. consmction impdio;n
&as win be pxovided by &e City or by another cons- wor@ng in, conjunction with
The: CI-EkMmpqecl: kam and tihe CHZd~Lproyided t~~ction~~ wirt
provide day-@+ supervision to fk thes.
Ti& scope of services is based cm %he GJTY provicibq~ the swvicesof another consdtmt to
provide and cmstmdhn observation'%wi&i adequate to support CkRA4 M&L as the
En@mar of Reca~d hr the pmject and a dedica&d m-&n manager (CITY staffJ for
ead~ ams~onprsjeckb direct the inspection +ctivifks, cwr@nate with.r~~~d
other ackivities ad in general provide assurance that tPre cuns~~oon aeti~&3es are
&medingin accordance with the mntracldmts.
PROJECT STAFFING
The staffbgph br engineering support, ddp observation and
co~&on management ul&zbg both CONSULTANT antP provided staffis as
foRo ws:
One CONSULTANT pmvided pmject manager - available W-time for the duration
of .co~ction (26 months)
e One CEY provided corstmction manager- avdabIe full-time specififally on the
Bayshore projects for the duration of cu~ctition (26 month$
r One CONSULTANT provided project assistant - M-time hr the duration of the
projectw months) to mami contract documentation required for the
CONSULTANT'sproject mmamenf and records.
One CITY provided pmject assistant - hall-time br the duration of the project (26
months) to rnanage contrad docwnenhtion required for the Cfli7l's project
manavt and recor_ds.
c At least two CITY (other rn~sulfant) provided RPR's or construction inspedr,m -
onsite five (5) days per week fox the d~~xto~~on,~&~~ witLbe
dedicated b a eecific Bayshore project (AFB and C) and itis anticipated that one
inspector dl beneeded for 24 months on Pabge A, one fix 32 months on Package
C and me fot 16 months on Package B. Additional insp- ~CES my be
rsrrcfuiru3ddurk~g peakcomtructionpedads ar as required by the contractor's
schedule.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The CONSULTAPST agrees to lurnish to the CITY as part of Task Oltder Amendment 22,
limit& enghxring support ~ces~g construction for Packages A/C and B. These
services ztre detailed in Task 1 below which dew'bes the scope sf work, defiveralIes, and
compWn&eddes^ The generill construction phase dce~ provided bg .the
CONSULTANT indude the fcrllowiq basic activities:
1, Pmj& Management for Packages A/C and 0
2 Attendm atPre-CowtruCtion Codcrenes
3- Mgn changes resulting from agency directives and permit requkntenk
4. Specialty ccmstmction hipedion services
5. Attendance at Vheklg C~1sfmadonhgr~ .Meetings
6* Project Enginee~ services dwiftg comfructbn
7- Piavid@ Administrative and Thisal Submittal Reviews
8. Md&g C%tu!& Order Reviews for Packages A/C and B
9 Assistance in p"p&gS&stantkd Compl~ Wumenb for Project Closeopt foz
Packages A/C and B, final project closeout and certification.
TASK 1 - Engineering Support Services During Construction
The CONSULTANT shall perhrna the following bsks associated withenginering mppclrt
smdces to supportfieid vhswvafion activities related to a~~~tructionof the.PzojectCs)),
These tasks shall be per%ormed during project c6nstruMonl CQN~T~sEe~ieti sf &rt
is based upon a wristmetion duration period of24 consecu~e month %rpackage A/C
psus one additiod~~mth on each end of the con%meti~nperiad for starttap and for final
comgletio~ 14 coflse~utive months fox package B plus one additional month on each end of
coastru&cul for starl-up and for final ampIetion. lt is ;lssbmed that construction associated
with Packages A, B and C will run conainently (as two construction contracts) w%thh the
schedule of Packas k The pM schedule is shown in Attachment A.
Sub-Task 1.1 - Pre-ConslJPlcltion Mference:
CONSUZTANT shall attend a p~cr4,nstmction cortkrence for each Project (Total of 2
meetings for Design Package A/C and B). The CITY wi9lptppar~r anddistribute xiweting
minutes to all attendees and other appmpriate parties. The CITY shall bme the initial
Notice to Proceed to h& projects at a time suitable to maintain the project schedule. A 5m.I
Natice.t.o Pmceed shall be issued by the QTY -on receipt of a finalschedule and
p-mt of all applica'bble~~mmction permits fpm the Contc;tctor of each aesign
p"kage-
DehenblBs: Attend and p&c;ipa& in pre-cbnstrmtion conferaces for each package A/C
and B bra to fa1 o.f two meetings (om meeting-perprojed).
Schedtde: -As scheduled by CFY after xeceipt of Construc&icm Management Services Notice
tp rn&.
SutrTask 1.2 - Weekly C~~S~WC&HI
CONSULTANT shall attend andgafticipat:e in weekly meekgs with the CLTY and -.
COIV'TRACTOR on ea&Pmjm. The purpose of&= meetin@ shall be to revfew the status
of constrtectian pmpes, shop drawing submi- and con~lractdo~t darif~catiorts and
intwpretations. These Wqp also serve as a forumford-iqusshnr of co~~sttuc-tiun
hues, potenW ~gesfc~ an4 my ather applicable matters.
For the purposes of esthatin~ this scope of services, weekly meeting a ttenaanceby the
CONSULTANT shall be based: an the fcvllowing
Bid Packas A/C: Orme H~~eie;ht (108) wekIy meetings
* Bid Pa-e B: Seventy (70) weekly meetings
kt each meeting, the CO354TRACTOR shaU provide and present a two-week Iook-aherrd
work schedule to. allow for pmper coordination of necessary work efforts.
The aTrrt" shall prep= and distribute meting linutes to dl attendees and other
appropriate parties in advance of subsequent meetings. The weekly meetings sM be
atter~dedby the CONSUtTAWr5 project manage or designated representative.
The amounts mted hr ff~Task ir~ the ke- scheduIe sbaU be applies dn.m as needed basis,
subject to CfR approval. In addition, dte CONSUtTAHT shdIT advise €he CITY in writing
when any of these totals, are near 90% expended so that the ClTY my make arrangements
for theissuance of requisite authorizations to the CONSULTANT to fund additiod fees so
tbt senriceti remainuninkrrqtd.
~~ Aknd and participate @ wwMy progress meetings with Contractors.
Sub-Task 1 3 - Requests for InfonnatI~Contract Document Clarification
(RFlsfCDCs):
IMumeves an RFi inm1ves the infmpr&tion of design issues or design intent, the
CONSULTANT may be requested by the CJTY to prepare responses to RFls[CDCs.
CONSULTANT shall provide a wrimresponse in a timely mat~er, 10% process, and
distribufe all RFk/CDCs. The CITY wilI address ayxquests from residents.
For the purposes sf estimating this scope of services, the CONSULTANT includes
evduation of WCDC's at the average rate of one (1) item per month. for the dollowing
totah
Bid Package A: One Hundred @@U) HFJ/CDC rqests
Bid Package B: Sixty (60) Rm/CIX: requests
Bid Package C: Fifty (50) RFILCIX quests
The CONSULTANT shall advise the CILTY* in writing when the cambined total of
RFEs/CDCs are near 90% expendedI based on the a%ve assd tut&,so the may
arrange for the issu& of requisite aufhorizatios to the CONSULTANT to fund additional
ksSb thatseIvicesrentaizlnnin*+.
Respond to Rms/CKs that involve desip interpretations and rekm to .the QJ"T.
Schedule: Ongoing tfuoeout prnjectconstmdion duration.
SubTask 1.4 - Requesfs for Changes to Construction Cost and/or Schedub:
Ganges may be the result af dxeseen concEih or interfamces identified by the
CONTRACTOR during @e muthe progress of workI inadvertenttomissions (betterment)
issues in the contract doctlments, or additiknnaI, hprovements requested by the CRY or
COAISJLTANT affer the project bid date. CUNmTATST shall prepare an analysis of the
change request indicting reawns for acceptance, references to appl-idle sections of the
Contract Dacuments that validate or disc- &he clans quest, and if accepted, a
statement noting that the requested cost/schedule impads are fair and remd1e.
The CONSULTANT will receive, log d pmcw dl requests for projed cost and/or
schedule changes from the CONTRAUOR. The CONSULTANT perborm'm initial
hdeyetlden t review 01 the change request as to relative merit prior to forwarding to the
CRY. The CITY will review CONSULTANT'S analysis and upon acceptance, shall execute
the change request and forward it to the CO-CTOR, for pra~essing~
For the purposes of estimating this scope of services, the CONSULTANT indt~des
evaluatiox~ of change requesks at the average rate of one (1) item per month hr the hh-8
totals:
Bid Parkage A: Twertty-four (24) drange order requests
Bid Packa~e Br F~~ (14) change order requests
= Bid Package C: Twelve (12) &ange order reqnesh
The CONSIXTANT shall advise the CITY in writing when &he change requests lare near
90% expended, based on the above assumed totals, so the QlY mag mange. for the
issuance of requisite anthoriza-tions to the CONSULTBNT to fund additional fees so that
services remain uninkrmpbed.
Perfbnn independent =view uf quest for ~mst haease and/or he extension.
1 Prepare change reqzesc documentaan for CITTy's use in Change Orda
preparations.
8 Partidpate in change requlest review mags, with CkTY and CONTRACTOR to
mlve andfor negotiate the equitable resofutionof =quest; meeting coordination
and dduling wilt be the zesponsibility of the CITY.
Schedule: Ongoing throughouf project consbudion duration
SubTask 1.5- Processing of Submittals:
CONSULTANT shall review shop drawing and product submittab &oughout the dumtiun
of the construction period- Within 40 workir~ days hm receip t at the CONSULTANT
en~goffice, the COiVSULTANT&B review and ram sut>mittaZs to CXW's &ice- -.
CITY will receive from the COblT'RACTY)R, log and distribute submittals to CQNSmTmT
for review.
For the p~vposes of tlus scope of services, the CONSULTA%lT assumes the following mtals
for ,subm!iittaI review
Bid Package A/C Chre hundred and twenty (120) shop drawing submittals
= Bid Package B: One hundred and twenty (120) shop drawing submittals
hnysubmittals that are rejected and need to be resu+mitiedand reviewed trrill. be
considered a new submittal and will be counted towards* total number of submittals
indicated above. A percentage of re-submittab are anticipated and are induded in the tatals
above.
The CONSULTANT shall advise the CITY in writing when the submittal reviews are near
90% expended, based on the above assumed totals, so the CITY may arrange for the
issuance ofi.eq&ite authorizations to the CONSUL.TANT to hd additionalfeessa wt
services remain uninterrup ted.
Witables:
Review shop hawings and product submittals and return them to CPs office via E-
B3derm. The ClTY will reimburse the CONSULTANT for the E-Builder" license for
CH2M HILL use on this project
Scheduk
Processing of Sbp Drawings is ongoing throughout project mnstructiun duration
SubTask 1.6 Fidd Obsewation Services;
Field observation services by quaEified RPR's or comtnzction will be provided by
fhe CITY'S co~~t The CTY will pravide adequate, full-time, qzulified construction
RPR's or co,~c~ inspectors far the duration of the pmjects such that he overall level of
eff0x-k will allow fhe CONSULTANT as the Engineer of Record to certify that the
mmfr-uction work is King performed in ~CCOT~ with the contract doixxments. The field
abmers provided will work under the general guidance of Lhe CITY'S consWon
manags and CH2M HILL who will defermine reporthg requirements. CEEM HILL will
advise the CITY iE and when the level of service providedby the construction ohsenation
team fails to meet the level of &rt or standard of care required to certify the p~ojed
construction Thc cons~ti~ work is currently planned to proceed as follows:
* Package A /C (It 24 .t 1 months}
m Package B (1+14 +I rnonihs) - starting concumat wirh Package A/C
Specidlypmfesdonzlls will be provided by tire CONSUJ-TANT as needed fix specific
mechanical, electrical and geof~&cd inspections in each project area.
The project bspdion team is comprised of. the CFTY construction manager ad the City
provided RPR's or construction inspectors. The -tern rvilf be directed by the CITY%
CE)~~€~OL'I manager with support and guidance from khe CONSULTANT'S project
nanager.
To insure adequate veti6.cation of.com~on activities such that the CONSULTANT can
attest to the accep&bility clf the work performed, the CTWs CM/RPR tean will be
resp~mible for:
Conducting onsite obma tions of the .work In pmgress to include materials and
worlananship to assist in detedmg if the groyisions of the Contract Oocuments
and permit conclitiom are being £ulS&d. Basied mrepofts/~bservations from the
RPR as reported through the CITY'S constru~u managerf C0MSULT;QNT shaU
report to the CET) in ~~g, whenam It is believed that work 3s unsatisfactory,
hdty or defective &ior does nut wnbm to the intent of the Contract Documents;
does not meet the sp&ed requirements for inspections, tests; or c~-nipletcd work
hat has 'been damaged prior 60 W payment. Based an the observations, the
CONsvLTANT malres a recommendation to CITYf and ~rms the CITY, to reject
items not meetin& & requirements of the ~w11trd~T d-rts.
Maintaining daily bgs of the observed work and submit reports using the Cms E-
Builder=" management system. The daily 13g shall indude records of when the
CONTRACTOR is on the job-site, weather mn&tionsI potentiaI change ~rders,
observed changed conditions, -testin$ activities and results, general field
observations, and specific obsenratinns as in the case of testing. The RPR will record,
in writing, the outcome of these inspections. The WR will maintain and Pile paper
copies of tIw Wy logs on site and s1d submime daiIy logs on a daily basis ushg
the CITY'S E-BuiIderTM management system.
The CITY'S comtrtldo~t manager will coordinate with the CITY'S Wlic Jnformation
Officer where vtility outages may be reqnired gedhg~otificati~n by the
CONTRAmOR* Confirm ht the CONTRACTOR has made the required
notifications to the utlliq owners and the CITY for public notifications that. may be
reqarired Any requixed notifications will be the responsibility of the C;rTY and/or
tfie CONTRACTOR and not the CONSULTANT,
CwrW various hsts for qualify control on tbeproject as d&&d by &e UTYs
coznstructicm manager and as required by the mditiom of fhe contract. To this end,
theRPRw~issue&hthernaterialshtingin~tionwith&e
CClNTMCn3,R an& the needs of the work. The RPR will verify. that tests, equipment
and systems start-up are conducted inthe ppesence of appmpriate pr@ and
ailat the CONTRACTOR maintains adequate records thereof; and obsemes, records,
and reports appmpriaw details rehtive to the testing procedures and start-ups.
Provide a photographic record of the overdl piogress of anstructim. Photographs
shallbe digital: snapshot type taken to define the progress of the project and be
electmnitiilly filed bynorut;h with dak ad time annotated on eachphotb. The E-
builder system will be used as a means ko gather and store the various pbbs
by the WR during construction. The RPR will upload allphrotos to the E-
Builder system on a weekly basis.
Check CO~CTOR's material ~er~cations and samples; verify Brat delivered
materials match appwvedhp drawings.
Direct itRd supem%e the sampling and festirrgof~te~ to be perfomred by --I
mdqmdaxttestkq laboratories under subconfract to the CEY. .This taskindudes
the receipt, review of invoices from the independent testing Momtorles for payment
by the CITY.
Review with-the COmCTOR the rnontky pay appficatian ta conlirm the slam
of completed and uncompleted work and sbreci materials The schedule of values
used by the CONTRACTOR and monthly payreqwstswiI1 be appmd by tfie
Cl'TYfs construction manager. The CONSUZTAlVT dull advise the COX of
quantities being appmwit for subsequent concurwu?e for payment parposes but
vdl nut specifically be responsible for review and approvaI oi pay requests.
Monitor on a monthly basis, in conjmctian with CONlRACTOR's pay applicalion
review, that record drawing mark-ups are bemg pqerty maintained by the
CONTRACTOR
The CITY'S ~sha11 mordinafe with CONSULTANT'S project manager and staff as
needed to resolve/addxessCONTRACTOR's Requests hr Information, Chntract
Document UarEcations, Field. Oxders, and other rerated correspon~-
Maintaining daily obsxvation reports andpruvidiqg diredun for other reeard
keeping fequired br the project.
Participating in weekly progress meetings with CONSULTW and CON3XACTUR
at the pmject site.
Participating in meetings to adchess CONTRAOR chartge requests, as needed.
Verifying &at tke workhas progressed .to the substantia.I compIetion poht in
aciwrdmce the Contract Documents.. Performing a substantial compktion inspection
with the COmC"MR mdCW andpregaringapuachlist kt dscribes items
re-g to be completed; the punch list will be attached to the mrtificate of
substantial c~mpletion
CONSIETANT shan pravide spdty site vi& by various design disciplines (civilC
mechmicaI, geological, fandss.ping,etc.] as recpested by the QCTY. For the putposes of this
scope of services, the CONSULTANT shafZ assume the foflawkng specialty visits will be
requested by the CITY:
Sdtv Visits %id Packet? A
Twenty-nine (29) spedalty site visits. TFflw visits are associated with the foll~wing work
Twenty (20) site Wts associated with drainage wen testsng.
Five (5) site visits associated with stomwater pump statiofi testing,
Four (4) site visits assaciated with other engineerin6 di55plines, as needed.
S~ecialtv Visits Bid Packape B -
Ten (10) spaq site visits. These visitsare assodated with the following work
I- Four (4) site visits associated vvi& drainage wen testing.
Two (2) site visits associated wifh stormwater pump Won testing.
Fcrur (4) site visi& associated with other en@neering MpEnes, as needed*
sp&dw Visits Bid Package C -
Seven specialfy site visits. These visits are associated with the foIIowing work
Two (2) site visits associated with drainage well testing.
One- (I) site visits associafed with stormwater pump statkn bshg.
Four (4) site &its associated withother engineering disciplines, as needed.
Due to the nature of projects involving injection wells and the dose coordinatim with FDEP
&at will be reguired to satisfy the permits br these wells, the hours noted above are a
xnidrntam level oE effort that willbe required. If additional hydrogeological enginexhg is
required *'a ~esult of the permis that have itot beeh hued or by difkrmf geological
conditions that are encountered, the CONSULTANT shall advise the CITY in writing when
tlxe arx ticsipa ted labor has been expended, based on the above assumed totals, so the CITY
may mange for the isnrance of requisite auth~rizatiom to the CQNSULTaNT to fund
additional fees so that services remain uninterqted.
Miverables:
~ction fidd and test reports
Photographic records as appropriate
Sche;duk
Ongoing throughout duration of pmjed construcfion.
Sub-Task I .7 - Project Gloseouf:
Vpn receiving notice from the CONTRaCTOR advising the CITY'S comtruction manager
ihatthe Projects are sabstantiaIIy complete, CONSULTANT, in conjunction with the CKY's
consimxti~n manager and other appropriate project or CITY staffx shall cox$uct an
overview of heProjects. The overview shdn include review and solution ofupmch lists''
of items needing completion ox correctian prior to consideration of final acceptance of each
project. The ClTY cons~on manager shaU de>-elop and maintain the pun& hts with
assistance fromCONSULTANT. The lists shallbe forwarded to the Contradors far each
pmject. For the purposes offhis provision, sub- completion sha1Ebe deemed to be the
stage 21 constntction of tlte Projects where the Projects can be utilhd forthe purposes hr
which it was intended, and where minor &ms not be fully completed, but all items that
affect the operationat integrity ;md function of the Projects are capable of cmiinmus use.
Upon notiliation from& Contrartor and &CITY constpuctiunmanag;er~t ali
rrmaining "punch lisp 1- have been resolved, the CONSULTANT, ,in conjun- with
appmpriate CITY staff, shall perform a final review of each of the finished Projeds, Based
on su.ccessful cmpl&on of aflicsu~~ wark ikrm by &e Contrarnr, CONSUZTtWT
shall assist in &sing out the comction contracts for package A/C and 3. shall
prepare certified recard drawings from CONTRACTOR'S as-built plan mark ups and
drawings sub- during theconstntcfion period. CONSULTTANTvLilIreview CITY
prepared record drawings and submit comments br the CFm h finalize record drawings
for eachproject area. CONSULTANT will provide one digitalcop3iafeachof therecard
drawing sets, pnepare permit dcalion applications and mvex letters far FDEP, DEW
SFWMD and l!&a&-CIade County HI2 far a tataI of three permifs for padages A, B qd C.
Any additiondl work req&ed to close out Bte permits (including response to questions)
from the respective agencies listed ahve is not included.
The COM$ULT~ sfian assist them wifh the i:oofdina~tion of (XrY requested warranty
work. The UTY and CONSULTANT-may meet to determine whether there are any
warranty type issues that the COWIXACrORs have &Sled to correct. This assistance may be
provi&d dwing,the cmstruction 01 the project and may extend beyond fhe
CON5WLTANTEs dctamhation that the project haii ~nctied Substantid Coqletion, but
&all not extend for more than sixty (40) mlendar days beyond the Contractor's Srzbstmtial
Completim date. The purpose for this lask is to assist the CITY to determine whether there
may exkt conditions that require repair or work under warrmty p+ovkiom and is intended
to be technical suppart by the CONSULTANT to assirit the CTY.
Deliveables:
Receive C8~CTORnotificration(s) that the projects hve reded Suh3tanal
Completion and defermine whether the projectr in ke judgment of the
CONSULTANT, qualifies under the requirements of the specifications and standard
of rare .to be considered Substantially Complete.
r Coordinate and attend me; field meeting (Walk-Through) to review Substantial
Completion fbr each ~stmdion contract
= Receive GON'IRA~OR's notification that punch kt items ae completed and
CONSULTANT skdi schedule a fin;tl field visit to reviewand s&stantiate pject
completion 61 eachprojj
= Pravide recamnadatioh to the ClT'lt' that the pmjects have reached Final
Completion based QII CONSUCTANTXs judgpent and review of c6mpleed punch
lists ibr ea& project It is astamed that ea& project will be finalized during the one
nn~ntI.1 dose-outperiod @lIowing the issuance of strbskan-tial completion
Assist the Qm with teckmieal decisions and recommendations onwarran9 work
completion for each poject.
B Prepare review conunents Qr CITY prepared record drawings for certification and
project closeout of each project Submit final record drawings, agency (FDEP, DFXM,
SJ3VMD and Mkmi-Dade County HD) appPicatims,and cover letters to reFt
release of the project for operational pu~poses for-each project
Prepare final pr- change orders for projects.
Review O&M manuals for projects A, B and C.
SubTask 1.8 - Engineering Services Contingency
A donlingency for requifid cngbwring dosign dces during consWiction is eshblished
for use as It'lt.ected by the CITY. Expected seservices to be provided under this ifem inchide
but are 3imited to the following:
* Value engineering services and negothtionswifh the selected Contractor pri~r to the
sm of c~f15tructian.
Design changes required by unexpected c~nditions clr Mges to the design tts
requested by the CX'Y, em or tepdabry agencies. A :
Design changes re@ed by changesin con&tims resulting fmmrecent comtruction
of other facilities within Zhe project area that did not exist duringgroject &sip
Schedule:
Project cIoseout willbe completed wit'tzin 60 calmdar days following CITY'S issuance of
cerScate of s&~tantial completion.
GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
I. Repmduc tion Sencirm-CONSULTkNT shall be paid krr the cost plus applicable
mar- foT ~q?mdudi~n of reports, contract docmnents and miscellaneous
itcmsf it8 indicated in the scope of wok or as requested by CITY.
2. Travel and Subsistence-CONSuLTM shaJl be reimbursed for achid cosfs wifh
appEabk markup for employee travel associated with this Task Ordter.
3. Construction Contract completion time incIu&g close-out is estimated at 760
consecutive dkndar days br Package A; 455 consecutive days for Paekage B
and 395 consecutive days far Package C. Packages A, 3 and C will he
constmcted co~~enfly from CITY'S notice to pmmecl wfth A and C combined
into a single contract Construction conbad delays beyond this schedule will be
sdbject additid roarpedon ta the CONSULM.
4. CONWLm is lot mzspod1e br obiahing or paying for permits hm
Federal, State or local regulatory agencies ht are ~qukd ht the prosecution of
th& project. Comdtant shan not be resp6nsible for Regulate j Agehcy delays or
any delays caused for reasons beyond the direct control of the Consaltant The
will provide project cofl~~ction~~~ert~: ad RPR or construction
inspection services to manage construction activities and provide assurance that
the work is being performed in accordance with the kvntrad documents. The
ClWs internal QA [QC program will provide guidance to the RPR's to promote
consistency in the services provided.
5, The insgecfion dfantwill certify the accuracy of allreports submitted by the
RPR's/mnstru&on inspectors.
ti. The CONSUCI"I'NT wri advise the CDY if amtruckion management and
inspection activities do not meet& standards of care necessary for the
CONSULTm to certify completion of dae pmjecb work. The ClTY wiU be
responsible for comeding& identified dwcies ina timely Won (m 7
days of written notifmh from the CONSULTAN'Q or will delegate
certSci~tion and Engineer of Record mponsibili ty fo others
7. At no additional cost* the CONSULTANT, the CITY skall provide ulwtiz~g
space and office facilities with internet access for the CONSlXTANT's staff at
ea:&project,wi& the eve& lofation to be in tlw Qf offices. Note: them are
no constructioil ErikiIefs beiixg pwided mder any of the contiact documenIs.
8. P- expense budget includes ttavel costs.
PROJECT BUDGET
The total fee' proposed fot this scope of work shall be a time and materials basis, not-to-
exceed amount $ as Shown in Attachment-B foJ. the 26 month base project p&d. This k is
based on time basis compensatbn.zand reidxwable expenses, as shown in Attachment BB,
the detailed kc breakifawn. Invoicing wiIl,be rnontbly and based on allowable contract
hourly raes and subsequent an~cimenb and adjustments by the CITSE and as agreed
between the CFTY and CONSULTANT. With the appmva1 by the CITY, COWTANT
may utilize unused biid6etsw%hin subtasks 3s long as overall fee limit is not eeeded.
Should accumulated incurred costs rea& the NTE amount, Cf32En HILL W notify the
City & level of effort reqaired to complete the scope of services, ad request that a contract
arnenht be executed bor the additional funds and extepion of period of perfomce, if
so required. CHZM fZlU &a& resume our efforts upon such -time that the~~ntraCt
amendment is fully executed
Should the CONTRACTCX fail to meet the cons-n schedule identified within Zhis
scope (Attachment A), the CJTY shall ammd the CONSUt.TANTs contract fee far service5
beyond the identified m-on schedule within this scope.
'The Services Durhg Consbudon assuciated with Packaae A, Band C as itemized abve
win commence upon receipt af Notice to Proceed issued by the City. On sik consfm&on
adivities are scheduled b commence in August 203 1 with estimated completion in
December 2013.
Execntiom of this Task Order constitutes CEY's Noticc -to Proceed with thc scope of work
&xzibed herein, and in accordance with the Standard Agreement for Professional SE)Njces
dated* 16,201.
Approved by:
Date: Date:
Mtti H, Bcrwer, Brenda VanRaversway, P.E.
Mayor Rdda Operatiom Managm
Attest.
** Robert Parkher
City Ckrk
Attachment B
Services During Construction for the City of Miami Beach Neighborhood No. 8,
Design Packages "A, "B", "C", and "D"
Labor and Expenses
Bayshore Package "A" CA Labor Fee $ 254,865.95
RPR $ 56.382.82
Expenses
Total
BayshorePackage"BH CA Labor Fee $ 157,210.14
RPR $ 32,137.88
Expenses
Total
Bayshore Package "C" CA Labor Fee $ 112,419.03
RPR $ 27.569.68
Expenses
Total
Bayshore Package "Dm CA Labor Fee $
RPR $
Expenses $
Total t 0
Bayshore Package "A", "B", "C", 8 "D" Total Fee $ 700,000.00
Engineering Contingency (Task 1.8)
Bayshore Package "A", "B", "C", 8 "D" Additional Fee $ 700,000.00
Fee calc-Amend-22-SDC-DRAFT-July-agenda-carla (2).xlsx
RESOLUTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
I A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager, For Pre-Construction Services And ]
Construction Phase services For The Property Management ~acilit~; ~nd Authorizing The Administration To Enter
Into Negotiations With The Top-Ranked Firm, Pirtle Construction Company; And Should The Administration Not Be
Able To Successfully Negotiate An Agreement With The Top-Ranked Firm, Authorizing The Administration To
Negotiate With The Second Ranked Firm, Coastal Construction Of Monroe, Inc., d/b/a Coastal Construction I Company. I
Key Intended Outcome Supported: .
Ensure well-maintained infrastructure
Su~~ortina Data (Survevs, Environmental Scan, etc.): The 2009 Customer Satisfaction Survey indicated that 1 79% of buinesses'rated recently completed capitalimpr&ement projects as "excellent" or "good." - I
Issue:
Shall the Mayor and City Commission adopt the Resolution? I
Item SummarylRecommendation:
On January 04, 2010, RFQ No. 10-09/10 was issued, and on March 01, 2010, the Evaluation Committee ranked
Wolfberg Alvarez & Partners as top-ranked firm. On May 12, 2010, the Mayor and City Commission authorized the
Administration to execute an Agreement with Wolfberg Alvarez & Partners for the Property Management Facility
Project for architectural, engineering, and landscape architecture services for the Planning, Design, Bid and Award
and Construction Administration services for the Project. On February 14, 201 1, the City issued Wolfberg Alvarez &
Partners Inc a Notice to Proceed with the Planning Services for the project. The final project shall meet at a
minimum the LEED Silver rating, with higher rating levels encouraged.
On April 14, 201 1, the RFQ was issued with an opening date of May 9, 201 1. A pre-qualification meeting to provide
information to prospective proposers was held on April 21, 201 1. Bidsync issued bid notices to 3,784 prospective
bidders of which 87 viewed the notice and resulted in the receipt of ten (1 0) bids. On June 9, 201 1, the Committee
convened to shortlist the proposals. In determining the best qualified firms, the Committee discussed each firm's
proposal according to the criteria as set forth in the RFQ. The Committee discussed their individual perceptions of
each prospective bidder's qualifications, experience, and competence to shortlist the following firms: Coastal
Construction of Monroe, Inc. d/b/a Costal Construction Company, D. Stephenson Construction, Inc., Munilla
Construction Management, LLC d/b/a MCM, Pirtle Construction Company, Stiles Corporation d/b/a Stiles
Construction. On June 20, 2011, the Committee reconvened to score and rank the shortlisted firms. Given the
Committee was rescoring the shortlisted firms, it allowed for Duane Knecht to serve on the Committee along with
the other members from the previous meeting. Upon completion of presentations by each of the firms, the
Committee discussed the information provided by each firm to develop its recommendation to the City Manager
based on their scores and ranking. As a result, Pirtle received four of six first-place votes for award.
Pirtle Construction Companv
Pirtle Construction Company has over 43 years of experience in constructing municipal facilities and has a strong
relationship with this project's Architect of Record, Wolfberg Alvarez & Partners, having collaborated in 46 projects.
Pirtle's project team also includes four LEED accredited professionals. Recently, Pirtle completed the Pine Crest
School Lower School and Campus Administration Building Replacement, which earned USGBC LEED Gold
Certification, in addition to, Pine Crest Upper School LEED Replacement - Fort Lauderdale Campus and the South
RegionallBroward College Joint Use Library, which achieved USGBC LEED Silver Certification.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
DATE 7-1-3-1
1 NIA J
Financial Information:
Account
Financial Impact Summary: N/A
Amount
N/A
Source of
Funds:
OBPl
I
Total
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: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ClTY
MANAGER, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) NO. 21-
10111, 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 PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT FACILITY; AND AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATIONTO -:
ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WlTH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM, PIRTLE
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE
ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WlTH THE TOP-
RANKED FIRM, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE WlTH
THE SECOND-RANKED FIRM, COASTAL CONSTRUCTION OF MONROE, INC.,
d/b/a COASTAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
BACKGROUND
The relocation of the Property Management Division to a site outside of Flamingo Park has
been a longstanding goal of both Flamingo neighborhood residents and the City. After
completing an extensive evaluation, the Administration has made the determination to relocate
Property Management to the City-owned property located at 1833 Bay Road, Miami Beach
Florida 33 139.
The scope of work for this project consists of the construction of a two story facility with a total
gross square footage of approximately 24,000 s.f. The total estimated construction cost budget
for the project is approximately $3,500,000. At a minimum, the new Property Management
facility will include the following functions:
Administrative offices
Workshops (Carpenter, Electrical, HVAC, Plumbing,)
Parts inventory warehouse (equipped with storage racks and accessible by forklift)
Materials storage
Hazardous materials storage
Locker rooms 1 restrooms
Loading area
Commission Memorandum - RFQ-21-10/11 - Construction Manager at Risk for the Property
Management Facility
July 13, 201 1
Page 2 of 7
Oversized vehicles parking
Emergency generator
The parking needs of the Property Management Facility will be addressed in the proposed
Sunset Harbor garage, located across the Street at 1840 Bay Rd, which is currently underway.
The garage will provide approximately 104 parking spaces for Property Management Division
vehicles with a clearance height below 7'-2". Oversized vehicles will be parked at the proposed
Property Management Facility.
It is important to note that it is the City's intention to enable the Property Management Division
to vacate the Flamingo Park site as quickly as possible in order to implement the Flamingo Park
Master plan that was approved by the City Commission on November 9, 2010.
The Project Schedule for the Property Management Facility is as follows:
Planning Phase: February 14,201 1 to June 7,201 1
Design Phase: June 7,201 1 to February 15,2012
Construction Phase: February 15,2012 to December 15,2012
The Project Schedule for the Sunset Harbour Garage is as follows:
Construction Phase: AprilIJune, 201 1 to AprilIJune 2012
On April 22"d, 2009, the Mayor and City Commission passed an Ordinance amending the City
Code of the City of Miami Beach, providing for City mandatory participation in the Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification Program for new construction or
substantial renovations. The design of the facility will integrate building materials and methods
that promote environmental quality, economic vitality, and social benefit through the
construction and operation of the built environment in accordance with the US Green Building
Council LEED Standard. The final project shall meet at a minimum the USGBC LEED SILVER
certification for new construction, with higher rating levels encouraged.
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, since this delivery method
will result in a LEED Silver certified facility for the best value.
It is very important that the City's first LEED certified facility exemplify the City's goals regarding
sustainable architecture and be a facility that the City's residents, developers, business
community and international visitors can look to as an example of sustainable architecture that
we can all be proud of.
One of the most important distinctions between the CMR proje,ct approach and the Design-Bid-
Build is that the CMR is selected based on the CMR firm's qualifications, which is a critical
component when deciding what Contractor will build the City's first Silver LEED certified facility.
Under the CMR approach, the Owner enters into an agreement with a Contractor early in the
design process which allows the facility to be designed and built-in partnership with the Design
Professional, the Contractor, the Building Commissioning Agent and the City in an environment
that fosters creativity, sustainability, innovation, constructability, frugality, quality, for the best
Commission Memorandum - RFQ-21- I O/l I - Construction Manager at Risk for the Property
Management Facility
July 13, 20 1 1
Page 3 of 7
price possible in today's market, all working together as a team to deliver a quality product that
responds to the needs of the Client which in this case is the City's Property Management
Division.
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 and advise on the selection of sustainable
materials, and means and methods given the current market. This becomes extremely valuable
in a LEED project. 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 owner. Additional costs from the Contractor, including time extensions, are also
minimized, since the GMP method 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 $171,555 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".
By contracting with the CMR early in the process the City will save the time it normally takes to
bid out via the Conventional Design-Bid-Build, which is approximately three (3) to four (4)
months in advertising, bidding, and awarding the project.
In this particular Request for Qualifications (RFQ), the City has requested that CMR firms have
a proven track record and experience in building at a minimum a Silver LEED certified project.
Since this is the City's first Silver LEED Certified project, it would be invaluable to have a
contractor that is a leader in the construction industry and has the experience of building
sustainable architecture as evidenced through a completed LEED certified facility.
In this way, the City can gain valuable advice on the selection, quality, durability and
performance of sustainable practices as evidenced through the experience of a construction
professional.
The "Best Value" Procurement method has been used to select a firm with the necessary
experience and qualifications, the ability, capacity and proven past successful performance in
providing Construction Management at Risk services.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Construction Manager's (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 or Amendments, and
such other amendment@) as necessary to fix and describe the parties' respective rights and
responsibilities with respect to the Work and the Project, 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, when established, and within the Contract time.
The CMR shall review Project requirements, existing on-site and off-site development, surveys
Commission Memorandum - RFQ-21-10/17 - Construction Manager at Risk for the Property
Management Facility
July 13, 2011
Page 4 of 7
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 ArchitectIEngineer, identifying all phases, critical path
activities, and critical duties of each of the Project team members. It is the intention of the City
to enter into a contract with a CMR for pre-construction services prior to the 50% design
submittal. The CMR shall, at each design phase (i.e. 50% and 90% design development and
100% construction document), review the plans and advise the City and the ArchitectIEngineer
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 CMR1s
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 ArchitectIEngineer, 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
Task 2 - Design Phase: Review of Design Documents, Scheduling, Estimating, and Cost
Control
Task 3 - Bid and Award Phase: Preparation of a Subcontractor's Prequalification Plan
Task 4 - Guaranteed Maximum Price (G MP)
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
Task 6 - Post-Construction Phase: The CMR will coordinate project closeout, start-up and
transition to operation, per the contract for Construction
RFQ PROCESS
On April 14, 201 1, the RFQ was issued with an opening date of May 9, 201 1. A pre-
qualification meeting to provide information to prospective proposers was held on April 21,
201 1. Bidsync issued bid notices to 3,784 prospective bidders of which 87 viewed the notice
and resulted in the receipt of the following ten (10) bids:
CB Constructors, Inc.
Coastal Construction of Monroe, Inc. d/b/a Coastal Construction Company
D. Stephenson Construction, Inc.
Gulf Building Corp.
KMIPlaza
Link Construction Group, Inc.
Munilla Construction Management, LLC d/b/a MCM
Commission Memorandum - RFQ-21-1O/1 1 - Construction Manager at Risk for the Property
Management Facility
July 13, 2011
Page 5 of 7
New Beach Construction Partners, Co.
Pirtle Construction Company
Stiles Corporation d/b/a Stiles Construction
Upon review of the proposals received, Gulf Building Corp. was disqualified for not meeting the
RFQ's minimum requirements due to the experience noted for its project manager. The RFQ
states as a minimum requirement that the firm's project manager must have managed a project
that had achieved U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED Silver Certification. The project
experience noted by Gulf Building Corp. for its project manager offered a project currently in the
process of earning the certification, but it had not achieved the certification.
The City Manager, via a Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 129-201 1, appointed an Evaluation
Committee (Committee) consisting of the following individuals:
William Cary, Assistant Director, Planning Department
Elizabeth Camargo - Capital lmprovements Projects Oversight Committee Member
Jason Hagopian - Design Review Board Member
Duane Knecht - Director, Property Management Division
Thais Vieira - Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital lmprovements Project Office
The following individuals were also appointed as Committee alternates:
Christina Cuervo - Capital lmprovements Project Oversight Committee Member
Thomas DeLuca - Design Review Board Member
Grace Escalante - Capital lmprovements Project Office
Sherry Roberts - Board of Adjustment Member
Daniel Veitia - Planning Board Member.
EVALUATION PROCESS
On June 9, 2011, the Committee convened to shortlist the proposals. The Committee
unanimously agreed to nominate Grace Escalante as Committee Chair (Duane Knecht was
unable to attend the meeting allowing for Grace Escalante to serve on the Committee). In
determining the best qualified firms, the Committee discussed each firm's proposal according to
the criteria as set forth in the RFQ.
The Committee discussed their individual perceptions of each prospective bidder's
qualifications, experience, and competence to shortlist the following firms:
Coastal Construction of Monroe, Inc. d/b/a Costal Construction Company
D. Stephenson Construction, Inc.
Munilla Construction Management, LLC d/b/a MCM
Pirtle Construction Company
Stiles Corporation d/b/a Stiles Construction
On June 20, 201 1, the Committee reconvened to score and rank the shortlisted firms. Given
the Committee was rescoring the shortlisted firms, it .allowed for Duane Knecht to serve on the
Committee along with the other members from the previous meeting. Upon completion of
Commission Memorandum - RFQ-21-10/11 - Construction Manager at Risk for the Property
Management Facility
July 13, 201 1
Page 6 of 7
presentations by each of the firms, the Committee discussed the information provided by each
firm to develop its recommendation to the City Manager based on their scores and ranking. As
a result, Pirtle Construction Company received four of six first-place votes for contract award as
noted below:
Pirtle Construction Companv
Coastal
MCM
D. Stephenson
Stiles
Pirtle Construction Company has over 43 years of experience in constructing municipal facilities
and has a strong relationship with this project's Architect of Record, Wolfberg Alvarez &
Partners, having collaborated in 46 projects. The company has a proven track record with
respect to LEED projects, which is apparent by their educated staff of certified Green Advantage
Builders and 14 LEED accredited professionals. Pirtle has builtlis building seventeen (17) LEED
projects throughout Florida, four (4) of which are awaiting LEED Gold certification. Recently,
Pirtle completed the Pine Crest School Lower School and Campus Administration Building
Replacement, which earned USGBC LEED Gold Certification, in addition to, Pine Crest Upper
School LEED Replacement - Fort Lauderdale Campus and the South RegionalIBroward
College Joint Use Library, which achieved USGBC LEED Silver Certification.
The proposed team is led by Project Executive, Bill Ellis, Project Manager, Joe Lester, and
Superintendent Bill Page, all who have extensive municipal experience important in the
coordination and construction of this project.
4 (96)
5 (95)
2 (98)
3 (97)
The team has built many successful projects within active residential areas without disruption to
the community or the construction schedule. The most successful City projects are the ones
where the community is informed and connected to the process. The team brings 24-hour
response, coordination and outreach to the City.
MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE
2 (95)
4 (93)
3 (94)
5 (92) ---
After considering the review and recommendation of City staff, the City Manager exercised his
due diligence and is recommending that the Mayor and the City Commission authorize
negotiations with his top-ranked proposer, Pirtle Construction Company; and should the
Administration not be successful in negotiating an agreement with his top-ranked proposer,
authorizing negotiations with his second-ranked proposer, Coastal Construction of Monroe, Inc.
d/b/a Coastal Construction Company.
2 (95)
3 (91)
5 (83)
4 (90)
p~
5 (58)
1 (100)
3 (90)
4 (60) - -
I (96)
4 (88)
5 (82)
3 - (89)
2 (94)
4 (88)
3 (93)
5 (87)
I6 (534)
21 (555)
21 (540)
24 (515)
Commission Memorandum - RFQ-21-lO/l I - Construction Manager at Risk for the Property
Management Facility
July 13, 201 I
Page 7 of 7
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission adopt the attached
Resolution accepting the recommendation of the City Manager pursuant to Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) No. 21-10/11, 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 Property Management Facility; and authorizing the Administration to enter
into negotiations with the top-ranked firm, Pirtle Construction Company; and should the
Administration not be able to successfully negotiate an agreement with the top-ranked firm,
authorizing the Administration to negotiate with the second-ranked firm, Coastal Construction of
Monroe, Inc. d/b/a Coastal Construction Company.
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 I\RFQ 21-1 0-1 1 - CMR Prop Mgmt Facility - FINAL MEMO.docx
RESOLUTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED
I
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 Accepting The Recommendation
Of The Citv Manager Pertaining To The Ranking Of Pro~osals Pursuant To Request For Qualifications (RFQ) No. 37-
1011 1 for a ~onst6ction ~anager at Risk To provide re-construction ~ervices~nd Construction phase Services Via
A Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Amendment For The Flamingo Park Tennis Center Project; Authorizing The
Administration To Negotiate With The Top-Ranked Proposer, Pirtle Construction Company, and Should The
Administration Not Be Successful In Negotiating An Agreement With The Top-Ranked Proposer, Authorizing
-Negotiation With The Second-Ranked Proposer, KVC Constructors, Inc.
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.
Issue: 1 Shall the Mayor and City Commission Adopt The Resolution?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
) On June 1,201 1, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 37- 1
1011 1, for a construction-~anager at Risk (CMR) to provide pre-construction services and Construction Phase services
via a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) amendment for the Flamingo Park Tennis Center Project.
RFQ No. 37-1011 1 was issued on June 8,201 1, with an opening date of June 24,201 1. A pre-proposal conference to
provide information to the proposers submitting a response was held on June 14,201 1.
On June 23,201 1, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 159-201 1, appointed an Evaluation Committee
(the "Committee") which convened on June 28,201 1 and June 30,201 1.
BidNet issued bid notices to 202 prospective proposers, BidSync (formerly known as RFP Depot) issued bid notices to
7,065 prospective proposers of which 77 viewed the notice, and more 65 local proposers were notified via mail, e-mail,
which resulted in the receipt of seven (7) proposals.
The Committee was provided with presentations from all shortlisted proposers. The Committee discussed their
individual perceptions of the proposers' qualifications, experience, and competence, and further ranked the proposers
accordingly. A motion was presented by William Cary, seconded by Grace Escalante, and unanimously approved by all
Committee members to recommend entering into negotiations with the top ranked proposer, James Pirtle Construction
Company d/b/a Pirtle Construction Company.
. :
Pirtle Construction Company has constructed numerous projects similar in scope to the City's Flamingo Park Tennis
Center including the City of Miami Jose Marti Park Gymnasium and Community Center, City of Coral Springs
Sportsplex, City of Cooper City Sports Complex, Rock Creek Pool and Tennis Center, City of Hollywood Driftwood
Recreation Center and currently the City of Miami Moore Park, which is being built for Silver LEED certification.
APPROVE THE RESOLUTION.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I
Financial Information:
Source of I Funds
AGENDA ITEM C7G
I-2
OBPl
1 Amount
I I
Total
Account
, Financial Impact Summary:
T:
MIAMIBEACH
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 City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 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 PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF FIRMS, PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) NO. 37-1 011 1, 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;
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WlTH /
THE TOP-RANKED PROPOSER, PIRTLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; AND
SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IN NEGOTIATING AN
AGREEMENT WlTH THE TOP-RANKED PROPOSER, AUTHORIZING
NEGOTIATIONS WlTH THE SECOND-RANKED PROPOSER, KVC
CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Ensure Value and Timely Delivery of Quality Capital Projects.
Maintain City's Infrastructure.
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.
There have been ongoing discussions concerning the number and composition of the tennis
courts, and a final determination has been made to construct the seventeen (1 7) hydro-courts
pursuant to the approved master plan (Resolution 2009-27190).
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 firm's qualifications. The CMR approach will give the City the added value
of having a qualified contractor evaluate the project documents for any inconsistencies, errors
Commission Memorandum - RFQ# 37-10-1 1 for CM @ Risk for Flamingo Park Tennis Center
July 13, 201 1
Page 2
and omissions between the various design disciplines and constructability of the project. 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
owner. Additional costs from the Contractor, including time extensions, are also minimized,
since the GMP method 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 $171,555 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 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 "Best Value" Procurement process has been 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 CMR's Scope of Services shall include, without limitation, all of the Preconstruction
Services set forth below and, upon approval by the City of the 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 ArchitecUEngineer, 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 ArchitecUEngineer 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 Phase, the CMR shall,
provide the City a proposal for a GMP Amendment for construction phase services and without
Commission Memorandum - RFQ# 37-10-1 1 for CM @ Risk for Flamingo Park Tennis Center
July 13, 201 1
Page 3
assuming the duties of the ArchitectIEngineer, 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 CMR will be tasked with the following duties and responsibilities:
Task 1 - Coordination with the Design Professional
Task 2 - Review of Design Documents, Scheduling, Estimating, and Cost Control
Task 3 - Bid and Award Phase: Preparation of a Subcontractor's Prequalification Plan in
compliance with the requirements currently determined by the City
Task 4 - Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
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
:
Task 6 - Post-Construction Phase: The CMR will coordinate project closeout, start-up and
transition to operations, per the contract for Construction
RFQ PROCESS
On June 1, 201 1, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) No. 37-10/11, for a Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) to provide pre-
construction services and Construction Phase services via a Guaranteed Maximum Price
(GMP) amendment for the Flamingo Park Tennis Center Project. RFQ No. 37-10111 was
issued on June 8, 201 1, with an opening date of June 24, 201 1. A pre-proposal conference to
provide information to the proposers submitting a response was held on June 14,201 1.
BidNet issued bid notices to 202 prospective proposers, BidSync (formerly known as RFP
Depot) issued bid notices 7,065 prospective proposers of which 77 viewed the notice, and
more 65 local proposers were notified via mail, e-mail, which resulted in the receipt of the
following seven (7) proposals:
D. Stephenson Construction, Inc
H.A. Contracting Corp
James B. Pirtle Construction Company d/b/a Pirtle Construction Company
KVC Constructors, Inc.
Munilla Construction Management, LLC d/b/a MCM
Recreational Design & Construction, Inc
Stobs Bros, Construction Co.
On June 23, 201 1, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 159-201 1, appointed
an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee") consisting of the following individuals:
Rebecca Boyce, Leadership Academy Graduate and member of the Miami Beach
Tennis Player's Association;
Christina Cuervo, Resident and Capital Improvement Projects Oversight Committee
(CIPOC) member.
Commission Memorandum - RFQ# 37-10-1 1 for CM @ Risk for Flamingo Park Tennis Center
July 13, 201 1
Page 4
William Cary, Assistant Director, Planning Department;
Grace Escalante, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator, CIP;
Judy Robertson, Leadership Academy Graduate and member of the Flamingo Park
Neighborhood Association;
Julio Magrisso, Assistant Director, Parks and Recreation Department; and
Wanda Mouzon, Miami Beach Resident and member of the Flamingo Park
Neighborhood Association.
Alternates
Gayle Durham, Leadership Academy Graduate and member of the Flamingo
Neighborhood Association; and
Thais Vieira, Capital Projects Coordinator, CIP.
Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate Rebecca Boyce was unable to attend the June
30' Committee meeting and therefore, resident and Leadership Academy Graduate, Gayle
Durham, was appointed to the Committee to replace Ms. Boyce.
Resident and Capital Improvement Projects Oversight Committee (CIPOC) member, Christina - _
Cuervo had a conflict of interest and recuse herself from serving on the Committee, and
therefore, resident and CIPOC member Stacy Kilroy, was appointed to the Committee to
replace Ms. Cuervo.
The Committee convened on June 28,201 1, and a quorum was attained. The Committee was
provided with general information on the scope of services, Performance Evaluation Surveys
and additional pertinent information from all responsive proposers.
The Committee discussed their individual perceptions of the proposer's qualifications,
experience, and competence, and further ranked the proposers accordingly. A motion was
presented by Julio Magrisso, seconded by William Cary and unanimously approved by all
Committee members to recommend short listing the following firms:
James B. Pirtle Construction Company dlbla Pirtle Construction Company
KVC Constructors, Inc
Munilla Construction Management, LLC d/b/a MCM
Recreational Design & Construction, Inc
The Committee recommended inviting the aforementioned proposers to make presentations
with the intent of focusing the discussion on the Scope of Service relative to these projects and
the methodology and approach to be utilized by the proposer in order to represent the City of
Miami Beach on said projects.
The Committee convened on June 30,201 1, and a quorum was attained. The Committee was
provided with presentations from all shortlisted proposers. The Committee discussed their
individual perceptions of the proposer's qualifications, experience, and competence, and
further ranked the proposers accordingly.
Commission Memorandum - RFQ# 37-10-1 1 for CM @ Risk for Flamingo Park Tennis Center
July 13, 201 1
Page 5
The Committee's final rankings are as follows:
FINAL RANKINGS
MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a
A motion was presented by William Cary, seconded by Grace Escalante, and unanimously
approved by all Committee members to recommend entering into negotiations with the top
ranked proposer, James Pirtle Construction Company d/b/a Pirtle Construction Company.
PIRTLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FROFILE
Pirtle Construction Company has over 43 years of experience in constructing municipal
facilities and has a strong relationship with this project's Architect of Record, Wolfberg Alvarez
& Partners, having collaborated in 46 projects. Pirtle Construction Company has partnered
with Fast-Dry Courts, Inc (FDC) and its experienced personnel including Stephen N. Dettor,
Stephen C.Dettor, Todd M. Dettor and Rick Delisle.
Pirtle Construction Company understands the Park's prominent tennis history and the
requirements for Junior Competition for the United States Tennis Association (USTA).
Specifically, the team understands the City's goal for the possible return of the Dunlop Orange
Bowl International Junior Championship to Flamingo Park. As a tennis expert with numerous
award-winning facilities in their porffolio, FDC will be instrumental during pre-construction,
court installation and in providing the City with a detailed maintenance plan that will protect
and enhance this investment into the City's future.
Pirtle Construction Company has constructed numerous projects similar in scope to the City's
Flamingo Park Tennis Center including the City of Miami Jose Marti Park Gymnasium and
Community Center, City of Coral Springs Sportsplex, City of Cooper City Sports Complex,
Rock Creek Pool and Tennis Center, City of Hollywood Driftwood Recreation Center and
currently the City of Miami Moore Park, which is being built for Silver LEED certification.
Combined, Pirtle Construction Company and FDC have built more than 5,000 tennis courts
projects. FDC is the only contractor in the history of the American Sports Builders Association
(ASBA) to be recognized for excellence in court construction for 15 consecutive years,
Commission Memorandum - RFQ# 37-10-1 1 for CM @ Risk for Flamingo Park Tennis Center
July 13, 201 1
Page 6
including 2010. Furthermore, FDC has delivered 34 different ASBA award winning facilities
since 1995.
The team is committed to following the City of Miami Beach's sustainability initiatives and feels
this project has the potential to achieve 51 LEED credits enabling LEED Silver Certification.
This is apparent by their educated staff of certified Green Advantage Builders and 14 LEED
accredited professionals.
The proposed team is led by Project Executive, Bill Ellis, Project Manager, Nick Huseman and
Superintendent Jim Pirlte Jr., all who have extensive municipal experience important in the
coordination and construction of this project. Besides, their extensive tennis court experience,
FDC, has worked on numerous successful projects within the City of Miami Beach.
The team has built many successful projects within active residential areas without disruption
to the community or the construction schedule. The most successful City projects are the ones
where the community is informed and connected to the process. The team brings 24-hour
response, coordination and outreach to the City. . -.
The team recognizes tennis at Flamingo Park is legendary and the park is actively used. They
understand that many community workshops and charrettes have been held and were
attended by the surrounding neighbors and users regarding this project. Therefore, significant
community attention will be placed on this project and it will be important to include an
outreach plan that incorporates information, updates, brochures, and newsletters to avoid
miscommunication as well as create a sense of community and ownership. Pirtle Construction
Company's outreach component provides the opportunity for transparency, public interaction,
and education.
After considering the review and recommendation of City staff, the City Manager exercised his
due diligence and is recommending that the Mayor and the City Commission authorize
negotiations with his top-ranked proposer, Pirtle Construction Company; and should the
Administration not be successful in negotiating an agreement with his top-ranked proposer,
authorizing negotiations with his second-ranked proposer, WC Constructors, lnc.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida accepts the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the ranking of
proposals pursuant to Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 37-10111 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;
Authorizing the Administration to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked proposer, Pirtle
Construction Company, and should the Administration not be successful in negotiating an
agreement with the top-ranked proposer, authorizing negotiations with the second-ranked
proposer, WC Constructors, Inc.
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\RFQ-37-10-11 - Flamingo Tennis Park Center- FINAL Memo.doc
RESOLUTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Pursuant To City Code Section 38-6, Authorizing Early Voting For The November I, 201 1 General
Election, And For The November 15, 201 1 Runoff Elections, If A Run-Off Election Is Required.
Key Intended Outcome Supported: 1 NlA I
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): In 2009 there were 46,178 registered voters forthe
General Election with 7,764 total ballots for a voter turnout of 16.81%. There were 1,020 early voters, 2,839
absentee voters, and 3,905 voters on election day. For the Run-Off Election there were 45,941 registered voters
with 5,770 total ballots for a voter turnout of 12.56%. There were 755 early voters, 2,384 absentee voters, and 2,631
voters on election day (see Attachments A and Al).
Issue:
Shall the City Commission approve the resolution? I
Item Summary1Recommendation:
1 The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the early voting site at Miami Beach City Hall and 7
the North Shore Branch Library, and the ea;ly voting dates gnd times listed below, for the General ~lection and a
Runoff Election, if necessary, or consider pursuant to City Code Section 38-6(e), other sites and/or schedule of days
and times.
Monday, October 24 Noon - 7 pm 7 hours - plus one hour setup/close down
Tuesday, October 25 Noon - 7pm "
Wednesday, October 26 Noon - 7pm "
Thursday, October 27 9 am - 4 pm 7 hours - plus one hour setup/close down
Friday, October 28 9am-4pm "
Saturday, October 29 I I am - 3 pm 4 hours
Sunday, October 30 11am-3pm "
If a runoff election is required, again the Administration recommends that the City Commission approve, at a
minimum, one early voting site, Miami Beach City Hall, and consider a second, the North Shore Branch Library, and
the early voting dates and times as listed below subject to the final approval of Miami-Dade County Elections:
Saturday, November 12 9 am - 7 pm 10 hours - plus one hour setup/close down
Sunday, November I3 9 am - 7 pm 10 hours -
Due to an unforeseen event, the Administration may alter the days, times, and locations and will immediately report
the change to the Mayor and Commissioners via an LTC.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I NIA
=inancia1 Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1
r 2 u I I
OBPl Total I
I I I
Financial Impact Summary:
Two sites, 7 days, for a total of approximately $42,000 ($3,000 per day per site) for the General Election and two
sites, 2 days, $12,000 if a run-off election is required.
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
( Robert Parcher
AM1 BEACH
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
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO ClTY CODE SECTION 38-6,
AUTHORIZING EARLY VOTING FOR THE NOVEMBER 1, 2011 GENERAL
ELECTION, AND FOR THE NOVEMBER 15,2011 RUNOFF ELECTIONS, IF A
RUNOFF ELECTION IS REQUIRED.
ANALYSIS
The Citv of Miami Beach General Election is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, November 1.
201 1, f6r the Mayor and Commission Groups IV, V and VI. A Runoff Election, if necessary;
will be scheduled for Tuesday, November 15,201 1.
Pursuant to Miami Beach City Code Section 38-6(a) - Early Voting, commencing with the
November 2005 municipal election, all City of Miami Beach general, runoff and special
elections are hereby exempted from the provisions of F.S. § 101.657(1)(d) (the "Early Voting
Statute"). The early voting State Statute provides for early voting to begin on the 15th day
before an election and end on the second day before an election and provides other
operational restrictions.
Miami Beach City Code Section 38-6(b) provides that early voting, if authorized by the City
Commission, shall commence at Miami Beach City Hall eight days prior to the General
Election, and shall occur for a total of seven consecutive days, with early voting to occur on
the Saturday and Sunday immediately preceding any Run-off Election. Miami Beach City
Code Section 38-6(e) provides that the City Commission may, by resolution, adopt in
advance of a general, runoff or special elections, alter the site and/or schedule of days and
times for early voting from that which is provide above.
Since the 2005 General Election, the City Commission has approved early voting at two
sites, Miami Beach City Hall and the North Shore Branch Library. If the City Commission
authorizes early voting, the Administration recommends that the City Commission approve,
at a minimum, one early voting site, Miami Beach City Hall, and consider a second, the North
Shore Branch Library, and the early voting dates and times as listed below:
Monday, October 24 Noon - 7 pm 7 hours - plus one hour setup/close down
Tuesday, October 25 Noon - 7 pm " 11
Wednesday, October 26 Noon - 7 pm I1 I1
Thursday, October 27 9 am - 4 pm 7 hours - plus one hour setup/close down
Friday, October 28 9am - 4pm 11 11
Saturday, October 29 11 am - 3 pm 4 hours I1
Sunday, October 30 11 am - 3pm I1 I1
If a runoff election is required, again the Administration recommends that the City
Commission approve, at a minimum, one early voting site, Miami Beach City Hall, and
consider a second, the North Shore Branch Library, and the early voting dates and times as
listed below subject to the final approval of Miami-Dade County Elections:
Saturday, November 12 9 am - 7 pm 10 hours - plus one hour setup/close down
Sunday, November I3 9am- 7pm 10hours - It
The Miami-Dade County Elections Department has provided the Administration with an early
voting budget estimate of approximately $3,000 per day, per location.
Funding in the amount of approximately $420,000 will be included in the FY 201 1/12 budget
to cover early voting estimated costs of $54,000 (General and Run-off) for two sites based
on the schedule listed above and the cost of a general election and a runoff election.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the early voting site at
Miami Beach City Hall and the North Shore Branch Library, and the early voting dates and
times listed above, for the General Election and a Runoff Election, if necessary, or consider
pursuant to City Code Section 38-6(e), other sites and/or schedule of days and times.
Due to an unforeseen event, the Administration may alter the days, times, and locations and
will immediately report the change to the Mayor and Commissioners via an LTC.
T:\AGENDAUOI 1\7-13-1 ID01 1 Early voting CM.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITYOF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION
38-6, AUTHORIZING EARLY VOTING FOR THE NOVEMBER 1, 2011
GENERAL AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS, IF ANY, AND FOR THE NOVEMBER
15TH, 2011 RUN-OF ELECTION, IF A RUN-OFF ELECTION IS REQUIRED.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach General and Special Elections will be scheduled
to be held on Tuesday, November 1, 201 1 for the purpose of electing a Mayor and
Commissioners in Groups IVY V, and VI, and any ballot questions; and
WHEREAS, A Run-off Election, if necessary, will be scheduled for Tuesday, November
15,201 1; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Miami Beach City Code Section 38-6 entitled "Early Voting"
subsection (a) thereof, commencing with the November 2005 municipal election, "...all - r
City of Miami Beach general, runoff and special elections are hereby exempted from the
provisions of F.S, 5 101.657(1)(d) (the "Early Voting Statute"). The early voting statute
provides for early voting to begin on the 15" day before an election and end on the
second day before an election and provides other operational restrictions"; and
WHEREAS, Miami Beach City Code Section 38-6(b) provides that "...early voting, if
authorized by the City Commission, shall commence at Miami Beach City Hall eight
days prior to the General Election, and shall occur for a total of seven consecutive days;
with early voting to occur on the Saturday and Sunday immediately preceding any run-
off election", and
WHEREAS, Miami Beach City Code Section 38-6(e) further provides that "...the city
commission may, by resolution, adopted in advance of a general, run-off or special
election, alter the site andfor schedule of days and times for early voting from that which
is provided above"; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission at its July 13, 201 1 meeting, authorized early voting
for the General Election to be held at two (2) sites, Miami Beach City Hall and the North
Shore Branch Library, for the following seven (7) days and times:
Monday, October 24 Noon - 7 pm 7 hours - plus one hour setup/close down
Tuesday, October 25 Noon- 7 pm "
GC
Wednesday, October 26 Noon - 7 pm 66 66
Thursday, October 27 9 am - 4 pm 7 hours -plus one hour setup/close down
Friday, October 28 9am -4pm " LC
Saturday, October 29 llam-3pm 4hours 66
Sunday, October 30 llam-3pm " " ; and
WHEREAS, if a Run-off election is required, the City Commission authorized early
voting to be held at two (2) sites, Miami Beach City Hall and the North Shore Branch
Library, for the following two (2) days and times:
Saturday, November 12 9 am - 7 pm 10 hours - plus one hour setup/close down
Sunday, November 13 9am-7pm 10hours- << ; and
WHEREAS, the Miami-Dade County Elections Department has given the
Administration an early voting budget estimate of approximately $3,000 per day, per
location;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND
CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the
Mayor and City Commission hereby approve early voting for the November 1, 201 1
General and Special Elections, if any, to be offered at the two locations, Miami Beach
City Hall and the North Shore Library and will be held for seven consecutive days
beginning on Monday, October 24, 201 1 and ending on Sunday, October 30, 201 1; and
further approving early voting for the November 15, 201 1 Run-Off election, if required, ..:
at the two locations, Miami Beach City Hall and the North Shore Library, for the two
days beginning on Saturday, November 12, 201 1 and ending on Sunday, November 13,
20 1 1, said early voting to be conducted in accordance with the hours listed hereinabove.
It is further Resolved that the Administration is authorized to alter the days, times, and
locations of early voting if necessary due to an unforeseen event, with the Administration
immediately reporting the change to the Mayor and Commissioners via a Letter to the
Commission (LTC).
PASSED and ADOPTED this 1 3th day of July, 20 1 1.
Matti Herrera Bower
Mayor
Attest:
ROBERT PARCHER, CITY CLERK
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\EARLY VOTING NOV 201 1 reso.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FnH EXECUTION
cumulative. txt MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA NOVEMBER 3, 2009 RUN ~~~~:11/06/09 01:31 PM TOTAL VOTES % ED 055 ED iVOTRONIC ABSENTEE ~ease/Disposal of public Street-~nds C1N:MIAMI BEACH (vote for ) 1 YES/SI/WI 72 ..... 4,979 78.52 2,474 3 1,843 NO/NO/NON 73 ......... 1,362 21.48 716 0 451 ~ot a1 ......... 6,341 3,190 3 2,294 over votes ......... 5 0 0 5 under votes ......... 1,418 711 0 540 ~ease/Disposal of city-Owned Property C1N:MIAMI BEACH (vote for ) 1 ......... YES/SI/WI 74 4,328 69.73 2,121 2 1,622 ......... NO/NO/NON 75 1,879 30.27 1,000 1 623 Total ......... 6,207 3,121 3 2,245 ......... over votes 6 0 0 6 under votes ......... 1,551 780 0 588 New world svmohonv Carnous ExD~~s~o~ C1TY:MIAMI BEACH (vote for 1. i 'YES/SI/WI- 76 ......... 4,443 70.51 2,149 ......... NO/NO/NON 77 1,858 29.49 1,028 Total ......... 6,301 3,177 over votes ......... 8 under votes ......... 1,455 E REPORT-EL45A PAGE 002 EV 055 EV iVOTRONIC Page 2
i w
3 ddmoo r.or.0w wmm N r.wm d mmr. dNr.
-I W
W d olhvldvl Q)Q)olWO
W w WdOdW old0 r.
5 m ddrn " - .. qwm
W N ddN d N
VI
2
mddow oww d ddm - - -
Inm
old . .
Nr. md
i.,j .....
VI C
H L
I Idw... I L'+ Od 0Ur v) v) U CnaJIdWaJ
CLZWWW
In0 000
H L
ugI->>
H Orr L L
H'+aJW ww
6.r >U
DWCL OC 3wun 3
0 0.r Id
LZ>IU W uu
VI
VI H ."..
I0 8d.Z .5 g 2
U InLWWW
nOWOO0
I ah+>>
L X Id
HOWI LL
H'+ aJ W
WId >u
DWDr OC
3WLL 3
s>":g uu
Miami Beach City Code Section. 38-6. - Early votina.
(a)
Pursuant to F.S. 5 100.3605(1), it is hereby provided that commencing with the
November 2005 municipal elections for mayoral and commission offices, all City
of Miami Beach general, runoff and special elections are hereby exempted from
the provisions of F.S. 5 101.657(l)(d) (the "Early Voting Statute"). The early
voting statute provides for early voting to begin on the 15th day before an election
and end on the second day before an election and provides other operational
restrictions.
(b)
In lieu of the above-described provisions of F.S. 5 101.657(l)(d), it is hereby
provided that early voting, if authorized by the city commission, shall commence at
Miami Beach City Hall eight days prior to the general election, and shall occur for
a total of seven consecutive days; with early voting to occur on the Saturday and
Sunday immediately preceding any run-off election.
(c)
The hours of early voting shall be noticed in a newspaper(s) of general circulation
within the City of ~iaml Beach.
(dl
The remaining paragraphs of F.S. 5 101.657, exclusive of paragraph (l)(d)
thereof, shall continue to apply to the city's general, runoff and special elections as
provided by law.
(el
The city commission may, by resolution, adopted in advance of a general, runoff
or special election, alter the site and/or schedule of days and times for early
voting from that which is provided above.
If)
The city clerk is hereby authorized to take any action which is necessary or
expedient to implement early voting in accordance with this section.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Authorizing The Administration To Videotape And Air On MBTV 77 The Mayor And Group
IV, V, And VI Commission Candidate Presentations For The November 1, 201 1 General Election.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Enhance external and internal communications from and within the City.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, Etc.): 17.7% in 2009, up by 2.7% from 2007, of
residents most often get their information about the City on MBTV 77.
Issue: .-----
Shall The Administration be Authorized To Videotape And Air On MBTV 77 The Mayor And Group IV, V,
And VI Commission Candidate Presentations For The November 1, 201 1 General Election?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
I The Administration Requests the City Commission Consider The Resolution And Candidate Presentation I
Guidelines And ~equest City Commission Guidance.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
[ The 2001 City Commission Community Affairs Committee, now the NeighborhoodlCommunity Affairs I
Committee.
Financial Information:
I I
L I I I
Financial Impact Summary:
Approved Source of
Funds: -
u
OBPl
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Bob Parcher, City Clerk
4
Total
AM1 BEACH AQEQIDA ITEM c71
DATE 7-13-1/
Account
1
n
Amount
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 Manage
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO VIDEOTAPE AND AIR
ON MBTV 77 THE MAYOR AND GROUP IV, V, AND VI COMMISSION CANDIDATE
PRESENTATIONS FOR THE NOVEMBER 1,201 1 GENERAL ELECTION.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Consider the Resolution and Candidate Presentation Guidelines and request City Commission -I
guidance.
BACKGROUND
During the 2001 General Election, the City Commission authorized the Administration to videotape
and replay on Cable Channel 20, now MBTV 77, a candidate forum sponsored by a local
organization. The 2001 City Commission also referred to the Community Affairs Committee, now
the Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee, the issue of selecting two additional forums to be
taped and aired. On September 25, 2001, at the Community Affairs Committee attended by
Committee Chair Commissioner Matti Herrera Bower, and committee members Commissioners
Simon Cruz, Luis R. Garcia, Jr., and Jose Smith, the issue concerning candidate forums was
discussed. The Committee was not comfortable in selecting only two additional political forums to
air. It was felt that selecting only two would be unfair because other organizations may be left out.
After much discussion, the Committee recommended arranging a candidate presentation where
each candidate is given up to five minutes of airtime on Cable Channel 20, now MBTV 77, to
present themselves and their platform. Pursuant to Resolution No. 2001-24626, the City
Commission approved the recommendation of the Community Affairs Committee. Subsequently, in
2003,2005,2006,2007 and 2009, the City Commission authorized the Administration to videotape
and replay on Cable Channel 20, now MBTV 77, the Candidate Presentations.
The candidate presentations will be coordinated by the City Clerk's Office and the Communications
Department using the Candidate Presentation Guidelines (see Attachment "A). Attachment "B" is
the tentative rehearsal and "live" shoot time slots. The schedule will be adjusted to include the
name of each candidate at the end of candidate qualifying, which is Friday, September 9, 201 1 at
5:00 p.m. Upon approval by the City Commission, each qualified candidate will be sent a certified
letter requesting that they confirm their attendance, along with a copy of the Presentation Guidelines
and their designated time-slots.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission consider the resolution and Presentation
Guidelines and requests City Commission guidance.
ATTACHMENT "A"
201 1 Citv of Miami Beach Candidate Presentation Guidelines
1. To offer the Miami Beach viewers an organized presentation, the Candidate Presentation will
be taped live and replayed on MBTV 77. Important: The individual candidates' presentations
will not be edited for anv reason. Once the taping of a candidate begins, the camera will not
be turned off until the candidate indicates he or she is finished, or the five (5) minute time limit
has been reached; there is only one opportunity to tape live. Candidates will be offered the
use of the City's teleprompter and will be offered a one-hour rehearsal session prior to the
date of the taping.
2. In order to have an organized presentation of candidates and issues, it is important that a strict
timetable be developed and adhered to. Each candidate will be given a scheduled time slot for
their rehearsal and live presentation. See attachment "B". It is the sole responsibility of the
candidate to make sure he or she is available when it's their time to speak. Anv candidate
who misses their assigned time slot unfortunately will forfeit their opportunitv to
present. The Administration will be given a time slot at the end of the Candidate
Presentations to present any Voters Guide information pertaining to Special Election
question(s), along with explanations in both English and Spanish, if needed.
3. The Candidate Presentations will be shown multiple times on MBTV 77. The scheduled air -
times will be published in the news media (Miami Herald Neighbors, SunPost, and in the
Spanish language newspapers depending on publishing dates), and on MBTV 77.
4. Candidates must check in at least 10 minutes before their assigned time slot. This will ensure
an orderly transition from candidate to candidate.
5. The time slots will be assigned in the order of the ballot: Mayor and the three commission
groups and alphabetically by candidates (as their name will appear on the ballot) within each
of the groups. Again, it is the sole responsibility of the candidate to be available at their
designated time.
6. Before the candidates begin speaking, the moderator (to be determined) will give an
introduction stating the purpose and explaining the format of the Candidate Presentation.
7. Each candidate will be allocated up to five (5) minutes of on airtime on MBTV 77. In order to
maintain equitable time for each candidate who elects to participate in the Candidate
Presentation, when the candidate's five (5) minutes are up, the candidate will be cut off, even
if in mid-sentence. No editing of the candidate's taped presentation will be done.
8. The moderator will introduce each candidate. The introduction will be limited to the Mayor or
Commission Group Number and the name of the candidate (example: "Mayoral candidate
Mr./Ms. X; or "Commission Group I, 11, Ill, IV, V, OR VI, candidate Mr./Ms. Z). The candidate
will be introduced by the name that will appear on the ballot).
9. At the conclusion of the Candidate Presentation, the Administration may provide the viewers
with an overview of any Special Election ballot questions (Voters Guide), if needed.
10. Only the candidate may speak on their behalf, not a representative.
11. No pre-recorded tapes will be used.
12. No background music, special backgrounds, or special effects will be allowed.
ATTACHMENT "B"
Schedule to be adjusted after qualifying
F:\CLER\CLER\ELECTION\2011 General Election\Candidate PresentationD01 1 Candidate presentation schedule 1 no narnes.xls
266
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION
OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING
THE ADMINISTRATION TO VIDEOTAPE AND AIR ON MBTV
77 THE MAYOR AND GROUP IV, V, AND VI COMMISSION
CANDIDATE PRESENTATIONS FOR THE NOVEMBER 1,
201 1 GENERAL ELECTION.
WHEREAS, during the 2001 General Election, the City Commission authorized the
administration to videotape and replay on Cable Channel 20, now MBTV 77, a candidate
forum sponsored by a local organization; and
WHEREAS, the 2001 City Commission also referred to the Community Affairs
Committee, now the NeighborhoodICommunity Affairs Committee, the issue of selecting two
additional forums to be taped and aired; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2001, at the Community Affairs Committee the issue
concerning candidate forums was discussed and the Committee was not comfortable in
selection only two additional political forums to air; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2001-24626, the City Commission adopted the - : recommendation of the Community Affairs Committee to arrange a presentation whereby ,
each candidate for the City of Miami Beach elected office will be given up to five minutes of
airtime on Cable Channel 20, now MBTV 77, in order to allow each candidate to present
himlherself and hislher platform, with the presentation to be publicly advertised, recorded, and
aired on MBTV 77 subject to the following presentation guidelines:
To offer the Miami Beach viewers an organized presentation, the Candidate
Presentation will be taped live and replayed on MBTV 77. Important: The
individual candidates' presentations will not be edited for anv reason. Once the
taping of a candidate begins, the camera will not be turned off until the candidate
indicates he or she is finished, or the five (5) minute time limit has been reached;
there is only one opportunity to tape live. Candidates will be offered the use of the
City's teleprompter and will be offered a one-hour rehearsal session prior to the
date of the taping.
2. In order to have an organized presentation of candidates and issues, it is important
that a strict timetable be developed and adhered to. Each candidate will be given a
scheduled time slot for their rehearsal and live presentation. See attachment "B.
It is the sole responsibility of the candidate to make sure he or she is available
when it's their time to speak. Anv candidate who misses their assigned time
slot unfortunately will forfeit their opportunitv to present. The Administration
will be given a time slot at the end of the Candidate Presentations to present any
Voters Guide information pertaining to Special Election question@), along with
explanations in both English and Spanish, if needed.
3. The Candidate Presentations will be shown multiple times on MBTV 77. The
scheduled air times will be published in the news media (Miami Herald Neighbors
and in the Spanish language newspapers depending on publishing dates), and on
MBTV 77.
4. Candidates must check in at least 10,minutes before their assigned time slot. This
will ensure an orderly transition from candidate to candidate.
5. The time slots will be assigned in the order of the ballot: Mayor and the three
commission groups and alphabetically by candidates (as their name will appear on
the ballot) within each of the groups. Again, it is the sole responsibility of the
candidate to be available at their designated time.
6. Before the candidates begin speaking, the moderator (to be determined) will give
an introduction stating the purpose and explaining the format of the Candidate
Presentation.
7. Each candidate will be allocated up to five (5) minutes of on airtime on MBTV 77.
In order to maintain equitable time for each candidate who elects to participate in
the Candidate Presentation, when the candidate's five (5) minutes are up, the
candidate will be cut off, even if in mid-sentence. No editing of the candidate's
taped presentation will be done.
8. The moderator will introduce each candidate. The introduction will be limited to the
Mayor or Commission Group Number and the name of the candidate (example:
"Mayoral candidate Mr./Ms. X; or "Commission Group I, 11, Ill, IV, V, OR VI,
candidate Mr./Ms. Z). The candidate will be introduced by the name that will
appear on the ballot).
9. At the conclusion of the Candidate Presentation, the Administration may provide -
the viewers with an overview of any Special Election ballot questions (Voters
Guide), if needed.
10. Only the candidate may speak on their behalf, not a representative.
11. No pre-recorded tapes will be used. I
12. No background music, special backgrounds, or special effects will be allowed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT THE MAYOR
AND CITY COMMISSION HEREBY AUTHORIZE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
STATED SPECIFICALLY IN THlS RESOLUTION, THE ADMINISTRATION TO
VIDEOTAPE AND AIR ON MBN 77 THE MAYOR AND GROUP IV, V, AND VI
COMMISSION CANDIDATE PRESENTATIONS FOR THE NOVEMBER I, 2011
GENERAL ELECTION.
PASSED AND ADOPTED THlS 13'~ day of July, 201 1
Attest:
Robert Parcher Matti Herrera Bower
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO
T:\AGENDAY2011\7-13-1 ID01 1 Candidatepresentations.reso.doc FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, authorizing the City Administration to
enter into an agreement with the Trustmark Companies to provide a voluntary Accident lnsurance Plan, fully funded by
employee contributions. 1
<ey Intended Outcome Supported:
Control costs of payroll including salary and fringe benefits
Attract and maintain a quality workforce.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
1. 2007 Internal Support Functions Survey
Overall satisfaction of benefits administration was rated 75.6% as excellent or good combined
11. 2008 Environmental Scan
Motivated and Skilled Workforce turnover rates = 13.86% for 2007 vs. 10.7% for 2006
ssue:
Should the City enter into an agreement with the Trustmark Companies to provide a new voluntary Accident lnsurance Plan
to employees, at no cost to the City, as the Accident lnsurance Plan will be fully funded by employee contributions.
tem SummarylRecommendation:
At the direction of the City Administration, the City's consultant of record, Gallagher Benefit Services (Gallagher)
issued their RFP for the City's voluntary benefit program. This item was discussed at the April 13, 201 1 City
Commission meeting, with the Mayor and City Commission approving the offering of a number of voluntary
benefits beginning January 1, 2012.
The Administration requested that Gallagher contact the two (2) Accident lnsurance Plan proposers (Trustmark
and Colonial Life), and obtain a detailed summary of the premiums and benefits proposed by each company.
After a thorough re-examination, Gallagher again deemed that the Trustmark plan provided a better benefit than
the Colonial Life plan, even though the cost for the Trustmark plan is slightly higher. This information was
presented to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee during their June 23,201 1 meeting. The item was
discussed, with the members voting to return the item to the full City Commission for final evaluation and vote.
As a result of the RFP, Gallagher also recommended that the City offer the Trustmark Accident lnsurance Plan to
its employees. Disagreeing with the Accident Plan recommendation, Colonial Life Accident Plan requested that
the Administration re-examine their proposed plan coverage and cost, as representatives of the Colonial Life
Accident Plan believed their plan to be more competitive than the plan proposed by Trustmark.
Based on the updated comprehensive summaries provided by Trustmark and Colonial Life, as well as
Gallagher's recommendation, the Administration requests to include the Trustmark Accident Plan as a part of the
City's voluntary benefit program, as it considers it to be the plan that is in the employees' best interest. The
voluntary Accident lnsurance Plan benefit, if approved, along with the universal life, critical illness and hospital
indemnity plans previously approved by the Mayor and City Commission, will be made available to both full-time
and part-time employees when the new insurancelbenefit plan year commences on January 1,2012.
-
I I
Advisory Board Recommendation:
The Finance and Citywide Projects Committee, at their June 23,201 1 meeting, voted to return the item to the full
City Commission for final evaluation and vote.
Financial Information:
Account Source of
Funds:
I3 OBPl
Financial Impact Summary: NO FISCAL IMPACT
The Trustmark Companies Accident lnsurance Plan is a voluntary benefit program and is fully funded through employee
contributions.
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
I Sue Radig, Human Resources Benefits Administrator I
I
2
Total
Amount
NIA
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
I
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ClTY ADMINISTRATION TO
ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TRUSTMARK COMPANIES TO
PROVIDE A VOLUNTARY ACCIDENT INSURANCE PLAN, FULLY FUNDED BY
EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS, AS RECOMMENDED BY GALLAGHER BENEFIT
SERVICES, THE CITY'S CONSULTANT OF RECORD.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as the voluntary Accident lnsurance Plan is paid fully by the employees who
elect coverage.
The City's voluntary benefits program supplements the City's core benefit plans (medical, vision,
dental, disability and life) by providing a wide range of benefit options that allow employees to
customize their benefit program at lower group rates. These programs are offered on a voluntary
basis, with no cost to the City. The employees who choose to participate pay the full premium cost.
At the direction of the City Administration, the City's consultant of record, Gallagher Benefit Services
(Gallagher) issued an RFP for the City's voluntary benefit program. This item was discussed at the
April 13,201 1 City Commission meeting, with the Mayor and City Commission approving the offering
of a number of voluntary benefits beginning January 1, 201 2, including:
Discount legal plans;
Critical Illness Plan;
Universal Life Insurance Plan; and
Hospital Indemnity Plan.
As a result of the RFP, Gallagher also recommended that the City Administration offer the Trustmark
Companies Accident Plan lnsurance (Trustmark) to its employees. Accident Plan lnsurance provides
benefits in the event of covered injuries that occur either at work or outside the work place. Benefits
are paid directly to the participant to help offset unexpected medical costs and lost wages. The plan
also includes a daily benefit for hospitalization due to illness. The plan is portable, meaning
employees may continue coverage after leaving the City by paying their premiums directly to the
carrier. This benefit is currently not offered to City employees.
City Commission Meeting, July 13, 201 1
Selection of a Voluntary Accident Plan
Page 2 of 3
Disagreeing with the Accident Plan recommendation, Colonial Life Accident Plan (one of the
insurance carriers responding to Gallagher's RFP) requested that the Administration re-examine their
proposed plan coverage and cost, as representatives of the Colonial Life Accident Plan (Colonial
Life) believed their plan to be more competitive than the plan proposed by Trustmark. The
Administration agreed to work with Gallagher to undertake a thorough re-examination of the Accident
Plan proposals, and bring the results to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC) for
their review and recommendation.
Following the April 13, 201 1 City Commission meeting, the Administration requested that Gallagher
contact the two (2) Accident Insurance Plan proposers (Trustmark and Colonial Life), and obtain a
detailed summary of the premiums and benefits proposed by each company. A copy of the benefit
summaries submitted by Trustmark and Colonial Life are attached (Attachment A).
Following is a brief summary of the benefits provided by each plan:
1 Catastrophic Accident Benefit - This benefit helps families during the transitional period following a
catastrophic loss. The Catastrophic Accident Benefit provides a lump sum benefit for a catastrophic loss after
fulfilling a 90-day waiting period. A catastrophic loss is the loss of use of sight, hearing, speech, arms or legs.
2 Accident Death Benefit - This benefit provides a lump sum for an accidental death that occurs within 90 days
of a covered accident. The benefit increases if the accidental death is due to a common carrier.
Colonial Life
None
$300 per day
up to 365 days
$600 per day
up to 15 days
Plan benefits are reduced
by 50% at age 65
365 day waiting period
before plan coverage
begins
Maximum benefit payment
$100,000
$ 50,000
$ 50,000
$200 per visit
If death is due to a
common carrier
accident . $75,000 $1 00,000
$75,000 $100,000
$15,000 $20,000
$500 per transport
$1,500 per transport
$16.38
$38.22
Wellness Care
Hospital Confinement
Hospital Intensive Care
Catastrophic Accident Benefit1
Employee
Spouse
Child(ren)
Emergency Room
Accidental Death Benefit
Employee
Spouse
Child(ren)
Ambulance
Ground
Air
Monthly Premium
Employee
Family
Trustmark
$50 per visit
up to 2 visits per year
$400 per day
up to 365 days
$800 per day
up to 15 days
No reduction in plan
benefits
90 day waiting period
before plan coverage
begins
Maximum benefit payment . $100,000
$ 50,000 . $ 50,000
$1 50 per visit
If death is due to a
common carrier
accident
$75,000 $150,000 . $40,000 $80,000
• $20,000 $40,000
$300 per transport
$1,000 per transport . $18.49 . $52.87
City Commission Meeting, July 13, 201 1
Selection of a Voluntary Accident Plan
Page 3 of 3
After the detailed re-examination, Gallagher informed the Administration that the Trustmark plan
provided a better benefit than the Colonial Life plan, even though the cost of the Trustmark plan is
slightly higher. The FCWPC discussed the item during their June 23, 201 1 meeting, with the
members voting to return the item to the full City Commission for final evaluation and vote.
Based on the updated comprehensive summaries provided by Trustmark and Colonial Life, as well
as Gallagher's recommendation, the Administration requests to include the Trustmark Accident Plan
as a part of the City's voluntary benefit program, as it considers it to be the plan that is in the
employees' best interest. The voluntary Accident lnsurance Plan benefit, if approved, along with the
universal life, critical illness and hospital indemnity plans previously approved by the Mayor and City
Commission, will be made available when the new insurancelbenefit plan year commences for City
employees on January 1,2012.
Given that the Accident lnsurance Plan is a new voluntary benefit not currently provided to
employees, the Mayor and City Commission may opt to decline to offer this benefit to employees.
However, if approved, part-time employees, who are not eligible for the City's core medical, vision,
dental, disability and life plans, will be eligible to elect Accident lnsurance Plan coverage, as well as
the other voluntary benefits, which may help offset out-of-pocket medical expenses and lost wages. - :
CONCLUSION
The Administration urges accepting Gallagher's recommendation to offer the Trustmark Accident
Plan to City employees as a part of the City's Voluntary Benefit Program commencing January 1,
2012.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE
ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ClN
ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
TRUSTMARK COMPANIES TO PROVIDE A VOLUNTARY
ACCIDENT INSURANCE PLAN, FULLY FUNDED BY EMPLOYEE
CONTRIBUTIONS, AS RECOMMENDED BY GALLAGHER BENEFIT
SERVICES, THE CITY'S CONSULTANT OF RECORD.
WHEREAS, the City currently provides its full-time employees access to a voluntary
benefits program that supplements the City's core benefit plans (medical, vision, dental,
disability and life) by providing a wide range of benefit options that allow employees to
customize their benefit program at lower group rates; and
WHEREAS, these options are provided at no cost to the City and are fully funded by
employee contributions; and
WHEREAS, the employees are provided voluntary benefit options which include
universal life, disability, critical life insurance, a cancer policy, and discount legal services; and
WHEREAS, at the direction of the City Administration, the City's Consultant, Gallagher
Benefits Services, Inc. (Gallagher), issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a voluntary
benefits program for both the City's full-time and part-time employees; and
WHEREAS, the results and recommendation o this RFP were discussed at the April 13,
201 1 City Commission meeting, with the Mayor and City Commission approving the offering of a
number of voluntary benefits beginning January 1, 2012, including discount legal plans, critical
illness, universal life and a hospital indemnity plan; and
WHEREAS, Gallagher also recommended that the City Administration offer the
Trustmark Companies Accident Plan Insurance (Trustmark) to its employees; and
WHEREAS, believing their proposed plan provided a better benefit at reduced costs,
Colonial Life Accident Plan (Colonial Life), a respondent to the RFP, requested that the
Administration reconsider Gallagher's recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Administration agreed to work with Gallagher to re-examine the
Accident Plan proposals, and bring the results to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee
for their review and recommendation; and
WHEREAS, following a detailed re-examination, Gallagher informed the Administration
that the Trustmark plan provided a better benefit than the Colonial Life plan, even though the
cost of the Trustmark plan is slightly higher; and
WHEREAS, these results were presented to the Finance and Citywide Project
Committee during their June 23, 201 1 meeting, with the members voting to return the item to
the full City Commission for final evaluation and vote; and
WHEREAS, based on the information presented and resulting discussion, the members
of the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee voted to return the item to the full City
Commission for final evaluation and vote; and
WHEREAS, based on the comprehensive summaries provided by Trustmark and
Colonial Life, as well as Gallagher's recommendation, the Administration requests to include the
Trustmark Accident Plan as a part of the City's voluntary benefit program as it considers it to be
the plan that is in the employees' best interest; and
WHEREAS, the voluntary Accident Insurance Plan benefit, if approved, along with the
universal life, critical illness and hospital indemnity plans previously approved by the Mayor and
City Commission, will be made available when the new insurancelbenefit plan year commences
for City employees on January I, 2012, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CIN OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, authorizing the City Administration
to enter into an agreement with the Trustmark Companies to provide a voluntary accident
insurance plan, fully funded by employee contributions, as recommended by Gallagher benefit
services, the city's consultant of record.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2011.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Robert Parcher
MAYOR
Mattie Herrera Bower
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXJCUTION
T:\AGENDAPOl 1\7-13-1 Iwccident Plan Resolution.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Benefit Summaries
Trustmark Accident Insurance Plan
Colonial Life Accident Insurance Plan
Trustmark Accident Insurance Plan
I
Coverage Type
Hospital Plan
Hospital Admission Benefit
Hospital Confinement
Hospital ICU '
Wellness BenefR
Waiting Period
Maximum Visits
Catastrophic Accident Benefit
Employee
Spouse
Children
Elimination Period
Accidental Death Benefit
Employee
Spouse
Children
Accidental Death Common Carrier Benetit
Employee
Spouse
Children
Accident Follow-Up Treatment
Ambulance
Ground
Air
Appliance
Blood, Plasma and Platelets
Bums
Flat Amount for:
3rd degree 35 or more sq. in.
3rd degree 9-34 sq. in.
2nd degree for 36% or more of body
Concussion
Dislocations
open reduction
closed reduction.
~octor's Office Visit
Emergency Dental Benefit
extraction
crown
Emergenw Room Treatment
Eye lniury
Fractures
open reduction
--
Trustmark 1
24-hour
Plan 3
$2000 per admission
$400 (per day up to 365 days)
$800 (per day up to 15 days)
$50 per vist
60 days. -
up to 2 visits per person per year, no cap on
number of family members.
No reduction schedule
$100,000
$54oOO-
$5O,ooO
90 days
$75,000
$40,000
$20,000
$350,000
$80,000
$40,000
$100
$300
$1,000
$200
$500
$20,000
$3,OOO
$l,W
- $200
up to $8,000
up to $41000
$100
$100
$300
$150
$400
up to $10,000
.
' Trustmark Accident Insurance Plan i
Herniated/Ruptured Disc .
up to $5,000
25% of closed reduction benefit
$ 800
Lodging (per night up to 30 days/per
person per accident)
Loss of Finger, Toe, Hand, Foot or Sight of
an Eye
Fshetic Device or Mica1 Limb 1 . .--- *La- . C-I nnn
Lacerations (based on size) ! ~~~$800~
$200
Loss of both hands, feet, sight of both eye
or any combination of 2 or more losses
Loss of 1 hand, foot or sight of one eye
Loss of 2 or more fingers, toes or any
combination of 2 or more losses .
Loss of 1 finger. or 1 toe
Physical Therapy
$34000
$15,000
$3400
$1300
$50(up to 6 visits per penon per accident
wore man r
One
Skin Grafts
.,L,VVw
. $l,W.
25% of burn benefit
surgery Benefit
open, abdominal, thoracic
exploratory
Tendon/Ugament/Rotator Cuff
$2,000
$200
&
repair of 1
exploratory without repair
Torn Knee Cartilage I
Sam
$200
$1,m
Transportation .
(100 miles up to 3 trips per person per:
accident)
27-Jun-11 '
Date
exptoratory I $200
$600
Rates
.
r~omposite - or Age Banded I~omposite.
Employee
Employee Spouse
Em poyee Child(ren)
Employee Family
$18.49
$28.33
$43.03
$52.87
Colonial Life Accident Insurance . ---- Plan ..,
1 I Calonlal
]coverage ~~~e
1
124 hour/ on and off-Job coverage(coverage is worldwide)
Hospital Plan
Hosplta/4drnission Benefit
Hospital Confinement
HospItal lCU
Weflness Benefit
Waiting Period
Maxlmum Visits
Catastrophic Accident Benefit
eluded in proposed RFP rate.
Plan 1
$2000 per admissfon per accldent
$300 (per day up ts 365 days)
$600 (per day up to 15 days)
~vailable as an optional rider. Wellnes Rider was not 11
50% reduction at age 65
Accidental Death Common Carrier Benefit 1
Employee 1 $100,000
Blood, Plasma and Platelets I
Burns
Spouse
Children
Accident Follow-up Treatment
Flat Amount far: I
3rd degree 35 or more sq. in. $10,~
Employee I $300,000
Spouse $100,000
$100,000
$20,000
$120 (up to 3 visits)
I -
3rd degree 9-34 sq. in. $1,500
2nd degree for 36% or more of body $750
Childnn
Elimination Period
Accidental Death Benefit
Employee
Spouse
Children - .
.-
The Colonial Life Accident lnsurance Plan benefit summary indicates the availability of a
Wellness Benefit Rider and an increase in the monthly premium costs for their Accident
lnsurance Plan. This information was not included in the original benefits summary submitted in
response to Gallagher's RFP. The Colonial Life Accident Plan Wellness Rider provides for the
following Wellness Benefit:
$50$000
365 day?
$75,000
$75,000
$15,000
Wellness Benefit
Waiting Period
Maximum Visits
Available as an optional rider
30 days
$50.00 peir calendar year for one person per policy
Colonial Life Accident Insurance Plan
Concussion
Dklocations
open reduction
closed reduttipn
open reduction
closed reduction
Chips
HernlatedlRuptured Dkc
Laceratbns (based on size)
Lodging (per night up to 3D days/per
an ye I
$100
up to $6,000
up to $3,000
up to $7,5M
up to $3,75C
25% of closed reduction benefit
$400
$25 - $4aC
person per actident)
Loss of Finger, Toe, Hand, Foot or Sight d
ILoss of both hands, feet, sight of both eye [ I
$100 for family member or companion
Doctor's Office Visit 1 $120
Emergency Dental Benefit
extraction
crown
or any combination of2 or more losses
Loss of 1 hand, foot ar $ght of one eye
one I $500
Skfn Grafts 25% of bum benefil
Surgery Beneflt
[open, abdominal, thoracic $11500
exploratory I $150
Tendon/Mgament/Rotatar Cuff -
$100
$200
f 15,00(
$7,5E
ss of 2 or more fingers, toes or any
mblnation of 2 or more losses
Emergency Room ~reatment I $200
Eye Injury $500
$1,501
-
repair of more than 1 1 - $600
repair of 1 f4UO
1Composite or Age Banded (Composite I
Loss of 1 flnger or 1 toe
Physical Therapy
Prosthetic Device or Artlfical Limb
More than 1
exploratory without repair
Tom Knee Cartilage
exalnrataw - -- - -
Transpanation
(100 milk up to 3 trips per person per I
Employee 1$18.00 per month
Employee Spouse )$24.00 per month
Empoyee Childtren) \$30.00 per month
Employee Family ($36.00 per month
I
$75C
$50 (up to 6 treatments]
$I,W
$100
$506
h~,
I
Date 6/28/2011
Signature
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution approving an lnterlocal Agreement with Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts for a Computerized
Parking Ticket Issuing System, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement.
I I
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Process improved through Information Technology.
Improve parking availability.
issue:
Shall an lnterlocal Agreement be executed between the City of Miami Beach and Miami-Dade Clerk of
Courts?
I I
Item SummarylRecommendation:
I 1 I The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission approve the lnterlocal Agreement. I
Miami-Dade County's Parking Violations Bureau (PVB) is a County agency operated through the Clerk of
the Courts Office responsible for the collection, processing, and adjudication of parking fines for all
municipalities in Miami-Dade County. Their functions include accounting and processing of all parking
citations; adjudication through the Clerk of the Courts; and collection and disbursement of revenues
derived from parking fines.
In coordination with all Miami-Dade County municipalities, in 1996, the County spearheaded an effort to
acquire a computerized parking ticket issuing system. The attached inter-local agreement has been in
place for three successive five year terms. The City's Parking Department has utilized this system since its
inception and it has been a very useful tool in our parking enforcement operations. Duncan Solutions will
provide hardware and software, via Miami-Dade County Parking Violations Bureau, to the City, at no
additional expense. The Computerized Parking Ticket Issuing System provides state-of-the-art technology
for parking enforcement services. This technology virtually eliminates all illegibility or issuer errors, which
will translate into increased collections. Also, productivity, scofflaw, and stolen vehicle enforcement is
enhanced.
I I
Advisory Board Recommendation:
1 1 NlA I
Financial Information:
I 1
Financial impact Summary:
Approved Source of
Funds:
m
I OBPl
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Saul Frances, Parking Director
3
Total
AMIBEACH AGENDA lf EM c 7/(
DATE .=.
Account
1
2
Amount
NIA
MIAMIBEACH
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 City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH
MIAMI-DADE CLERK OF COURTS FOR A COMPUTERIZED PARKING TICKET
ISSUING SYSTEM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
ANALYSIS
Miami-Dade County's Parking Violations Bureau (PVB) is a County agency operated through
the Clerk of the Courts Office responsible for the collection, processing, and adjudication of
parking fines for all municipalities in Miami-Dade County. Their functions include accounting
and processing of all parking citations; adjudication through the Clerk of the Courts; and
collection and disbursement of revenues derived from parking fines.
In coordination with all Miami-Dade County municipalities, in 1996, the County spearheaded
an effort to acquire a computerized parking ticket issuing system. The attached inter-local
agreement has been in place for three successive five year terms. The City's Parking
Department has utilized this system since its inception and it has been a very useful tool in
our parking enforcement operations.
Duncan Solutions will provide hardware and software, via Miami-Dade County Parking
Violations Bureau, to the City, at no additional expense. The Computerized Parking Ticket
Issuing System provides state-of-the-art technology for parking enforcement services. This
technology virtually eliminates all illegibility or issuer errors, which will translate into
increased collections. Also, productivity, scofflaw, and stolen vehicle enforcement is
enhanced.
CONCLUSION
The execution of this Inter-local Agreement between the Miami-Dade Clerk of Courts and
the City will continue the current service levels and provide citizens with the best possible
parking enforcement services supported by state-of-the-art technology. The Administration
recommends that the Mayor and City Commission approve the Inter-local Agreement and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement.
RESOLUTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
1 A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, approving and I
authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute month to month towing permit extensions with
Beach Towing Services, Inc. and Tremont Towing Services, Inc., commencing on September 1,201 1
and expiring December 31, 201 1.
Key Intended Outcome Supported: 1 ~aintain or Improve Traffic Flow. I
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
1 74% of residents and 72% of businesses rate the availability of parking across the City as too little or much I I too little. Availability of parking was one of the changes residents identified to Make Miami Beach better to I
Issue:
Should the City Commission approve extensions of the Towing Permits? I
Item Summary/Recommendation:
The towing service providers Tremont Towing located at 1861 Bay Road, Miami Beach, Florida and Beach
Towing, located at 1349 Dade Boulevard, Miami Beach, Florida, each currently have a permit issued by the
City to provide towing services to the Police and Parking Departments. Since 1996, the Mayor and City
Commission has waived the competitive bidding requirements through a series of 517th votes, and
exercising the options to renew at the sole discretion of the City. On July 15, 2009, the Mayor and City
Commission approved Resolution No. 2009-27151, approving an extension of the towing permits,
commencing on September 1,2009 and expiring on the date that Tremont Towing was required to vacate
its premises for construction of the Sunset Harbor Garage Project or August 31, 201 1. Vehicle
impoundments continue to be a necessary tool for both the police and parking department in order to
properly manage traffic and parking throughout the City. On June 1,201 1, the Administration provided the -:
Mayor and City Commission with a report regarding the feasibility of providing in-house towing services
and utilizing Terminal Island for towed vehicle storage. There were various advantages identified, most
notable was Terminal Island's zoning designation. There were also various challenges identified, most
notable were traffic impact on the MacArthur Causeway and the intersections of 5th and Alton Road and
Terminal Island. The City Commission directed the Administration to conduct a traffic analysis of the areas
of concern and further refine the in-house towing analysis.
The Administration is proceeding with the directives of the City Commission; however, both towing permits
expire on August 31, 201 1. Therefore, in order to continue providing towing services for the police and
parking departments, a month-to-month extension of the towing permits is necessary. Said month-to-
month extension would commence on September 1, 201 1 and expire on December 31, 201 1.
I I
Financial Information:
I I
Source of Amount Account Approved
Funds: I
El 2
OBPl Total
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: 1 Saul Frances, ext. 6483
AGENDA ITEM C7L
MIAMIBEACH
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 City Commission
FROM: City Manager Jorge M. Gonzalez
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING MONTH TO
MONTH EXTENSIONS OF THE TOWING PERMITS WITH BEACH TOWING
SERVICES, INC. AND TREMONT TOWING SERVICES, INC., RESPECTIVELY;
SAID EXTENSIONS COMMENCING ON SEPTEMBER 1,201 1, AND EXPIRING
NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 31,201 1.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
ANALYSIS
The towing service providers Tremont Towing located at 1861 Bay Road, Miami Beach,
Florida and Beach Towing, located at 1349 Dade Boulevard, Miami Beach, Florida, each
currently have a permit issued by the City to provide towing services to the Police and
Parking Departments. On November 20,1996, the Mayor and City Commission waived, by
,a 517th~ vote, the competitive bidding requirement, and approved an extension of the towing
permits for a period of two years, to expire on November 30,1998. On November 18,1998,
the Mayor and City Commission approved two (2) additional one (1) year options, to be
renewed at the sole discretion of the City. The second one (1) year option expired on
November 30,2000. On October 18,2000, the Mayor and City Commission waived, by a
517th~ vote, the competitive bidding requirement, and approved a two (2) year contract, with
three (3) one-year options, to be renewed at the sole discretion of the City. Subsequently, all
renewal options were exercised. On January 1 1,2006, the Mayor and Commission waived
by 517'~ vote the competitive bidding requirement and approved a three (3) year agreement
commencing on March I, 2006 and expiring on February28,2009, with a two (2) year option
for renewal, at the sole and absolute discretion of the City. On July 15,2009, the Mayor and
City Commission approved Resolution No. 2009-271 51, approving an extension of the
towing permits, commencing on September 1,2009 and expiring on the date that Tremont
Towing was required to vacate its premises for construction of the Sunset Harbor Garage
Project or August 31,201 1.
Vehicle impoundments continue to be a necessary tool for both the police and parking
department in order to properly manage traffic and parking throughout the City. On June 1,
201 1, the Administration provided the Mayor and City Commission with a report regarding
the feasibility of providing in-house towing services and utilizing Terminal Island for towed
vehicle storage. There were various advantages identified, most notable was Terminal
Island's zoning designation. There were also various challenges identified, most notable
were traffic impacts on the MacArthur Causeway and the intersections of 5" Street and Alton
Road as well as Terminal Island. The City Commission directed the Administration to
conduct a traffic analysis of the areas of concern and further refine the in-house towing
analysis.
July1 3, 20 I I
City Commission Memorandum
Towing Permits Extension
Page 2 of 2
The Administration is proceeding with the directives of the City Commission; however, both
towing permits expire on August 31,201 1. Therefore, in order to continue providing towing
services for the police and parking departments, a month-to-month extension of the towing
permits is necessary. Said month-to-month extension would commence on September 1,
201 1 and expire on December 31,201 1.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and Commission approve month-to-month
extensions of the towing permits with Beach Towing Service and Tremont Towing Service,
respectively, commencing on September 1,201 1 and expiring on December 31,201 1.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A MONTH
TO MONTH EXTENSION OF THE TOWING PERMITS WITH BEACH
TOWING SERVICES, INC. AND TREMONT TOWING SERVICES, INC.,
RESPECTIVELY; SAID EXTENSION COMMENCING ON SEPTEMBER I,
201 1, AND EXPIRING ON DECEMBER 31,201 1.
WHEREAS, Chapter 106, Article V, of the Miami Beach City Code, provides for
the issuance by the City of towing permits for the towing of vehicles identified by the
City as requiring removal from public and private property; and
WHEREAS, vehicle impoundments are a necessary tool for both the Police and
Parking Department in order to properly manage traffic and parking throughout the City;
and
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2006, the Mayor and Commission approved -- ~
Resolution No. 2006-26100, waiving by 5nthS vote, the competitive bidding requirement
and approving towing permits with Beach Towing Services, Inc., and Tremont Towing
Services, Inc., respectively; said permits having an initial three (3) year term,
commencing on March I, 2006, and expiring on February 28, 2009, with a two (2) year
renewal option, at the sole and absolute discretion of the City; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2009, the Mayor and Commission approved
Resolution No. 2009-26999, approving a month to month extension of the Beach
Towing and Tremont Towing permits, commencing on March 1, 2009, and expiring on
August 31, 2009; and
WHEREAS, on July 15, 2009, the Mayor and City Commission approved
Resolution No. 2009-27151, approving an extension of the above towing permits,
commencing on September 1,2009 and expiring on August 31,201 1 ; and
WHEREAS, the Administration has received direction from the Mayor and City
Commission to evaluate the feasibility of providing in-house towing services, including
the use of Terminal Island for towed vehicle storage; and
WHERES, the Administration is proceeding with the directive of the City
Commission; and
WHEREAS, however, in order to continue providing towing services for the
Police and Parking Departments, a month-to-month extension of the Beach Towing and
Tremont Towing permits is necessary, as both towing permits shall expire on August
31,201 1; and
WHEREAS, said month-to-month extension would commence on September 1,
201 1, and expire on December 31,201 1 ; and
WHEREAS, both Beach Towing Services and Tremont Towing have agreed to
continue to providing towing services under the above month to month basis, through
December 31,201 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby authorize and approve a month to month extension of the towing
permits with Beach Towing Services, Inc. and Tremont Towing Services, Inc.,
respectively; said extension commencing on September 1, 2011, and expiring on
December 31, 201 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ,2011
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
T:\AGENDA201 I\Julyl3201 l\consent\TowingPermitExtension.res.DOC
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FnH EXECUTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
I
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A resolution accepting the recommendation of the NeighborhoodsICommunity Affairs Committee at their June
3,201 1 meeting to locate a dog park in the southern quadrant of North Shore Open Space Park; and further
authorize the installation of said dog park with funding in the amount of $91,875 as adopted in the 2010-2014
Capital Budget & 5-Year Capital lmprovement Plan.
Key Intended Outcome Supported: I Increase Satisfaction with Recreational Programs I
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): Miami Beach Customer Survey indicates 84.9% of
residents rated the City's Recreation programs as either excellent or good.
Issue: I Shall the Mayor and City Commission adopt the resolution? I
Item SummarylRecommendation:
In the past several years the residents of Miami Beach have requested the construction of dog parks within
their neighborhoods. This increase is a result of discussions held in the community and at
NeighborhoodsICommunity Affairs Committee meetings. At these meetings the residents have requested a
dog park in the North Beach community. Currently there are no dog parks north of Pinetree Park which is
located in Mid-Beach. To address this the Parks & Recreation Department requested and was awarded
$91,875 in the 2009/10 Capital Budget the for the design and construction of a dog park in the North Beach
community.
To determine the best location for the dog park in North Beach a number of community meetings were held,
an informal on-line resident survey was conducted and a discussion to approve a dog park in North Beach
was held at the June 3, 201 1, NeighborhoodsICommunity Affairs Committee meeting. The Committee
discussed the request and at the conclusion of the discussion unanimously recommended a dog park be
constructed in North Shore Open Space Park utilizing funding in the amount of $91,875, as adopted in the
2010-2014 Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital lmprovement Plan for approval by the full Commission.
Based on the thoroughly vetted community participation process, the Commission's approval of the capital
funding for the project and the recommendation of the NeighborhoodslCommunity Affairs Committee, the
Administration respecffully recommends the City Commission approve this resolution.
Advisory Board Recommendation: I NCAC review and recommendation 61311 1.
Sign-Offs:
Department Director A~ismt City Manager City Manager I
Financial Information:
" L7M AGENDA ITEM
DATE 7-/3-//
Source of
Funds:
-I OBPl
KS
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Kevin Smith, Parks & Recreation Director
1
2
3
Total
Amount
$91,875
$91,875
JMG
Account
FY 2010 Capital Budget Account No. 301-2021-069357
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\North Shore Dog Park Approval - Summary 7-13-1 1 .doc /'\
MIAMIBEACH
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 City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS/COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS COMMllTEE AT THEIR JUNE 3, 2011 MEETING TO
LOCATE A DOG PARK IN THE SOUTHERN QUADRANT OF
NORTH SHORE OPEN SPACE PARK; AND FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF SAID DOG PARK WITH
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,875 AS ADOPTED IN THE
2010-2014 CAPITAL BUDGET & 5-YEAR CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution,
FUNDING
$91,875 - FY 201 0 Capital Budget Account No. 301 -2021 -069357
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Increase satisfaction with recreational programs
BACKGROUND
In the past several years the residents of Miami Beach have increasingly requested the
construction of dog parks within their neighborhoods. To date there are a total of four
fenced dog parks and one unfenced off-leash area within the City's parks. These include
Belle Isle, Flamingo, Pinetree, South Pointe (un-fenced) and Washington Avenue (two
sites). These dog parks are heavily utilized and appreciated by our residents and their
dogs. The increased number of the City's dog parks is a direct result of a number of
discussions that were held in the community and more specifically at past
NeighborhoodslCommunity Affairs Committee meetings.
At these meetings, the residents requested an expansion of the existing Washington
Avenue Dog Park, an unfenced off-leash area in South Pointe Park, an off-leash access
to the beach at North Shore Open Space Park and a dog park in the North Beach
community.
Currently there are no dog parks north of Pinetree Park, which is located in Mid-Beach at
45'h and Pinetree Drive. To address this need, the Parks & Recreation Department
requested and was awarded funding in the amount of $91,875 in the 2009110 Capital
Budget the for the design and construction of a dog park in the North Beach community.
July 13, 201 1
Commission Memorandum
Approval of a North Shore Dog Park
Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS
In order to determine the most suitable location within the North Beach area of the City,
the Parks and Recreation Department, with the assistance of Caroline DeFreze,
Community Resource Coordinator, Office of the City Manager, contacted
representatives of the North Beach community including the North Beach Development
Corporation and the North Beach Homeowners Associations. Mr. Daniel Veitia also
assisted thru the utilization of his resident data base. The Parks & Recreation
Department held a number of discussions and community meetings to conceptualize,
plan and design a dog park to serve the North Beach area of the city. These concepts
were presented and approved during two community meetings.
September 10. 201 0 Informal Online Resident Survey1 Actions Taken
An informal electronic survey was conducted todetermine the residents'
preferred location for the proposed dog park along with other site amenities desired for
the dog park. The department received 43 responses and the survey data obtained was
very informative. =
Several site criteria and amenity desires were developed from this process along with
those from professional experience and research including;
Space: the proposed location requires adequate room. The American Kennel
Club (AKC) recommends a minimum of 1 acre for off-leash dog parks with a
benchmark capacity of 25 dogs per acre where possible.
Centralized: the site should be well within the North Beach Area.
Parking: users required adequate available parking that would not tax
existing parking patterns.
Pedestrian Friendly: ADA sidewalk access and road crossing signals that
provide the opportunity to walk the dogs to the facility were highly desirous.
Shade: tree canopy within and adjacent to the off-leash area is important to
provide temperature relief.
Additionally, the list of requested amenities identified in the survey included; two
separate double gated enclosures, one for dogs under 25 Ibs and the other for larger
dogs, dog friendly seating benches, dog drinking fountains, trash receptacles, dog
waste stations and nearby restroom facilities. Skill and training equipment was also
listed as a desire but they were not highly requested. Please refer to Attachment - A - to
find a summary of the survey results and respondents comments.
September 28, 201 0 Publiclv Noticed Communitv Meeting1 Actions Taken
A meeting was held to review the outcome of the survey results. During the meeting it
was apparent that the majority of those surveyed wanted the off-leash area to be located
at either;
The Southern entrance to North Shore Open Space Park (NSOSP) between 79th
to 81 Street to the West of the Miami-Dade County Operations location or
July 13, 201 1
Commission Memorandum
Approval of a North Shore Dog Park
Page 3 of 3
The Dickens Avenue and 73rd Street site surrounding the existing Community
Garden.
Based on the applied criteria, survey results and community meeting, North Shore Open
Space Park was deemed the better of the two locations because this location can
accommodate a large dog off-lease area of over 1.3 acres, allows for user parking,
provides safe pedestrian access, is shaded and restrooms are located nearby. Whereas
the area near the community garden was less than a half acre in size, did not have
nearby restrooms and minimal parking.
A~ril28, 201 1 Community Chrrette and Pro~osall Actions Taken
A Community meeting to present the draft plan and seek input and comments from our
residents was held. The meeting took place at North Shore Park and Youth Center at
6:OOpm. Those who attended the meeting responded positively to the proposals.
As many of their requests had been considered in the preliminary designs the response
was enthusiastic. The site in North Shore Open Space Park was also well received and - ..
determined to be the primary preference for the new North Beach Dog Park. Please
refer to Attachment - B - to find a copy of the conceptual drawing of the North Shore
Open Space Park Dog Park Layout provided to the meeting attendees.
June 3, 201 1 NeirrhborhoodslCommunitv Affairs Committee Meeting
At the June 3, 201 1, Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee meeting the
members were presented with a request and supporting documentation from the
Administration to discuss, review and if acceptable recommend a location to the full
Commission for the construction of the North Beach Dog Park utilizing the approved
capital project funding. The Committee discussed the request and at the conclusion
of the discussion unanimously recommended a dog park be constructed in the
southern quadrant of North Shore Open Space Park utilizing funding in the
amount of $91,875, as adopted in the 2010-2014 Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital
Improvement Plan.
Based on the community expressed need and desire to have a dog park in the North
Beach community, the approval by the City Commission during the 2009-10 budget
process to expend capital budget funding for the dog park, the comprehensive vetting
process to identify the recommended location for the North Beach Dog Park, the
unanimous recommendation by the NeighborhoodsICommunity Affairs Committee for a
dog park in the southern quadrant on North Shore Open Space Park at their June 3,
201 1 meeting, the Administration respectFully requests the City Commission approve this
resolution. It is anticipated that the construction of this project will be managed in-house
by the Parks and Recreation Department's Greenspace Management Division. The
department is also working with the Planning Department to ensure the design meets
their criteria prior to the commencement of construction. The construction will commence
follow the receipt of all required approvals of final design. The physical construction
timeline is approximately 90 days from the date of implementation.
JMGI HMFIKS
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\North Shore Dog Park Approval - Comm. Memo 7-13-1 1 .doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE NElGHBORHOODSlCOMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AT THEIR
JUNE 3,2011 MEETING TO LOCATE A DOG PARK IN THE SOUTHERN
QUADRANT OF NORTH SHORE OPEN SPACE PARK; AND FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF SAID DOG PARK WITH
FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $91,875 AS ADOPTED IN THE 2010-2014
CAPITAL BUDGET & 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT.
WHEREAS, in the past several years the residents of Miami Beach have increasingly
requested the construction of dog parks within their neighborhoods and to date there are a total
of four fenced dog parks and one unfenced off-leash area within the City's parks. These include
Belle Isle, Flamingo, Pinetree, South Pointe (un-fenced) and Washington Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the increased number of the City's dog parks is a direct result of a number
of discussions that were held in the community and at past NeighborhoodsICommunity Affairs
Committee meetings; and
WHEREAS, at these meetings the residents have requested an expansion of the
existing Washington Avenue Dog Park, an unfenced off-leash area in South Pointe Park, an off-
leash access to the beach at North Shore Open Space Park and a dog park in the North Beach
community; and
WHEREAS, currently there are no dog parks north of Pinetree Park which is located in
Mid-Beach at 45'h and Pinetree Drive; and
WHEREAS, to address this need the Parks & Recreation Department requested and
was awarded funding in the amount of $91,875 in the 200911 0 Capital Budget the for the design
and construction of a dog park in the North Beach community; and
WHEREAS, in order to determine the best location for the dog park in North Beach a
number of community meetings were held, an on-line resident survey was conducted and a
discussion was held at the June 3, 201 1, NeighborhoodslCommunity Affairs Committee
meeting: and
WHEREAS, the NeighborslCommunity Affairs Committee discussed the request and at
the conclusion of the discussion unanimously recommended a dog park be constructed in the
southern quadrant of North Shore Open Space Park utilizing funding in the amount of $91,875,
as adopted in the 2010-2014 Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan be
forwarded to the full City Commission; and
WHEREAS, based on the community expressed need and desire to have a dog park in
the North Beach community, the approval by the City Commission during the 2009-10 budget
process to expend capital budget funding for the dog park, the comprehensive vetting process
to identify the recommended location for the North Beach Dog Park, the unanimous
recommendation by the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee for a dog park in the
southern quadrant on North Shore Open Space Park at their June 3, 2011 meeting, the
Administration respectfully requests the City Commission approve this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby accept the recommendation of the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs
Committee at their June 3, 201 1 meeting to locate a dog park in the southern quadrant of North
Shore Open Space Park; and further authorize the installation of said dog park with funding in
the amount of $91,875 as adopted in the 2010-2014 Capital Budget & 5-Year Capital
Improvement Plan.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of July, 201 1.
ATTEST:
MATT1 HERRERA BOWER,
MAYOR
ROBERT PARCHER, CITY CLERK
F:\rcpa\$ALL\Previous\KEVIN\Commission 201 1 Wuly 13 - 201 I\North Shore Dog Park Approval - Resolution 7-1 3-1 1 .doc
ARACHMENT- A -
September 10,201 0 Online Resident Survey
Summary of the Survey Results and Respondents Comments
e S
Total C Sum11fq 46 (1Wsh)
Page: North &a& Diag Park m~maiE-e
1, Haw
5. How far wadd yw in order to trge yaw dogfs] to an oRleash park?
Qpe of feamw wauM you to see at a dog park?
7* 47.FA 21
dog park loc~hd in the North Ba~b Di
9. W'bRt is )WU. wsteH ran=% abmt hxhg a dog park?
Rwme W To%il Shz%d Sun-ey: 46
Total Ceqletd .Fua.sqz 46 (1WYo)
Page: North Beach Dag Pad @doqhe
Text Rapo~ws to Qaes~m.
14 Text Req~mc5 to Quwtia~ #E:
2. W"hcre do pa c~zriantly mh ysw d~g to walk, socialize *miE ese~riw?
kk
9'24jf 0 12:02,U4
43rd &eett b& park
9: 3 '7lf O 10:24,Q&
BACK
9i1 1Q:20,M
close fa &is am ~dme they cfm rrnn xozmd ki a s&e
Brl71EO 10:2arnf
Smrneplice which is new used
9t1M18 6:2P&f
wkemIp.
9: I4i1Q 3:42PiI
sm~r,mtm Wed Park
9i;l4/1Q 2:ePM
Beach m+a& at 74St
in my &@dood
9114!10 10:07&Uf
9j14iIQ lQ:mAmf
S~il~fh Beach
91141ltl 6:58dQI
I ww~1Q like a do; park MP N& &ach
Bjld'10 5:26&GI
Da
9if%/1Q f l:aBPdM
SP, am=, Beach
9ilQlf 0 3:38PM
%:'22dlQ %:33PM
early a am08
late &emm
9f17:'10 S:59P&f
9/17!10 6:MPhf
7m & tip
%l BIB 3:24PM
m
Wt7tJ!'XiO f2:52&&2
a& 5p
52::"17110 I l:2'7A4&i
bkmhgdml&edam
9/ $711 0 10:59,M
sr'l71l0 16:20,%4
4gsu
w&& mdy
9117clO 1O:f 'lAM
bey
8:'17iIO 8:54h4
10m8p9n
9r'l&l0 6:2TM
HQ
Cc;lr'lG!lO 523PM
Mmom
9!1MTO 5:BSPRf
2lBmoa
Pt15dlO 9:WLWi
hte i3fkarnf-8
NofztArtI1. I!Im&gsdsli,'e~*tXka3bach~~R. IWhtblongw&is a mt
to mdrnM~Wh w~~ clogs I!! Wagpxb & n~it.Smsvenk%cEawa!
g!15t10 4:2ddQI
71ara~
9!'1411r'I0 10:mM
36 Text Respms to Quwtioa #6:
R%at time of day wadd JWIE xisit the park?
32 Tea &spms ti0 Qw~aa #%:
8. W'h:e~e woaM you lib to see a dsg park bc1ted h the Ear& Beitch fisnirt dmd
why?
it is dy two blocks
9ik4JIEB 12:EMZ
Bimy Wp&-
g/2;",!10 1:33Ph4
$;pace Park QE my o&er central f~rztim bNorth Baa
om!
911g!lO 1:24&W
FS
9187f'ttO 6:MPhI
flke-;~~ 73ad %f,. 0-s $m
%' 1"17:18 5: 24Phf
mar 71 st.mmdal! tl
9/17!$,r'98 11:27,@ti
where if m&s the ocean- like aaMh poin$e pxk
7/10 10: 59mf
Wd beach ap space
9117!$,r'90 10:24,W
E
91 17110 18:20&M
hyhae withk a de of where I live my ~w 33141) If it is too far, I mk*
w& IBX amd the bb&.
9117i10 10:2t,mf
wmtd t~ pt! RY space is mAlable,
BCl7/,zZO 8: 54*Oi'i
me wad& be Sab&a park police dlog pa& dong Altos 3dhr lmsed
9!16!10 6:2mhI
P:
9!16!18 5:"dPM
fi&em ad 7%. h is in the
9:"16!10 5:OSPk4
Hat
9!1%,P10 4:2dAQi
yes -RT need me
Q~I~~IO 10:mmx
or Ha& *%me
9!14:"10 5:SPPM
9!114/16 3:4ZM
fekv fm police hgs
Q/j;i,"l4!18 2:4@hf
WE have ta &WE 5+ miles to a park - -here ae &@ btk &trit3!
!i21 14.P"IO 1 1 :03*mj
32 Text Rewiaws Qnfitiaa #8:
8. WBere wadd 5-m ta SET a dqg park lwa ted in. the Kortb Beach Dishict a~d
wh~?
OnBi beWma 74 75 - next to the gaden. I9 is clme by md
paw k pr*aq. Aim, at3
&BkE*
934i10 18:34,W
pa rrf the n chm space: pa& Wwtd to &g park kim~ld be easy to @ to, am3 1
cmdd dm take my kids b play ia the m eqme is happy
9l's'fU
EI.~
9!14! LO 1Q:Mmf
hphae ia gt ~ox-tb beach ze
9!$4!lO 5:2fidU$
Near &e Bach dmg GcaW by the Lag Cab
9!f3PEO l1:33PM
Nd Shx park
9'13!10 ll:23PM
New anyhow
8"13;'10 11: 10Phi
Nmdy Shorn bt saws &QM QlfC
9!11i10 7:X5Phf
CaBk xmd 77 to 79 Smb
9?lQ!lQ 10:3IP&I
&g paks in the pocket Jn the Ma-& Shm
9: 10: 10 3: 3 5Pkf
Nee& $6 be
9/17/10 10:%4,W
DOGS bfIGHT FIGHT. NOT
9r'l "F 10 10: 20-W
We &e pa& at h Tree P%r&, I jwd wish &me wzs a way to kq the ps
Imga Wre hkg to close it ax! sxviS to 0th side" I don't bw ifthere k XI
artificial hdht WOIB \v& ifthat is a &aster with dogs ping ta &E bmm m
it.
9i17i10 1Q:1IiW
ATTACHMENT- 6 -
Conceptual Drawing of the North Shore Open Space Park
Dog Park Layout
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida approving a
settlement agreement between the AT&T Corporation, and the City of Miami Beach and authorizing
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a settlement agreement in a form acceptable, and legally
sufficient to the City Attorney and City Manager, and further authorizing the City Attorney and City
Manager to take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish the intent thereof.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
' Maintain crime rates at or below national trends.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): Pursuant to the 2009 Community
Survey by The Center For Research and Public Policy residential respondents reported the
following as their top three most important public safety areas for the City: Preventing Crime
44.g0h, Enforcing Traffic Laws 36.1 % and Increasing Visibility of Police in Neighborhoods 32.4%.
- -- -
Issue:
Shall the Administration adopt the Resolution? I
Item SummarylRecommendation:
( The Citv of Miami Beach maintained an agreement with the AT&T Corporation since December 8, 1
2009, which provides emergency 911 telephone service and support for the Miami Beach Police
Department (MBPD) Public Safety Communications Unit. This agreement mandated that the quality
of the telephone service would meet specific industry standards, which included but not limited to the
clear and consistent audible telephone transmissions and reception for a monthly fee of $3,254.17 per
month.
Unfortunately, the quality of the telephone service has been functioning below industry standards with
poor audio transmissions, reception quality and the inability to dial certain area codes. In addition,
the automatic call distributor and management information software portion of AT&T Corporation
telephone system has not functioned as designed, and has failed to distribute inbound telephone calls
equitably to the Public Safety Communications Unit Communications Operators, and some instances,
failed to completely distribute telephone calls as required under the agreement.
Further, the Positron Viper Power Management Information software and Positron Viper Power Map
software was not generating accurate statistics such as how many Communications Operators were
on a call for service and how many of the Operators were not on a call.
As a result, the MBPD withheld the monthly service fee payments in the total amount of $58,639.81.
Since the action of holding up the payment of the monthly maintenance fee the AT&T Corporation has
corrected all the deficiencies, with the exception of the accurate reporting of statistics which is being
corrected with their new software release designed to alleviate the problem.
This action enabled the City of Miami Beach by and through the MBPD to reach a settlement
agreement subject to Commission approval that will credit the MBPD the $58,639.81 and release I AT&T Corporation of further liability or claim.
Advisorv Board Recommendation:
I I
Financial Information:
I I I
Financial Impact Summary:
NA
u 1 OBPl
Account Source of
Funds:
I I
Total 1
- . tJ public Safety Communications Unit
Sign-Offs: -
1
~epar$nent Director
Amount
Assistant City Marlager City Manager
@ MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.rniarnibeachfl.gov
MEMO # COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MlAM BEACH, FLORIDA APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE AT&T CORPORATION, AND THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ClTY CLERK TO EXECUTE A SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE, AND LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, TO THE
ClTY ATTORNEY AND ClTY MANAGER TO TAKE SUCH FURTHER ACTIONS AS
MAY BE NECESSARY ACCOMPLISH THE INTENT THEREOF.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Resolution.
ANALYSIS
The City of Miami Beach maintained an agreement with the AT&T Corporation since December 8,
2009, which provides emergency 91 1 telephone service and support for the Miami Beach Police
Department (MBPD) Public Safety Communications Unit. This agreement mandated that the
quality of the telephone service would meet specific industry standards, which included but not
limited to the clear and consistent audible telephone transmissions and reception for a monthly
fee of $3,254.17 per month.
Unfortunately, the quality of the telephone service has been functioning below industry standards
with poor audio transmissions, reception quality and the inability to dial certain area codes. In
addition, the automatic call distributor and management information software portion of AT&T
Corporation telephone system has not functioned as designed, and has failed to distribute
inbound telephone calls equitably to the Public Safety Communications Unit Communications
Operators, and some instances, failed to completely distribute telephone calls as required under
the agreement.
Further, the Positron Viper Power Management Information software and Positron Viper Power
Map software was not generating accurate statistics such as how many Communications
Operators were on a call for service and how many of the Operators were not on a call.
As a result, the MBPD withheld the monthly service fee payments in the total amount of
$58,639.81. Since the action of holding up the payment of the monthly maintenance fee the AT&T
Corporation has corrected all the deficiencies, with the exception of the accurate reporting of
statistics which is being corrected with their new software release designed to alleviate the
problem.
n enabled the City of Miami Beach by and through the MBPD to reach a settlement
t subject to Commission approval that will credit the MBPD the $58,639.81 and release
of further liability or claim.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE
ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING A SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AT&T CORPORATION, AND THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE, AND LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER, AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING
THE ClTY ATTORNEY AND ClTY MANAGER TO TAKE SUCH
FURTHER ACTIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH
THE INTENT THEREOF.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach has maintained an Agreement with the AT&T
Corporation since December 8, 2009, and said Agreement provides emergency 91 1 telephone - d
service and support for the Miami Beach Police Department Public Safety Communications
Unit; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement mandated that the quality of the telephone service would
meet specific industry standards, which included but was not limited to, the clear and consistent
audible telephone transmissions and reception for a monthly fee of $3,254.17 per month; and
WHEREAS, the quality of the telephone service has been functioning below industry
standards with poor audio transmissions, reception quality and the inability to dial certain area
codes; and
WHEREAS, the automatic call distributor and management information software portion
of the AT&T Corporation telephone system has not functioned as designed, and has failed to
distribute inbound telephone calls equitably to the Public Safety Communications Unit
Communications Operators, and in some instances, failed to completely distribute telephone
calls as required under the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach, by and through the Miami Beach Police
Department, withheld the monthly service fee payments in the total amount of $58,639.81; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have reached a tentative settlement, subject to City Commission
approval; and
WHEREAS, approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement is in the best interest of the
City in that it avoids further costs and risks of litigation, and protects the City from future
litigation and expense; and
WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, among others, the City Manager recommends
that the City Commission approve the Settlement Agreement, authorize the Mayor and City
Manager to execute the Settlement Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and
City Manager, and authorize the City Manager and the City Attorney to take such further actions
as may be necessary to accomplish the intent thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CIW
COMMISSION OF THE CIW OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, approve a Settlement Agreement
between the AT&T Corporation, and the City of Miami Beach, and authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute a Settlement Agreement in a form acceptable, and legally sufficient, to the City
Attorney and City Manager, and further authorize the City Attorney and City Manager to take
such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish the intent thereof.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of July, 201 1.
ATTEST BY:
MAYOR MATTI HERRERA BOWER
ROBERT PARCHER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO
-:
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
2ondensed Title:
A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute Amendment No. 1 To The
Agreement Between he City And clear Channel Adshel, Inc. (Contractor) To Construct, Operate And
Maintain Bus Shelter Structures And Other Street Furniture Throughout The City, Pursuant To Request
For Proposals No. 107-99100; Said Amendment Exercising The City's Option To Renew The Agreement
For The First Five (5) Year Renewal Term, Commencing On October 1,201 1, And Ending On September
30,2016, With The Option To Renew For A Second Five Year Renewal Term, At The City Manager's Sole
Option And Discretion; Increasing The Minimum Annual Guarantee Payable To The City Through Out The
Term; And Requiring Contractor To Submit A Proposal To The City For The Development (Or Conversion
Of Existing, As The Case May Be) Of A To Be Agreed Upon Number Of LCD Bus Shelters Throughout
The City, Which Will Be Developed, Designed, Fabricated, Installed, Operated, And Maintained At
Contractor's Sole Cost And Expense.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Maintain City infrastructure. Enhance mobility throughout the community.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
I I
Issue:
Should the Mayor and City Commission Adopt the Resolution?
The City Commission is requested to approve the attached resolution that renews the current
agreement with Adshel Clear Channel (Clear Channel) for five years, with the option for an
additional five year renewal, to construct, operate and maintain bus shelter structures and
other street furniture throughout the City. The agreement provides for: an increase in the
percent of advertising revenue shared with Clear Channel; an increase in the annual payment
to the City; and, a requirement to provide the City with a proposal for interactive digital
displays in place of the current static advertising in bus shelters. Approval of the agreement
will result in increased revenue for the City. For example, if this agreement were applied to
the 2010 numbers (final revenue of $486,647) the City would have seen an increase of
$143,324.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee, May 19,201 1 requested that the negotiated renewal be brought
to them for action.
Financial Information:
Source of $ ,
&@count $:::
1 Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: 1 Duncan Ballantyne, Ext. 6163
Sian-Offs:
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 i~dshel summary
' Agenda Item C70
I Date 7 //&/I
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.aov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute
Amendment No. 1 To The Agreement Between The City And Clear Channel Adshel,
Inc. (Contractor) To Construct, Operate And Maintain Bus Shelter Structures And
Other Street Furniture Throughout The City, Pursuant To Request For Proposals No. - .-
107-99100; Said Amendment Exercising The City's Option To Renew The Agreement
For The First Five (5) Year Renewal Term, Commencing On October 1, 201 1, And
Ending On September 30, 2016, With The Option To Renew For A Second Five Year
Renewal Term, At The City's Sole Option And Discretion; Increasing The Minimum
Annual Guarantee Payable To The City Through Out The Term; And Requiring
Contractor To Submit A Proposal To The City For The Development (Or Conversion
Of Existing, As The Case May Be) Of A To Be Agreed Upon Number Of LCD Bus
Shelters Throughout The City, Which Will Be Developed, Designed, Fabricated,
Installed, Operated, And Maintained At Contractor's Sole Cost And Expense.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution to renew the City's agreement with Adshellclear Channel for a five (5)
year period with the option to renew for an additional five (5) year period.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME
Maintain infrastructure and enhance mobility throughout the community.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Commission is requested to approve the attached Resolution that renews the current
agreement with Adshel Clear Channel (Clear Channel) for five years, with the option for an
additional five year renewal, to construct, operate and maintain bus shelter structures and other
street furniture throughout the City. The agreement provides for: an increase in the percent of
advertising revenue shared with Clear Channel; an increase in the annual payment to the City;
and, a requirement to provide the City with a proposal for interactive digital displays in place of
the current static advertising in bus shelters. Approval of the agreement will result in increased
revenue for the City. For example, if this agreement were applied to the 2010 numbers (final
revenue of $486,647) the City would have seen an increase of $143,324.
BACKGROUND
The current agreement originated October 17, 2001, extends to October 17, 201 1 with the
option for a five-year renewal, and currently covers 100 bus shelters and assorted street
furniture, e.g. bus benches, trash cans. At the May 19, 2011 meeting of the Finance and
Citywide Projects Committee, there was discussion of comparable rates for sharing advertising
revenue, how other cities handle bus shelter advertising, Clear Channel's competitors, elements
of a proposed renewal agreement, and a presentation on Clear Channel's interactive digital
displays in San Francisco.
The Committee:
1. Asked that the deadline to determine renewal be extended from June 1, 201 1 to October
1, 201 1 and that the negotiated proposal to renew the current agreement be brought to
the full Commission;
2. Recommended that the structures pending construction or capital investment be put in
abeyance until the agreement is renewed; and,
3. Asked that an amendment to the agreement be developed to incorporate the interactive
digital shelters (displays) and is brought back to the Finance and Citywide Projects
Committee. -
in summary response: the deadline for the renewal decision has been moved to October 1,
2011; the negotiated resolution to renew the current agreement is attached; no additional
structures or capital investment has been undertaken in the interim; and, the requirement for a
proposal for interactive digital displays by Clear Channel is part of this agreement.
ANALYSIS
Revenue
The following compares revenues generated in the current agreement with the proposed
renewal agreement.
1. Static advertising display annual minimum payment
Current agreement: $240,000 annually.
Proposed agreement: $260,000 annually.
2. Static advertising display revenue sharing
Current agreement: Currently 20% net revenue. 10% net revenue sharing years 1
through 3, 15% net revenue sharing years 4 through 7, and 20% net revenue sharing
years 8 through 10. Year 10 ends October 17,201 1.
Proposed agreement: 30% upon five year renewal, 35% upon additional five year
renewal if option is exercised.
Term -
Net Revenue Sharing
Current City Agreement (Years 1
through 10, ending October 17,2011)
Current City Agreement 5 Year Renewal
(Years 11 through 15)
Proposed 5 Year Renewal (Years 11
through 15)
Proposed Additional 5 Year Renewal
(Years 16 through 20)
The renewal is for a five year term with the option for an additional five year term at the City's a:
sole discretion.
Interactive Digital Dis~lavs
Both Clear Channel and the City are interested in exploring the replacement of the static
advertising displays in bus shelters with interactive digital displays. lnteractive digital displays
provide both digital advertising as well as the ability for a pedestrian to 'interact' with the display
through touch in some way. At their May 19, 2011 meeting, members of the Finance and
Citywide Projects Committee received a presentation from Clear Channel on an award winning
interactive neighborhood game competition on interactive digital displays in San Francisco.
Administration is interested in using the interactive feature as a means to provide public
information such as transit information, event information, directions and maps, public safety -
and, yes, perhaps a South Beach, Mid Beach, and North Beach competition. As far as we know,
Miami Beach would be the first in the nation to incorporate interactive public information on bus
shelter displays.
Static
Display
Revenue
Share %
20%
25%
30%
35%
As the interactive digital displays both generate additional revenue and feature interactive
features that could provide helpful information to tourists, residents, and transit users,
Administration believes that these enhancements may provide value. However, the technology
is very new and whether the City Commission finds it to be appropriate for Miami Beach is yet to
be determined. Thus, the City and Clear Channel will be working to provide the City
Commission with a 'hands-on' presentation of an interactive digital display incorporating public
information later this year. If desired by the City Commission, this renewal agreement requires
that Clear Channel will then present the City with a proposal to install these displays in City bus
shelters.
Annual
Payment
$240,000
$240,000
$260,000
$260,000
Example
Using
2010
Revenue
$246,647
$308,309
$369,970
$431,632
Administrative Recommendation
Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the renewal of the agreement
through the approval of the attached Resolution.
Total
Example
Using
2010
Revenue
$486,647
$568,309
$629,970
$691,632
% Increase
from 2010
Current
City
Agreement
Using 2010
Example
0%
17% -
29%
42%
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. I TO THE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND CLEAR CHANNEL
ADSHEL, INC. (CONTRACTOR) TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND
MAINTAIN BUS SHELTER STRUCTURES AND OTHER STREET
FURNITURE THROUGHOUT THE CITY, PURSUANT TO REQUEST
FOR PROPOSALS NO. 107-99100; SAID AMENDMENT
EXERCISING THE CITY'S OPTION TO RENEW THE AGREEMENT
FOR THE FIRST FlVE (5) YEAR RENEWAL TERM, COMMENCING
ON NOVEMBER I, 2011, AND ENDING ON OCTOBER 31, 2016,
WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR A SECOND FlVE YEAR
RENEWAL TERM, AT THE CITY'S SOLE OPTION AND
DISCRETION; INCREASING THE MINIMUM ANNUAL GUARANTEE
PAYABLE TO THE CITY THROUGHOUT THE TERM; AND
REQUIRING CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL TO THE
CITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT (OR CONVERSION OF EXISTING,
AS THE CASE MAY BE) OF A TO BE AGREED UPON NUMBER
OF LCD BUS SHELTERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, WHICH WILL
BE DEVELOPED, DESIGNED, FABRICATED, INSTALLED,
OPERATED, AND MAINTAINED AT CONTRACTOR'S SOLE COST
AND EXPENSE.
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2001, the Mayor and City Commission approved
Resolution No. 2001-24650, approving an Agreement between the City and Clear
Channel Adshel, Inc. to construct, operate and maintain bus shelter structures and other
street furniture throughout the City, pursuant to City of Miami Beach Request For
Proposals No. 107-99100, dated October 17, 2001 (the "Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the initial ten (10) term of the Agreement expires on October 31,
201 11; the parties hereby wish to exercise the remaining five (5) year renewal term and,
in consideration therefore, also amend certain terms and conditions of the Agreement;
all as set forth in the attached Amendment No. I to the Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
attached Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement between the City of Miami Beach, Florida
and Clear Channel Adshel, Inc. to construct, operate and maintain bus shelter
structures and other street furniture throughout the City, pursuant to City of Miami
Beach Request for Proposals No. 107-99100; said amendment exercising the City's
option to renew the Agreement for the first five (5) year renewal term, commencing on
November 1, 2011, and ending on October 31, 2016, with the option to renew for a
second five year renewal term, at the City's sole option and discretion; increasing the
minimum annual guarantee payable to the City throughout the term; ;and requiring
contractor to submit a proposal to the City for the development (on conversion of
existing, as the case may be) of a to be agreed upon number of LCD bus shelters
throughout the City, which will be developed, designed, fabricated, installed, operated,
and maintained at contractor's sole cost and expense.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of June, 201 1.
Matti Herrera Bower, Mayor
ATTEST:
Robert Parcher, City Clerk
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-ll\Adshel Reso.docx
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
AMENDMENT NO. I TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH,
FLORIDA AND CLEAR CHANNEL ADSHEL, INC. TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND
MAINTAIN BUS SHELTERS STRUCTURES AND OTHER STREET FURNITURE
THROUGHOUT THE CITY, PURSUANT TO CITY OF MlAMl BEACH REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS NO. 107-99100
This Amendment No. 1 (this "Amendment"), is made and executed as of this day of
, 2011 (the "Effective Date"), by and between the ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH,
FLORIDA, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida
(the "City"), and CLEAR CHANNEL ADSHEL, INC., a New York corporation, whose principal
place of business is located at 780 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10017 (the
"Contractor").
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the parties entered into that certain Agreement Between the City of Miami
Beach, Florida and Clear Channel Adshel, Inc. to Construct, Operate and Maintain Bus Shelter -: Structures and Other Street Furniture Throughout the City, Pursuant to City of Miami Beach
Request For Proposals No. 107-99100, dated October 17, 2001 (the "Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the initial Term of the Agreement expires on October 31, 201 1, and the
parties hereby wish to extend the Term and amend the Agreement in accordance with the terms
set forth herein.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and conditions contained
herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, City and Contractor hereby agree as follows:
1. The above Recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Upon written request by the City, the Contractor shall submit an LCD Bus
Shelter(s) Proposal (as defined herein) to the City Manager within 120 days.
3. Section 1 of the Agreement, entitled "Definitions," shall add the following
definition for "LCD Bus Shelter(s) Proposal":
1.14 "LCD Bus Shelter(s) Proposal" shall mean a detailed written
proposal submitted to the City by Contractor, at its sole cost and expense,
detailinq Contractor's plan for the desiqn and development or conversion (as the
case mav be), fabrication, installation, operation, and maintenance of Bus
Shelters usinq LCD technoloqv and shall, at a minimum, include the followinq
information:
(i) number of new and/or number of existinq Bus Shelters to be
developed or converted (as the case may be);
{ii) sample photos of existinq bus shelters that use LCD technology
that Contractor has developed and installed in other iurisdictions,
as well as accompanyinq summaw of how such programs have
worked;
(iii) artist's renderinq(s) or conceptual drawinq(s) showinq. in sufficient
detail, what the proposed Bus Shelters will look like;
(iv) photos, renderinqs, andlor conceptual drawinqs showinq what the
interactive diqital advertisinq displav panels will look like, and how
thev are intended to work;
(v) summarv of proposed uses for interactive displav panels (i.e.
diqital advertisinq; games; etc.), with emphasis on anv proposed
"public uses" (i.e. includinq, without limitation, public programming
and public information related to. for example, transit operations,
public safetv, events, maps and routes, etc.);
(vi) technical specifications and requirements for operation of
interactive displav panels, including. without limitation, any
additional hardware or support technoloqv required to be added to
or affixed to the Shelters to operate and power such panels;
(vii) power source requirements;
(viii) preliminarv timeline and schedule for development andlor
conversion, outlinina proiect milestones from commencement of
desiqn through final completion and activation (Note: Contractor's
proposal should take into account development andlor conversion
of a minimum of ten (10) Bus Shelters); and
(ix) Contractor's proposed project costslcapital investment (Note: As
required in the October 17, 2001 Aqreement between Citv and
Contractor. Contractor shall be solelv responsible, and shall
assume all costs, for development, fabrication, installation,
operation, and maintenance of the Bus Shelters).
4. Section 7 of the Agreement, entitled "Term," is hereby amended as follows:
This Agreement shall be for an initial term e&kn (1 0) commencing
on November 1, 2001, and terminating on October 31, 201
of the initial term, and in consideration of the additional terms and conditions
contained in this Amendment, the City and Contractor aqree that the Aqreement
shall be renewed for a term of five (5) years, commencing on November 1, 201 1,
and endinq on October 31, 2016, unless earlier terminated, as herein provided
(the "First Renewal Term"). The City Commission, at its sole option and
discretion, may elect to renew the Aqreement for an additional five (5) vear term,
[the Second Renewal Term), by providinq written notice to Contractor no less
than 120 days prior to the end of the First Renewal Term.
5. Section 8.1 of the Agreement is amended as follows:
8.1 In addition to erecting, installing, operating, and maintaining the
Bus Shelters andlor Street Furniture contemplated by this Agreement, at its sole
cost and expense, and at no cost to the City, Contractor shall also pay to the
City, on a quarterly basis, a Minimum Annual Guarantee as follows:
Year 1 : $60,000 plus ten percent (10%) Net Revenue Sharing;
Year 2: $120,000 plus ten percent (10%) Net Revenue Sharing;
Year 3: $120,000 plus ten percent (10%) Net Revenue Sharing;
Year 4: $120,000 plus fifteen percent (15%) Net Revenue Sharing;
Year 5: $120,000 plus fifteen percent (15%) Net Revenue Sharing;
Year 6: $120,000 plus twenty percent (20%) Net Revenue Sharing;
Year 7: $120,000 plus twenty percent (20%) Net Revenue Sharing;
Year 8: $240,000 plus twenty percent (20%) Net Revenue Sharing;
Year 9: $240,000 plus twenty percent (20%) Net Revenue Sharing;
Year 10: $w260.000 plus +wenkytwenty+w& percent (2333%) Net
Revenue Sharing;4
Years 11-15: $w260,000 plus twentythirty %&?--percent (Z~/O) Net
Revenue Sharing; and
I Years 16-20: $260,000 plus thirty five percent (35%) Net Revenue Sharing,
I For purposes of this Section 8, Contractor's Net Revenues shall be
defined as its Gross Revenues less only a fifteen percent (15%) deduction of
gross revenue agency fee, which Contractor herein represents as the standard in
the industry paid to a third party for selling costs. In the event that the industry
standard is less than fifteen percent (1 5%), this Agreement shall be automatically
amended to reflect such change (and the new percentage).
The City shall receive each payment no later than the twenty fifth l2sth)
day of the month succeeding the close of the quarter. The Contractor shall
include with each payment, a statement of its advertising revenues from the sale
of advertising, for the quarter applicable to the payment. Said statements shall
be in a form acceptable to the City Manager or his designee. Any payment which
Contractor is required to make to City which is not paid on or before the
respective date provided for in this Agreement shall be subject to interest at the
rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum or the highest rate permitted under
Florida law (whichever is sreater), from the due date of payment until such time
as payment is actually received by the City. It is also understood that any
required Florida State Sales and Use Tax(es), as applicable, shall be added to
the Minimum Annual Guarantee payments, as set forth above, and forwarded to
the City as part of said payment. It is the City's intent that it is to receive the
Minimum Annual Guarantees as net, free and clear of all costs and charges
arising from or relating to Contractor's obligations pursuant to this Agreement.
6. Exhibit "A of the October 17'~, 2001 Agreement between City and Contractor
is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new, updated Exhibit "A," which
Exhibit "A is attached and incorporated as Exhibit No. 1 to this Amendment.
All references to the "South Florida Building Code" in the Agreement are
hereby amended to refer to the "Florida Building Code." In the event that,
during the Term of the Agreement, the requirements of the Florida Building
Code are no longer applicable to the City of Miami Beach, or have been
superceded by a subsequent successor authority, then all references in the
Agreement to the "Florida Building Code" shall be deemed to refer to such
successor authority having j~risd~iction in the City, without any further
amendment required herein.
8. Except as amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall
remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed by the parties hereto
as of the day and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
City Clerk Mayor
day of ,201 1.
CLEAR CHANNEL ADSHEL, INC.
ATTEST:
President
Secretary
Print Name
day of ,2011.
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FnH EXECUTION
City of Miami Beach - EXHIBIT #1
City of Miami Beach - EXHIBIT #1
17 St NS 200ft W/O Washington Av FIE
City of Miami Beach - EXHIBIT #1
City of Miami Beach - EXHIBIT #1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A resolution authorizing an amendment to the NSPl agreement dated November 24, 2009, between the City and the
State of Florida DCA and the related agreement between the City and MBCDC, to allow the draw down of funds I pursuant to approved Policies and ~rocedures. 1
Key Intended Outcome Supported: I Increase access to workforce or affordable housing. I
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): Based on the 2007 Customer Satisfaction Survey,
affordable housing was a concern for 82% of those surveyed.
Issue:
Shall the City approve amendments to contracts with DCA and MBCDC to allow construction draws as allowed by US
HUD and pursuant to approved Policies and Procedures?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
The City of Miami Beach was awarded a total of $9,305,268 of NSPl funds through an initial allocation and two
subsequent allocations. The State's Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is the pass-through entity handling
HUD1s NSPl allocation to the City of Miami Beach. On September 9, 2009, the City approved Resolution No. 2009-
27175 approving the Agreement with DCA in the amount of $2,549,551, which was subsequently amended to include
the additional allocations of NSPl funds to the City.
After conducting a duly-noticed procurement process, the City Commission awarded $2,376,181.53 of the initial NSPl
funds to Miami Beach Community Development Corporation (MBCDC), to acquire a 16-unit building. The resulting
agreement was also amended to allow for the allocation of additional NSPl funds to MBCDC to acquire two more
buildings, providing a total of 60 units to be rehabilitated to assist income eligible persons, as well as stabilize
neighborhoods affected by foreclosure.
While most of the NSPl funds were expended for the acquisition of the three buildings, current banking conditions
have impacted MBCDC's ability to obtain construction lines of credit and have delayed completion of the contractually
required rehabilitation activities. After conferring with DCAlNSPl representatives, City staff was informed that the
majority of its NSP1 sub-recipients are likewise experiencing similar delays and financing hardships. Many other
communities have also requested and been granted permission to draw funds for rehabilitation activities instead of
paying costs from out-of-pocket and then seekhg reimbursement. Therefore, following the instructions of the DCA
staff, City staff is requesting that the contract between DCA and the City, as well as the corresponding contract
between the City and MBCDC, be amended to incorporate a draw down process as allowed by US HUD. City staff
prepared Policies and Procedures for Construction Draw Down Payment Methodology which are consistent with HUD
rules, construction industry standards, and our own Capital Improvements Program office process, to be followed at
each time a request for payment is requested by the DeveloperlSub-recipient.
On June 20, 2011, the City's Loan Review Committee reviewed the proposal for draw down payments and
unanimously passed a motion to support the proposed amendment to the NSPl agreements with revisions to the
Policies and Procedures for Draw Downs as noted in the meeting. Revised Policies and Procedures were presented
to, and accepted by, the City's Finance and Citywide Projects Committee on June 23, 201 1.
4dvisory Board Recommendation:
Loan Review Committee approved on 612011 1. Finance and Citywide Projects Committee approved on 612311 1. 1
'inancia1 Information:
1 I Source of Funds: I
I '
. -. I - I I
OBPl 1 Total 1 I
Amount
I I NSP
I Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: 1 Anna Parekh
1 I
2 1 4
Sian-Offs:
1 Account
MIAMIBEACH 331
Approved
V -
AGENDA lTEM C 7P
DATE 7- J 3/11
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: July 13, 201 1
u
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND ClTY CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS AND THE CITY, DATED NOVEMBER 24, 2009, FOR THE
ALLOCATION OF NSPI FUNDS; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND ClTY CLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE
RELATED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ClTY AND MIAMI BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, DATED JANUARY 21, 2010,
FOR THE ALLOCATION OF NSPI FUNDS; SAID AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW
THE DRAW DOWN OF FUNDS.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
BACKGROUND
Resolution No. 2009-27039 was adopted by the City Commission on March 18, 2009, approving
the City's application for and planned use of funds available through the United States Department
Of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 (NSPI) funds
for the purchase and rehabilitation of one or more multi-family buildings to be kept as rental
properties to benefit income qualified households in accordance with the NSPI regulations, with an
end goal of stabilizing neighborhoods impacted by foreclosures.
The City of Miami Beach was awarded a total of $9,305,268 in NSPI funds through an initial
allocation and two subsequent allocations. The State's Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is
the pass-through entity handling HUD's NSPI allocation to the City of Miami Beach.
On September 9, 2009, the City approved Resolution No. 2009-271 75 authorizing the execution of
the Federally-funded Subgrant Agreement with DCA. That Agreement for $2,549,551 was
subsequently amended to include the additional allocations in the amounts of $4,755,717 and
$2,000,000 (awarded on March 24, 201 0, and July 30, 201 0, respectively).
After conducting a duly-noticed procurement process, the City Commission awarded
$2,376,181.53 of the initial NSPI allocation to Miami Beach Community Development Corporation
(MBCDC) for the acquisition of a 16-unit building. That Agreement was subsequently amended
(with Commission approval) to allow for the allocation of additional NSPI funds received by the
City to MBCDC (in the amount of $4,432,328 and $1,864,000 respectively), which was used to
acquire two more buildings, providing for a total of 60 units being rehabilitated to assist income
eligible persons, as well as stabilize neighborhoods affected by foreclosure.
NSPI Amendment
Page 2 of 3
The administration has established policies and procedures to ensure that the projects are built on
time and will not overrun approved budgets. In addition, independent evaluations of the budgets
and scope have been retained by licensed professionals to compare quality of construction and
costs with local industry standards.
While 82% of the NSPI funds allocated to MBCDC have been expended, one of the highest
expenditure rates for this program in the State, current economic and banking conditions have
impacted MBCDC's ability to obtain construction lines of credit and have delayed completion of the
contractually required rehabilitation activities. After conferring with DCAlNSPl representatives, City
staff was informed that the majority of its NSPI sub-recipients are likewise experiencing similar
delays and financing hardships. Many other communities have also requested and been granted
permission to draw down funds for rehabilitation activities instead of paying costs from out-of-
pocket and then seeking reimbursement. This alternative payment methodology means that
instead of having the non-profit developer secure construction loans or otherwise pay the
reimbursement packages submitted by their general contractors (GC) and then submit a
reimbursement request to their funders, the general contractor's reimbursement request is
submitted to the funding agency (in this case the City) for review and payment. The reimbursement
payment still passes through the non-profit developer back to the GC. The payment requests
continue to be evaluated at both the non-profit developer and funder level to ensure that the
expenses submitted are correct and eligible expenses. More specifically, draw requests would ,
.- :
require standard AIA forms and documentation.
In short, a "draw down" reimbursement does mean advancing funds prior to expenses
occurring but, rather, allowing for the intermediary process - payment by the non-profit developer
of the reimbursement request submitted by the GC and then reimbursement to the non-profit
developer of their payment to the GC -to be eliminated. It remains a reimbursement process. This,
in turn, eliminates the need for the non-profit developer to secure private construction financing.
This "draw down" process is permitted by USHUD regulations.
ANALYSIS
While at this time it is expected that the remaining NSPI funds will be expended and the
rehabilitation of the three buildings will be completed by March 31, 2012, well within the NSP
program deadline of March 1, 2013, compliance with this deadline is contingent upon available
financing.
Following the instructions of the DCA staff, City staff is requesting that the contract between DCA
and the City, as well as the corresponding contract between the City and MBCDC, be amended to
incorporate a draw down process as allowed by US HUD. City staff has prepared Policies and
Procedures for Construction Draw Downs, per guidance on the HOME Training Materials for
Certified Specialists, Chapter 7, Effective Construction Management, dated August 2008. City staff
is proposing to amend both agreements (DCAlCity and CityIMBCDC) to include the option of a
"draw down" of funds versus a reimbursement process to cover the costs of rehabilitation of the
projects.
The Administration has researched draw-down policies already in place for other HUD funded
NSPI recipients, for standard construction industry standards, and for our own Capital
Improvements Program office and proposes the process outlined in the attached Policies and
Procedures for Construction Draw Down Payment Methodology to be followed at each time a
request for payment is requested by the DeveloperlSub-recipient.
NSPl Amendmenf
Page 3 of 3
LOAN REVlEWlFlNANCE & CITYWIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE REVIEWS
The City's Loan Review Committee met on June 20, 201 1, and unanimously passed a motion to
support the proposed amendment to Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 (NSPI) Agreement
with revisions to the Policies and Procedures for Draw Downs as noted in the meeting. The
attached revised Policies and Procedures were presented to, and accepted by, the City's Finance
& Citywide Projects Committee on June 23, 201 1.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission authorize an amendment to
both NSPI agreements with DCA and with MBCDC, to allow for construction draw down payments.
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\NSPl- DCA MBCDC Draw Down Amendment - MEMO.docx
9 MIAMIBEACH
Office of Real Estate, Housing and Community Development
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES:
CONSTRUCTION DRAW DOWN PAYMENT METHODOLOGY
Rev. 612211 1
I. POLICY: The Real Estate, Housing and Community Development Office (REHCD) will ensure
compliance with Federal requirements for payment requests on all City-approved US HUD-
funded capital projects as already established per US HUD HOME Program Rules. The
methodology for payment of US HUD funds for a construction project shall be determined by
the City in full compliance with HUD rules. In the event that a "draw down" methodology is
approved, the following procedures shall be followed.
11. DEFINITIONS:
a. Project: a site or sites together with any building or buildings located on the site(s), which
has been allocated state or federal grant funds and which has been approved by the
funding agency and by the City Commission. The City will have entered into a contractual
agreement, in compliance with grant rules, with a Sub-recipient to be assisted with HUD -.
funds. Projects will only be eligible for draw downs if a Scope of Work, Budget for Scope .
of Work, and a Draw Down Schedule for reasonable and necessary work (as defined by
HUD) has been attached and made part of the grant agreements between the City and the
Sub-recipient. The "Project" includes construction and/or rehabilitation of HUD-qualifying
properties, and may also include design, permitting, and other HUD-approved activities
and costs necessary to achieve the objectives of the grant and which have been defined in
the grant agreement.
b. Sub-recipient: the entity, such as the developer, under contract with the City to receive
funding pursuant to federal or state HUD program rules, guidelines and eligible activities.
c. General Contractor (GC): the entity under contract with the Sub-recipient that is performing
construction or rehabilitation services on the project on behalf of the Sub-recipient
d. Construction Consultant: an independent third party (e.g. architect, engineer, contractor,
etc.) who will review all Application and Certification for Payment requests and conduct
construction draw administration and conduct inspections and provide construction
progress reports as necessary.
e. Draw down: For purposes of this policy, this refers to a payment request submitted by a
Sub-recipient for a project for expenses incurred by their GC or other contractors in the
development of that project, including change order reimbursement requests.
Ill. REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION:
REHCD shall require the following documentation to be provided by the Sub-recipient for
each draw-down request submitted to the Office:
a. Application and Certification for,Paymept AIA Document G702 and G703 (Schedule of
Values) signed by the contractor and architect, and notarized.
b. Any change orders or deviations from the original Scope of Work or Budget for Scope of
Work will require City Manager approval and will be submitted on an Application and
Certification for Payment AIA Document G701, signed by the contractor and architect, and
notarized.
c. Lien waivers from each GC, contractor, and/or subcontractor for the funds being requested
will be submitted with the Application and Certification for Payment.
d. Verification of payment of Davis-Bacon Wages and other labor standards, including
original, signed payroll certificates for previous work completed.
e. Quarterly construction status reports (submitted by Sub-recipient within ten (10) business
days following end of quarter).
1
IV. PROCESSING OF DRAW DOWN REQUESTS
a. REHCD shall review the draw down request package to ensure it includes all of the
required documents and the required signatures.
b. REHCD shall confirm that the Sub-recipient is current in their quarterly reporting prior to
processing any payment for a draw down request. If the Sub-recipient is not current on
their quarterly construction status reports, the Sub-recipient shall be notified in writing. If
the required quarterly construction status report is not submitted prior to the completion of
the review of the draw down, REHCD may withhold payment of that draw down request
until such time as the report is received.
c. All draw down requests shall be date stamped upon receipt in REHCD and the draw down
request shall be forwarded to the REHCD staff responsible for contract management for
the related grant agreement.
d. REHCD shall review the draw down request and provide comments, notations and
recommendations on the funding request, including review of the back-up documentation
provided to ensure documentation is consistent with the Scope of Work, Budget for Scope
of Work, and Draw Down Schedule attached to the grant agreement. REHCD may conduct
a site visit or request additional documentation or information as part of this review.
e. REHCD will provide the selected Construction Consultant with the Sub-recipient's draw
package and AIA forms for review.
f. Construction Consultant shall review the draw request, conduct site inspections to verify -.
completion of the work and adherence to the contractually approved Scope of Work, ,
Budget for Scope of Work, and Draw Down Schedule, and verify compliance with codes
and building standards and requirements.
g. Construction Consultant shall produce a report providing their professional opinion and
recommendation on the draw request submitted, including any recommendations for
modifications or specific exceptions.
h. REHCD shall review the Con~truction"Consultant's recommendations and develop a
request for payment through the City's Finance Department. The Construction Consultant's
report and recommendations, as well as Staff's recommendations should they differ from
the Construction Consultant, shall be referenced in the documentation submitted to the
Finance Department with the payment request. If the payment request is less than the
original draw down request, REHCD shall notify the Sub-recipient, in writing, that an
adjustment has been made to the draw down request, the dollar value of the adjustment
and why the adjustment was made. The Sub-recipient may re-submit disallowed expenses.
i. Prior to payment of final draw down request, the Construction Consultant shall conduct a
closeout inspection(s). REHCD will process the final draw down payment request after
receipt and review of the Construction Consultant's final report and receipt of a copy of the
Certificate of Occupancy.
j. Sub-recipient must provide REHCD with proof of deposit of the draw down payment
reflecting that the deposit was made within five (5) business days after payment was made
to the Sub-recipient by the City.
k. Within ten (10) business days following the deposit of the draw down payment, the Sub-
recipient must provide REHCD with a copy of a cashed check(s) evidencing full payment
from Sub-recipient to the contractor(s) for the services and goods provided, as reflected in
the draw down request. Failure to provide a cancelled check(s) can result in the
withholding of any future draw down request payments.
V. PROJECT DRAW DOWN REQUEST TRACKING
a. REHCD shall note in the project ledger the date of the receipt of the draw down
reimbursement request; which draw down number request was submitted; whether the
request is a change ord& and, if so, what change order number it is; the amount
requested; the final amount paid to the Sub-recipient following review of the draw down
request; and confirmation of receipt of the cancelled check from the Sub-recipient to the
contractor(s).
VI. OTHER
In all other regards relating to monitoring and inspection of the Sub-recipient's project
implementation, REHCD shall follow the guidance on Inspections and Specifications-
Management Perspectives, per Chapter 7, Effective Construction Management, pages 7/14-
16, of the HOME Certified Specialist - Administration Training Manual, dated August 2008
(three pages attached).
RESOLUTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED
<
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A resolution adopting the One-Year Action Plan for FY 201 1-2012, which includes the budgets forthe Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program and the HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program; authorizing the City Manager to execute all applicable Action
Plan documents; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute agreements for sub-recipients; and authorizing the appropriation of all
federal funds when received.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
1. Increase access to workforce or affordable housing. 2. Improve the lives of elderly residents. 3. Enhance learning opportunities for
youth. 4. Reduce the number of homeless. 5. Ensure safety and appearance of building structures and sites.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): Based on the 2009 Customer Satisfaction Survey: 17.5% of businesses feel that
lack of workforce housing is one of their most important challenges; 80% of residents 65-years or older rated City response to expectations
as good or excellent; 65% of households with children rated the City support of youth progams as good or excellent; 43.6% of residents
responded favorably to the City's handling of homelessness; 64% of residents felt that code enforcement was acceptable.
Issue: I Shall the City adopt the One-Year Action Plan for FY 201 1-2012 in substantially the attached form?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
I The One-Year Action Plan for FY 201 1-201 2 is based uDon the Citv's federal entitlement funds as follows: $1,572,412 in CDBG Program
funds, plus $1 12,950 in prior years reprogrammed funds, totaling $1,685,362; and $1 ,I 13,310 in HOME Program funds. ~wenty-five(25)
written proposals for CDBG funds were received and reviewed by the Administration and the Community Development Advisory Committee
(CDAC) in response to a competitive process. The proposals were ranked according to their impact on the Consolidated Plan, project
description, specific goals, budget analysis, and leveraging of funds. The resulting recommendations for the allocation of FY 201 1-2012
CDBG funds have been incorporated into the One-Year Action Plan. CDBG funds are primarily used to provide vital publicservices, housing
activities, code enforcement, improvements to public facilities, youth centers and senior centers; public service funding is capped at 15% of
the total allocation.
HOME Program funds have been used for affordable rental housing activities and first time homeownership opportunities. The City is
required to set-aside a minimum of 15% of its HOME funds allocation for a qualified Community Housing Development Organization
(CHDO), but is allowed to set-aside more. For FY2011-2012, $1,051,930 of HOME funds are reserved for the City's CHDO to fill existing
funding gaps in affordable housing projects currently under development.
Advisory Committee Recommendation:
The Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) met as follows:
• April 27, 201 1 - Applicants for CDBG funding made oral presentations;
• May 4,201 1 - Reviewed and recommended funding for FY 201 1-2012 One-Year Action Plan;
• May 18,201 1 - Reached consensus for recommendations for FY 201 1-2012 One-Year Action Plan;
Additionally, a Public Meeting was held on June 22,201 1 to obtain input and comments from citizens. A draft of the Action Plan was made
available for a 30-day comment period from June 13, 201 1 through July 12,201 1.
Financial Information:
Source of Funds: Amount Account
I $1,572,412 CDBG Allocation FY 201 1-2012
I I
2 ] $1 12,950 1 CDBG Prior Years Reprogrammed funds I
3 $1,113,310 E3 4 $50,000 HOME Prior Years Reprogrammed funds .
HOME Allocation FY2011-2012
OBPl Total $2,848,672
Financial Impact Summary: Federal CDBG and HOME funding will be allocated to the City of Miami Beach and the City will allocate the I FY 201 1-2012 entitlementito projects and sub-recipients.
- I
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
[ Anna Parekh 1
AGENDA ~TEM c7Q
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the ommission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July13,2011
LJ
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE CITY'S ONE-YEAR ACTION
PLAN FOR FEDERAL FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012, WHICH
INCLUDES THE BUDGETS FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM AND THE HOME INVESTMENT
PARTNERSHIPS (HOME) PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE ClTY MANAGER
TO MAKE MINOR NON-SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE ONE-YEAR
ACTION PLAN OR RESULTING AGREEMENTS BEFORE EXECUTION --
(WHICH MAY BE IDENTIFIED DURING THE FINALIZATION AND/OR
REVIEW PROCESS, AND WHICH DO NOT AFFECT THE PURPOSE,
SCOPE, APPROVED BUDGET AND/OR INTENT OF THE PLAN);
AUTHORIZING THE ClTY MANAGER TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION
DATES OF SAID AGREEMENTS WHEN NECESSARY; AUTHORIZING THE
ClTY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS AND
SUBMIT THE ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD); FURTHER AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND ClTY CLERK TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR SUB-
RECIPIENTS OF CDBG AND HOME FUNDS; AND AUTHORIZING THE
APPROPRIATION OF ALL FEDERAL FUNDS WHEN RECEIVED.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
BACKGROUND
The City of Miami Beach is a US HUD-designated entitlement city, as determined by the
decennial census information on population growth lag, age of housing stock, and poverty. The
City of Miami Beach has been a CDBG entitlement city since 1975. The HOME Program, also
funded by HUD, was started in 1992 to provide a grant specifically for affordable housing. US
HUD allocates these funds "to strengthen publiclprivate partnerships and to expand the supply
of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing with primary attention to rental housing, for
very low- income families."
As an entitlement city, the City of Miami Beach automatically qualifies for an annual allocation of
federal funding under US HUD's grant programs. The annual allocation of funds, or One-Year
Action Plan, is one component of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan. CDBG funds have been
primarily used to provide vital public services, housing activities, code enforcement, and
Page 2 of 4
HUD FY 201 1-2012 Action Plan
improvements to public facilities, such as youth centers, and senior centers; while HOME funds
have been used for affordable rental housing activities and first time homeownership
opportunities.
The One-Year Action Plan follows the strategies that have been included in the 2008-201 2 Five-
Year Consolidated Plan. US HUD requires participating jurisdictions to submit an annual One-
Year Action Plan which describes how the city will utilize funding and resources to address
priority needs identified in the Consolidated Plan.
In preparing the One-Year Action Plan for FY 201 1-2012, the Administration followed all
applicable HUD rules and guidelines. On March 8, 201 1, the Administration issued a Request
for Proposals for FY 201 1-2012 funds with a submission deadline of April 8, 201 1.
ANALYSIS
CDBG FUNDS
Twenty-five (25) written proposals for CDBG funds were timely received and reviewed by the
Administration and the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC), and ranked
according to their impact on the Consolidated Plan; project description; specific goals; budget
analysis; and leveraging of funds. The following factors were taken into consideration when
determining funding awards: 1) the level of impact according to the Consolidated Plan; 2)
project description of activities; 3) attainment of performance measures and program outcomes;
4) organizational capacity and experience; 5) budget analysis; and 6) the organization's ability
to leverage additional non-CDBG sources of funding for project activities. All agencies that
submitted responsive proposals were asked to make project presentations before the CDAC
and City staff. The presentations were followed by a question and answer session which
allowed the CDAC members and City staff the opportunity to learn additional information about
the agencies and their respective programs. All of this information was utilized to rank and
make appropriate funding recommendations, which form the basis of the Action Plan. The
resulting recommendations have been incorporated in the draft One-Year Action Plan for FY
2011-2012 and are summarized in the attached Exhibit I. Requests from agencies and City
set-asides for funding totaled $3,150,605.02. However, this year's CDBG allocation is
$1,572,412. An additional $1 12,950 was available in reprogrammed funds (see Action Plan,
page 8), for a total of $1,685,362 available in funding.
A description of the programs and the proposed allocations is provided in Exhibit 1. As in
previous years, given the limited amount of CDBG resources available (capped by federal
regulations), the CDAC and the Administration had to make difficult decisions regarding funding
recommendations for a number of organizations and projects. Consensus recommendations
were reached and are consistent with the priority needs areas as identified by the Commission,
the community, and the Consolidated Plan. The main priorities include those activities
addressing and serving elderly, youth, health services including persons with AIDS,
homelessness, affordable housing, and public facilities. More specific information is provided
below.
CDBG PUBLIC SERVICE
A maximum of fifteen percent (15%) of the entitlement may be allocated to public service
activities. Public service activities include meals programs, after school programs, etc., for
income-eligible participants. Existing applicants for Public service activities were funded at their
FY 200911 0 levels, except for the following agencies and activities that are receiving a one-time
Page 3 of 4
HUD FY 201 1-2012 Action Plan
additional allocation adjustment to meet high priority needs, as identified by CDAC and the
Administration:
Jewish Community Services - Miami Beach Senior Center Adult Day Care Program
Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Centers - Miami Beach Elderly Meals Program
Rain Parents - Family Services
The following twelve (12) subrecipients, providing a total of twenty-eight (28) activities, are being
recommended for Public Service funding:
Best Buddies
Boys & Girls Clubs of Miami
Douglas Gardens CMHC
Food for Life Network
Jewish Community Services of S. Florida
Little Havana Activities & Nutrition Centers
Miami Beach Community Development Corporation
Miami Police Athletic League
RAIN Parents, Inc.
Seniors Are First
The Shelbourne House
UNIDAD of Miami Beach
CDBG funding was also requested for activities that include the rehabilitation of affordable
housing buildings and other eligible capital improvements. In addition, a portion of the CDBG
allocation is used to repay an existing Section 108 loan, and is being set aside to fund code
compliance services and to fund a proposed fapde improvement program in the North Beach
target area from 73rd Street to 75th Street that will improve approximately ten storefronts. The
recommended guidelines for the program will be discussed at the July 28, 201 1 Finance and
Citywide projects Committee.
In order to effectively implement and monitor the CDBG program, $314,476 was allocated for
administrative and operational expenses.
HOME FUNDS
For FY 201 1-2012, US HUD allocated $1 ,I 13,255 in HOME Program funds to the City of Miami
Beach. The City is required to set-aside a minimum of 15% of its HOME fund allocation for a
qualified Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO), but is allowed to set-aside
more. The City's certified CHDO is Miami Beach Community Development Corporation
(MBCDC). Annually, HOME funds are reserved for the City's CHDO for eligible project activities
such as acquisition and rehabilitation of multi-unit residential properties for low and moderate-
income persons, families and seniors. HOME funds also provide administrativeloperating
expense assistance for the CHDO. An additional $50,000 in prior year HOME funds has been
recaptured and is recommended to be reprogrammed.
The City has 24 months from the last day of the month in which US HUD signs the City's HOME
Agreement transmittal letter to identify and designate the CHDOs they plan to work with, and to
reserve monies for specific projects by the CHDOs. MBCDC has identified eligible projects to
Page 4 of 4
HUD FY 201 1/2012 Action Plan
commit its reserved HOME funds. MBCDC continues to leverage additional funding for its
HOME funded developments utilizing a variety of funding sources from federal, state and local
resources (HUD, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, State Apartment Incentive Loan
Program, Predevelopment Loan Program, the Housing Credit Program, Miami-Dade County
Surtax Funds, Miami-Dade County HOME funds, Miami-Dade County General Obligation Bond
funds, etc.). All projects that receive City of Miami Beach HOME funding must first go through a
subsidy layering review by the Administration and the Community Development Advisory
Committee, to evaluate the compatibility of different program requirements, eligible costs, and
analyze the development process, including review of the development budget, the sources and
uses statement, and the operating pro forma to determine long-term project viability.
HOME funds in the amount of $1,163,255, which includes $996,267 for housing projects and
$55,663 of CHDO operating expense assistance (as allowed by HUD regulations), are reserved
for the City's CHDO for eligible activities, such as acquisition and rehabilitation of multi-unit
residential properties for low and moderate-income persons, families and seniors. The proposed
funding of $996,267 is to be utilized by the City's CHDO to fill existing gaps in affordable
housing projects currently under development. Other projects with funding gaps that will require
allocations of the FY 201 1-2012 HOMEICHDO funding include The London House Phase II -.
($646,267), located at 1975 Washington Avenue, is a 33 unit affordable rental apartment ,
building; The Barclay ($100,000), located at 1940 Park Avenue, which is an occupied 66-unit
affordable rental apartment building that needs renovations to comply with its 40-year building
code recertification; and Villa Matti ($200,000), a new 36 unit building located at 221 28'h Street.
Fifty thousand dollars of recaptured HOME funds are being allocated to Miami Beach CDC for
its Homeownership Program.
For FY2011-2012, $1 11,325 is being allocated to Housing and Community Development Staff
HOME Program for administration and required Fair Housing activities.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A draft of the One-Year Action Plan was made available to the public for a 30-day comment
period commencing on June 13, 201 1, and ending July 12, 201 1. Additionally, a public meeting
to hear public comments was held on June 22,201 1.
CONCLUSION
Most of the activities described in the One-Year Action Plan will take place in US HUD
designated community development target areas, which contain census tractlblock groups that
have greater than 51% of households with incomes at or below 80% of the median income and
continue to be a priority for allocation of CDBG resources.
As in previous years, the City received funding requests that exceeded our entitlement
allocations. Recommendations on allocations are based on staff review and analysis, as well as
the review and input of CDAC.
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission approve the attached
resolution adopting the One-Year Action Plan for FY 2011-2012 in substantially the attached
form, to allow the City to draw down entitlement funds to assist income eligible persons with
services and housing.
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
FY 201 112012 ACTION PLAN
JULY 13,201 1
EXHIBIT I
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR FEDERAL CDBG FUNDS - FISCALYEAR 201112012
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBGI $1,685,329
Best Buddies - Best Buddies Florida Miami Beach Friendship Program - $5,000 - To provide
mentoring services for 40 children with intellectual and development disabilities at three Miami Beach
schools.
Boys and Girls Clubs of Miami - Miami Beach Juvenile Program - $15,900 - To provide a free, high-
quality, after-school academic improvement program, athletics, recreational activities, and &week
summer program for approximately 300 youth ranging in ages from 5 to 16.
Douglas Gardens CMHC - Mayfair House Improvements - $80,000 (Housing) - Rehabilitation of the
Mayfair House.
Food for Life Network, Inc. - Home Delivered MealslGroceries for Persons with HIVIAIDS - $15,000
- To provide weekly, home-delivered prepared meals and home-delivered groceries to approximately 20
income-eligible homebound persons with HIVIAIDS in Miami Beach.
Jewish Community Services - Homeless Outreach for Prevention and Employment - $12,0000 - To
.- provide employment assistance to promote client and family self-sufficiency for approximately 48 low to
moderate-income, situational and economically homeless individuals, homeless persons in families with
children, and those in danger of becoming homeless. Homeless individuals only are also provided with
job training, necessary work equipment, work clothes and transportation tokens.
Jewish Community Services - Miami Beach Senior Center Adult Day Care Services - $20,000 - To
provide professional support to an adult day care program servicing to' frail elderly in a structured
supportive setting with daily activities, nutritionally balanced meals and therapies that provide or prolong
the need for institutionalization.
Jewish Community Services - Senior Meals Program- $15,429 - To partially fund a social worker for a
home delivered meals and shopping services program servicing approximately 125 low to moderate
income frail elders residing in the City of Miami Beach. The social worker will visit approximately 125
elderly clients throughout the year; in addition the program also provides shopping services to 25 elders
unable to shop for themselves.
Jewish Community Services of S. Florida - Miami Beach Sr. Ctr. Capital Improvement - $100,000 -
To maintain the historic building and to repair life safety issues in the only Senior Adult Day Care Program
in the City of Miami Beach.
Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Centers of Dade County, Inc. - Miami Beach Elderly Meals
Program - $40,428 - To provide nutritionally balanced meals daily to approximately 600 Miami Beach
elderly clients in a familiar surrounding where they can have access to other support services provided by
Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Centers of Dade County. The program would fund approximately 95
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
FY 201 11201 2 ACTION PLAN
JULY 13,201 1
meals of the 275 meals served at the three senior centers servicing approximately 600 unduplicated
clients in Miami Beach.
Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Centers of Dade County, Inc. - Rainbow lntergenerational
Child Care - $32,000 - To provide an affordable child development program to 30 pre-schoolers of very
low-income working parents. Employ Miami Beach seniors as teachers and allow approximately 100
parents to be employed.
Miami Beach Community Development Corporation - Home Ownership Assistance - $200,000 - To
provide assistance to facilitate homeownership through access to subsidized mortgage payments, closing
cost and down payment assistance, facilitating access to private mortgage loans, helping to finance the
acquisition of homes and counseling to resolve barriers or issues preventing clients from becoming
suitable homeowners. A total of $100,000 will be allocated to first time homebuyers for direct
Homeownership Assistance.
Miami Beach Community Development Corporation - Multi-Family Housing Program - $180,000
(Housing) - To provide affordable rental housing units for people with low to moderate income, living and
working on Miami Beach. Currently there are seven projects being rehabilitated an additional project two
projects are in the pre-development phase. - -
Miami Beach Community Development Corporation - Tenants Service Coordinator - $19,781 - To
fund a coordinator that brings together existing program services including referral services to address
the needs of approximately 220 low and moderate income elderly and special needs tenants.
Miami Beach Police Athletic League - Performance and Literacy (PAL) - $5,000 - Purchase of 25 e-
book readers to enhance the reading skills of 25 youth.
R.A.I.N. Parents, Inc. - Family Services - $20,000 - To provide vouchers for emergency food, and child
care scholarships for approximately 75 low to moderate-income individuals and families with children
residing in Miami Beach who have received eviction notices or who are already homeless, with peer
counseling for assisting parents in making positive life changes towards self-sufficiency.
Seniors Are First - Technology and Mentoring Program - $5,000 - To provide weekly socialization
and mentoring opportunities and introduction to technology to a minimum of 25 low to moderate-income
seniors residing in Miami Beach.
The Shelbourne House Inc. - Shelbourne House - $14,000 - To provide operating costs for onsite
support services to 48 projects based housing units with supportive services in a secure and healthy
environment to individuals living with HIVIAIDS who choose to live independently.
UNIDAD of Miami Beach, Inc. - Project Link - $10,000 - To provide information and referral services,
employment activities and bilingual assistance to approximately 5000 income-eligible Miami Beach
residents at the Miami Beach Hispanic Community Center in the North Beach area and the Career Center
located in the South Beach area.
UNIDAD of Miami Beach - North Beach Senior Center - $80,000 (Capital Improvement) - UNIDAD of
Miami Beach has entered into a long-term management agreement with the City of Miami Beach for the
construction of an oceanfront North Beach Senior Center in Bandshell Park at 7251 Collins Avenue. The
center will have over 8,000 sq. ft. of program space and additional sidewalks and terraces for a total of
approximately 10,000 sq. ft.
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
FY 201 11201 2 ACTION PLAN
JULY 13,201 1
(SET ASIDE) City of Miami Beach Office of Real Estate, Housing and Community Development -
Planned Repayment of Section 108 Principal - $210,000 - To repay the principal balance of a HUD
Section 108 loan in the amount of $4,000,000. The loan was acquired to implement a comprehensive
streetscape improvement program in the North Beach area, including Normandy Isle; and to complete
construction of the North Shore Youth Center as part of a neighborhood revitalization strategy for North
Beach.
(SET ASIDE) City of Miami Beach Real Estate, Housing, and Community Development - CDBG
Administration - $314,482 - To continue to provide the necessary funding to manage, oversee,
coordinate, monitor, audit and evaluate the CDBG program and sub-recipients in accordance with federal
regulations. Funding includes activities to ensure compliance with federal Fair HousingIEEO
requirements, environmental review, fiscal management, citizen participation, public information and
planning and management activities. This line item includes $5,000 set-aside for Housing Opportunities
Project for Excellence, Inc. (H.O.P.E., Inc.) for a Fair Housing Education Program, which is matched by
an equal amount of HOME funds.
(SET ASIDE) City of Miami Beach Code Compliance Division - Code Enforcement North Beach -
$90,000 - To provide 2 full-time Code Compliance Officers to assist in the implementation of the North
Beach Economic Development Strategic Plan and the North Beach Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy.
(SET ASIDE) City of Miami Beach Real Estate, Housing and Community Development - Fa~ade -:
Improvement Program - $120,000 - Improvements to ten storefronts in the North Beach Target Area on
Collins Avenue from 73d Street to 75th Street.
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
FY 201 11201 2 ACTION PLAN
JULY 13,201 1
EXHIBIT 2
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR FEDERAL HOME FUNDS - FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES
TOTAL HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM $1,163,310
City of Miami Beach Office of Real Estate, Housing, and Community Development -
Administration - $1 11,325
For management, oversight, coordination, monitoring, evaluation, staff and overhead, public
information, fair housing education activities, indirect costs and planning activities. This line item
includes a $5,000 set-aside for Housing Opportunities Project for Excellence, Inc. (H.O.P.E.) for a
Fair Housing Education Program, which is matched by an equal amount of CDBG funds.
Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Project Set-aside - MBCDC
$946,267
For acquisition and/or rehabilitation of multi-unit residential housing and to provide affordable
rental and/or homeownership opportunities. The three following affordable rental housing projects
have been identified for a total of 135 units. :
The Barclay - $1 00,000
The London House Apartments Phase II - $646,267
Villa Matti - $200,000
Miami Beach CDC - Homeownership Assistance - $50,000
To provide homeownership assistance to low and moderate income first time homebuyers.
Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Expenses (5%) -MBCDC $55,663
For salaries, wages, and other employment compensation and benefits; rent, utilities, employee
education, travel, training, communication costs, taxes, insurance, equipment, materials, and
supplies.
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
FY 201 1-201 2 ACTION PLAN
JULY 13,201 1
EXHIBIT 3
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN FOR FEDERAL CDBG AND HOME FUNDS - FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012
DRAFT- ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN
Prepared by:
City of Miami Beach Office of Real Estate,
Housing and Community Development
Table of Contents
...................................................................................... Executive Summary 1
................................................................................ Managing the Process 14
................................................................................... Citizen Participation 16
............................................................................... Institutional Structure 17
Monitoring .................................................................................................. 18
Lead-based Paint ...................................................................................... 19
Specific Housing Objectives ....................................................................... 19
Needs of Public Housing ........................................................................... 23
Barriers to Affordable Housing ................................................................... 23
........................ HOME/ American Dream Down payment Initiative (ADDI) 24
..................................................... Specific Homeless Prevention Elements 26
Discharge Coordination ........................................................................ 27
Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) ................................................................ 27
Community Development .......................................................................... 28
North Beach Revitalization ......................................................................... 29
Anti-Poverty Strategy ................................................................................ 32
Non-homeless Special Needs (91.220 (c) and (e)) ..................................... 33
Obstacles .................................... ... ....................................................... 33
Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS ............................................. 36
Specific HOPWA Objectives ...................................................................... 37
Exhibits
Exhibit A: SF 424 Application for Funding
Exhibit B: Certifications
Exhibit C: Public Notices/Comments
Exhibit D: Needs Worksheet
Exhi bit E: Specific Objectives
Exhibit F: Completion Goals
Exhibit G: 2010-11 Project Worksheets
Fourth Program Year
The CPMP Annual Action Plan includes the SF 424 and Narrative Responses to
Action Plan questions that CDBG, HOME, HOPWA, and ESG grantees must
respond to each year in order to be compliant with the Consolidated Planning
Regulations. The Executive Summary narratives are optional.
Narrative Responses
Program Year 4 Action Plan Executive Summary:
Community Profile
The City of Miami Beach was founded in 191 3 and originally incorporated in 191 5
as Ocean Beach. The name was changed to Miami Beach in 1917. Since its
founding, the City has undergone many demographic changes and an economic
resurgence in the 1980s and 1990s in the Art DecoISouth Beach area. These
changes have generated new housing and community development needs and
priorities in the community. The City of Miami Beach is rich with history and
diversity as documented, by the buildings, photos and monuments that tell its
story.
The City is approximately 7.1 square miles and in 2010 had a population of
87,779 persons according to the U.S. Census. There are 46,801 (54%) low and
moderate income persons. There are 67,499 housing units, 47,168 of which are
occupied. The City has seven miles of Beach, 3 golf courses, 20 parks and a
host of arts and cultural venues, restaurants and entertainment.
The City of Miami Beach is consists of three neighborhoods: North Beach, Middle
Beach and South Beach. The areas with low to moderate-income concentrations
are in North Beach and South Beach. These areas generally overlap with the
areas of minority concentration. Because North Beach was not experiencing the
economic revitalization that was being experienced in other parts of the City in
City of Miami Beach 201 1-201 2 Action Plan
351
the 1990s, the City developed and adopted a Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy (NRS) in 2001 that focused on that area. The NRS was approved by
HUD, and a redevelopment plan was also approved for the area.
North Beach is the northernmost section of Miami Beach and encompasses the
area of 63rd Street north to 87th Street and Biscayne Bay east to the Atlantic
Ocean. According to the City's NRS, the North Beach area is culturally diverse
and predominantly poor with a few pockets of affluence. Most of the residents
live in multi-unit rental housing. In recent years, the regional housing boom led to
a surge in residential activity in the North Beach area. There is continued focus
on revitalizing the North Beach area in the 2008-2012 Consolidated Plan.
Grantee Overview
The City of Miami Beach is an entitlement recipient of federal funds. It receives
an annual allocation of funds from the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program and the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) program. The
City of Miami Beach has been a recipient of funds from Florida's State Housing
Initiative Partnership (SHIP) program. For FY 2009-2010 funds from the SHIP
program were drastically reduced to $43,691, and there will be no funds available
for FY 201 1-2012. The City is entitled to these funds because its population,
housing, andlor demographic characteristics meet the formula funding
requirements.
The City of Miami Beach, like other entitlement communities, develops its own
programs and funding priorities. However, it is recognized that maximum feasible
priority must be given to activities which 1) benefit low and moderate income
persons and households 2) aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and
blight, or 3) meet other community development needs having a particular
urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the
health or welfare of the community. Urgent needs must have no other financial
resources available to meet such needs.
Past Performance
Federal and State resources have aided the City of Miami Beach in funding and
achieving high priority housing and community development goals and objectives
that were identified in its 2003-2007 Consolidated Plan and its HUD approved
2001 Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. Some of the accomplishments
completed under the City of Miami Beach's 2003-2007 Consolidated Plan were
public services, rehabilitation and preservation of owner-occupied housing units,
acquisition programs, multi-family rehabilitation for new rental opportunities,
homeownership assistance, and economic development initiatives for small
business. All of these activities were targeted to low to moderate income persons
and areas within the City.
2
City of Miami Beach 201 1-2012 Action Plan
The City has invested in the public infrastructure of its low to moderate-income
neighborhoods to spur private investment. The City has also awarded federal
funds to support the activities of the local Community Housing Development
Organization.
The FY 201 1-201 2 Action Plan describes specific activities that will be funded
through the City's grant programs.
3
City of Miami Beach 201 1-201 2 Action Plan
V)
W .- P .- P - P .- P .- - = c m .- 1 em.E z e
I- .- -0
V) V) $5 5 C 0 V) 82 0 $22~ W 8 -E
mu al E 4 2 : b m .- T u gx LC - u al m- ~5:~ 0 L 5 2 P$ .- 0 5 g.:g,g - - F',
a~ a .E 22 6.E.Em m m n2 c E .E 2 2 4s ;zc.o >=.zg4 gsui 9 2 iz (0.-Ec- 3% m, c
E $5382 8 pr, 8 8 S 2 2.z~) 2 al B 2 05 nu0 n3 3 nu h .% ELCY=~O FO -oalmc 522 Eb Eb Eb
Priority Proposed Activities Objectives /Projects Suitable Living Public Facilities Environment Economic Opportunityl Suitable Living Environment Economic Opportunityl Suitable Living Environment Outcome Statement Encourage suitable living environments that promote sustainability in the City. Indicator Performance Measure 1 Year Goal Physical Improvements Made To Benefit Two Senior Centers Low To Moderate Income Persons In One Youth Center Target Areas Including North Beach Revitalization Area Public Service Activities: Promote economic opportunities Persons Assisted Child Care Services andlor suitable living environment Health Services with newlimproved access to public Senior Programs and Senior services. Services Services to Persons with Disabilities Youth Programs Fapade Improvement Program Promote economic opportunities Businesses assisted andlor suitable living environment. 11,450 Persons 10 Businesses Funding Sources CDBGISection 108, RDA CBDG CDBG Business Match 5 City of Miami Beach 201 1-201 2 Action Plan
General Questions
1. Describe the geographic areas of the jurisdiction (including areas of low
income families andlor raciallminority concentration) in which assistance will
be directed during the next year. Where appropriate, the jurisdiction should
estimate the percentage of funds the jurisdiction plans to dedicate to target
areas.
2. Describe the basis for allocating investments geographically within the
jurisdiction (or within the EMSA for HOPWA) (91.215(a) (1)) during the next
year and the rationale for assigning the priorities.
3. Describe actions that will take place during the next year to address obstacles
to meeting underserved needs.
4. Identify the federal, state, and local resources expected to be made available
to address the needs identified in the plan. Federal resources should include
Section 8 funds made available to the jurisdiction, Low-Income Housing Tax *I
Credits, and competitive McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act funds
expected to be available to address priority needs and specific objectives
identified in the strategic plan.
Program Year 4 Action Plan General Questions response:
Geographic Areas
The North Beach and South Beach neighborhoods contain the highest
concentration of low and moderate-income persons in the City. All area-wide
benefit activities the City will undertake during the 2008-12 Consolidated Plan
period will take place in designated community development target areas. These
target areas contain Census tractlblock groups that display evidence of greater
than 51% of households with incomes at or below 80% of the median income
and continue to be a priority for allocation of resources.
Public service activities are generally available on a citywide basis and are
available to the populations that need the services the most. There is a citywide
benefit to these types of activities.
Addressing Obstacles
The City will seek opportunities to secure additional funds and leverage
resources to make more funds available to meet the underserved needs.
City of Miami Beach 2010-201 1 Action Plan
356
Figure: The City of Miami Beach Census Tracts
m a 5 a2 a $a
a, g3 v -3 % s z
O gg 0 zF9 z* g" a Ll -g
a'" a 23 '8 m
-1 BE cd a 33, a z* -1 g C ,b - 0 4
--
City of Miami Beach 201 1-201 2 Action Plan
The following resources are anticipated to be available to the City of Miami
Beach in FY 201 1-201 2 to undertake Housing and Community Development
activities:
CDBG BUDGET FOR FY 201 1-2012
CDBG Sources
CDBG Expenditures by Category
Projected CDBG Allocation for FY 201 1-201 2
Recaptured Funds
Total
HOME BUDGET FOR FY 2010-201 I
1,572,412
1 12,950
1,685,362
HOME Sources of Funds
HOME Expenditures by Category
Projected HOME Allocation
Recaptured FY 1994 Funds
Total Home Sources
1 ,I 13,255
50,000
I ,I 63,255
TOTAL FEDERAL RESOURCES
MB CDC HOME Project (CHDO Set-Aside)
MB CDC Homeownership Assistance
CHDO Operating
Program Administration
Total HOME Expenditures
946,267
50,000
55,663
11 1,325
1 ,163,255
. .-.-.-
Total 1 2,798,617 1
CDBG
Reprogrammed Prior Year CDBG
HOME
8
City of Miami Beach 201 1-2012 Action Plan
1,572,412
1 12,950
1 .I 13.255
OTHER RESOURCES
The City will leverage these resources with those available through its RDA,
Resort Tax, Supportive Housing, County Surtax, and other Federal, County, and
City resources that may become available.
9
City of Miami Beach 201 1-201 2 Action Plan
Table: 201 1-2012 Action Plan Summary - Resource Allocation
AGENCY - PROJECT
CDBG PROGRAM - $1,572,412 FY 2011-12 ALLOCATION PLUS $1
Housing Activities, Rehabilitation and Preservation Activities, and Public
Facilities
Douglas Gardens - Mayfair Hotel Renovation
JCS - Miami Beach Senior Center Improvements
Miami Beach Community Development Corp. - Barclay Apartments Rehabilitation
Miami Beach Community Development Corp. - Home Ownership Assistance
Miami Beach Community Development Corp. - Multi-Family Housing Program
Miami Beach Community Development Corporation -Foreclosure Intervention
Miami Beach Community Development Corporation -Seymour Community Center
Jewish Community Services of S. Florida- Miami Beach Senior Center Capital
lmpmvement
UNIDAD of Miami Beach - Noh Beach Senior Center
Other Eligible Activities
City of Miami Beach Office of Real Estate, Housing and Community Development -
CDBG Administration
City of Miami Beach Office of Real Estate, Housing and Community Development -
Planned Repayment of Section 108 Loan Principal
City of Miami Beach Code Enforcement - Noh Beach District Code Enforcement
City of Miami Beach RHCD -North Beach Fapde lmpmvement Program
AMOUNT I AGENCY - PROJECT I AMOUNT
!.950 PRIOR YEARS REPROGRAMMED FUNDS -TOTAL AVAILABLE $1,1,685,362
Public Services
$100,000
Food for Life Network, lnc. - Grcmies and Home-Delivered Meals 1 $15,000 1 $80,000
Best Buddies - Miami Beach Friendship Program
Boys and Girls Clubs of Miami - Miami Beach Juvenile Program
$200,000
$180,0000
$148,190 1 Miami Beach Elderly Meals Program I I
$100,000
$18,950
Jewish Community Services - Homeless Outreach for Prevention &
Employment
Jewish Communitv Services - Miami Beach Senior Center
$12,000
$20,000
Jewish Community Services- Senior Meals Program
Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Centers of Dade County, Inc. -
$80,000
$210,000 R.A.I.N. Parents, Inc. - Family Services: I $20.000 I
$15,429
$40,433
Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Centers of Dade County, Inc. -
Rainbow Intergenerational Child Care I $321000 I
$314,482
I Seniors Are First - Seniors Technology & Mentoring Program
$90.000 I $51000 1 I The Shelboume House, Inc. - Sheiboume House 1 $14,000 1
Miami Beach Community Development Corp. -Tenant Services
Coordinator
Miami Beach Police Athletic League - PAL
$20,000 -
$5,000
$120,000
( (5%)
Total N 2008-2009 HOME Funds - Other 1 $1 11,325 1 Total N 2008-2009 HOME Funds - CHDO 1 $1,051,930
UNIDAD of Miami Beach, Inc. - Project Link
I I I
Total N 201 1-2012 CDBG Funds - Non-Public Services 1 $1,449,500 ( Total N2011-2012 CDBG Funds - Public Services 1 235,862
HOME PROGRAM - 1,113,255 plus $50,000 of recaptured FY 1994 funds
10
City of Miami Beach 201 1-2012 Action Plan
$946,267
$50,000
$55,663
Communify Housing Development Organization (CHDO)
Miami Beach Community Development Corp. - Project Set-Aside
Miami Beach Community Development Corp. - Homeownership
Assistance
Miami Beach Community Development Corp. - CHDO Operating
Other Eligible Activities
City of Miami Beach Office of Real Estate, Housing and Community Development
-HOME Program Administration ($5,000 will be used to pay for HOPE, Inc. -Fair
Housing Education &Outreach Initiative)
$11 1,325
CDBG Public Service Activities
Best Buddies - Best Buddies Florida Miami Beach Friendship Program -
$5,000 - To provide mentoring services for 40 children with intellectual and
development disabilities at three Miami Beach schools.
Boys and Girls Clubs of Miami - Miami Beach Juvenile Program - $15,900 -
To provide a free, high-quality, after-school academic improvement program,
athletics, recreational activities, and 8-week summer program for approximately
300 youth ranging in ages from 5 to 16.
Food for Life Network, Inc. - Home Delivered MealslGroceries for Persons
with HlVlAlDS - $9,938 - To provide weekly, nutritionally balanced home-
delivered frozen meals or groceries to approximately 20 income-eligible
homebound persons living with HlVlAlDS in Miami Beach.
Jewish Community Services - Homeless Outreach for Prevention and
Employment - $7,950 - To provide employment assistance to promote client and
family self-sufficiency for approximately 48 low to moderate-income, situational
and economically homeless individuals, homeless persons in families with
children, and those in danger of becoming homeless. Homeless individuals only
are also provided with job training, necessary work equipment, work clothes and
transportation tokens.
Jewish Community Services - Miami Beach Senior Center Adult Day Care
Services - $7,950 - To provide professional support to an adult day care
program servicing approximately 1000 service days to' frail elderly in a structured
supportive setting with daily activities, nutritionally balanced meals and therapies
that provide or prolong the need for institutionalization.
Jewish Community Services - Senior Meals Program- $11,925 - To partially
fund a social worker for a home delivered meals and shopping services program
servicing approximately 125 low to moderate income frail elders residing in the
City of Miami Beach. The social worker will visit approximately 125 elderly
clients throughout the year; in addition the program also provides shopping
services to 25 elders unable to shop for themselves.
Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Centers of Dade County, Inc. - Miami
Beach Elderly Meals Program - $23,850 - To provide nutritionally balanced
meals daily to approximately 600 Miami Beach elderly clients in a familiar
11
City of Miami Beach 201 1-201 2 Action Plan
surrounding where they can have access to other support services provided by
Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Centers of Dade County. The program
would fund approximately 95 meals of the 275 meals served at the three senior
centers servicing approximately 600 unduplicated clients in Miami Beach.
Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Centers of Dade County, Inc. -
Rainbow Intergenerational Child Care - $24,300 - To provide an affordable
child development program to 30 pre-schoolers of very-low income working
parents. Employ Miami Beach seniors as teachers and allow approximately 100
parents to be employed.
Miami Beach Community Development Corporation - Tenant Services
Coordinator - $19,781 - To fund a coordinator that brings together existing
program services including referral services to address the needs of
approximately 220 low and moderate income elderly and special needs tenants.
R.A.I.N. Parents, Inc. - Family Services - $11,925 - To provide vouchers for
emergency food, and child care scholarships for approximately 75 low to
moderate-income individuals and families with children residing in Miami Beach
who have received eviction notices or who are already homeless, with peer
counseling for assisting parents in making positive life changes towards self-
sufficiency.
Seniors Are First - Technology and Mentoring Program - $5,000 - To
provide weekly socialization and mentoring opportunities and introduction to
technology to a minimum of 25 low to moderate income seniors residing in Miami
Beach.
Shelbourne House Inc. - Shelbourne House - $7,950 - To provide operating
costs for onsite support services to 48 projects based housing units with
supportive services in a secure and healthy environment to individuals living with
HIVIAIDS who choose to live independently.
UNIDAD of Miami Beach, Inc. - Project Link - $7,050 - To provide information
and referral services, employment activities and bilingual assistance to
approximately 5,000 income-eligible Miami Beach residents at the Miami Beach
Hispanic Community Center in the North Beach area and the Career Center
located in South Beach area.
CDBG Housing Activities
12
City of Miami Beach 201 1-201 2 Action Plan
362
Miami Beach Community Development Corporation - Home Ownership
Assistance - $160,000 - To provide assistance to facilitate homeownership
through access to subsidized mortgage payments, closing cost and down
payment assistance, facilitating access to private mortgage loans, and helping to
finance the acquisition of homes, through counseling, and housing workshop
training to resolve barriers or issues preventing clients from becoming suitable
homeowners.
Miami Beach Community Development Corporation - Multi-Family Housing
Program - $185,500 - To provide affordable rental housing units for people with
low to moderate income, living and working on Miami Beach. Currently there are
seven projects being developed under this program, and an additional project is
still in an early planning stage.
CDBG Rehabilitation, Preservation and Public Facilities
-:
UNIDAD of Miami Beach - North Beach Senior Center - $254,463 - UNIDAD
of Miami Beach has entered into a long-term management agreement with the
City of Miami Beach for the construction of an oceanfront North Beach Senior
Center in Bandshell Park at 7251 Collins Avenue. The center will have over
8,000 sq. ft. of program space and some 10,000 sq. ft. of terraces and walkways
when completed.
Douglas Gardens CMHC - Mayfair House AIC Replacement - $43,844 - To
replace 35 aging split alc units at the Mayfair House with 35 new split alc units
that are energy-efficient and utilize EPA required R410, a refrigerant.
Jewish Community Services of S. Florida - Miami Beach Senior Center
Capital Improvement - $148,190 - To maintain the historic building and to
repair life safety issues in the only Senior Adult Day Care Program in the City of
Miami Beach.
CDBG Other Eligible Activities
City of Miami Beach Office of Real Estate, Housing and Community
Development - CDBG Administration - $375,497 - To continue to provide the
necessary funding to manage, oversee, coordinate, monitor, audit and evaluate
the CDBG program and sub-recipients in accordance with federal regulations.
Funding includes activities to ensure compliance with federal fair housingIEE0
requirements, environmental review, fiscal management, citizen participation,
public information and planning and management activities.
13
City of Miami Beach 201 1-201 2 Action Plan
City of Miami Beach Office of Real Estate, Housing and Community
Development - Planned Repayment of Section 108 Principal - $210,000 - To
repay the principal balance of a HUD Section 108 loan in the amount of
$4,000,000. The loan was acquired to implement a comprehensive streetscape
improvement program in the North Beach area, including Normandy Isle; and to
complete construction of the North Shore Youth Center as part of a
neighborhood revitalization strategy for North Beach
City of Miami Beach Code Compliance Division - Code Enforcement North
Beach District - $90,000 - To provide 2 full-time Code Compliance Officers to
assist in the implementation of the North Beach Economic Development
Strategic Plan and the North Beach Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy.
City of Miami Beach Office of Real Estate, Housing and Community
Development - North Beach Fa~ade Improvement Program - $120,000 -
Improvements to ten storefronts in the North Beach Target Area.
HOME Elinible Proiect Activities
CHDO Project Set-Aside - Miami Beach Community Development
Corporation - $1,066,257 Acquisition andlor rehabilitation of multi-unit
residential properties, to provide affordable housing opportunities.
CHDO Operating - Miami Beach Community Development Corporation -
$62,270 Funds to pay salaries, wages, and other employee compensation and
benefits, rent, utilities, employee education, travel, training, communication costs,
taxes, insurance, equipment, materials, and supplies.
HOME Other Eliaible Activities
City of Miami Beach Office of Real Estate, Housing and Community
Development - HOME Program Administration - $125,441 for management,
oversight, coordination, monitoring, evaluation, staff and overhead, public
information, fair housing education activities, indirect costs and planning
activities.
Managing the Process
14
City of Miami Beach 201 1-201 2 Action Plan
2. Identify the significant aspects of the process by which the plan was
developed, and the agencies, groups, organizations, and others who
participated in the process.
3. Describe actions that will take place during the next year to enhance
coordination between public and private housing, health, and social service
agencies.
Program Year 4 Action Plan Managing the Process response:
Lead Agency
The City of Miami Beach Office of Real Estate, Housing and Community
Development is charged with the responsibility of administering Federal and
State programs that are meant to provide vital public services and public
facilities, and to develop decent affordable housing and revitalize urban
neighborhoods through community and economic development initiatives.
Significant Aspects of Planning Process
The City has established housing, community, and economic development
priorities through a variety of planning activities that include its Consolidated
Plan, Comprehensive Plan, redevelopment plans, community surveys and Local
Housing Assistance Plan. In addition to these resources, the City of Miami Beach
annually requests proposals for housing and community development projects,
which are reviewed by the City's Community Development Advisory Committee
(CDAC).
The CDAC reviews funding requests for the CDBG program. The CDAC is a 14-
member volunteer board appointed by the City Commission. The City received
25 project proposals for consideration for Fiscal Year (FY) 201 1-201 2.
The updated data for the City's 2011-2012 Action Plan was gathered from
various sources including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, HUD low and moderate income special
tabulation data, U.S. Census data, the Florida Clearinghouse, University of
Florida Shimberg Center and Claritas.
FY 201 1-2012 Action Steps to Enhance Coordination
The Office of Real Estate, Housing and Community Development will continue to
utilize its Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) as a way to
coordinate efforts and flow of information between public and private housing,
health, and social service agencies.
15
City of Miami Beach 201 1-2012 Action Plan
Citizen Participation
1. Provide a summary of the citizen participation process.
2. Provide a summary of citizen comments or views on the plan.
3. Provide a summary of efforts made to broaden public participation in the
development of the consolidated plan, including outreach to minorities and
non-English speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities.
4. Provide a written explanation of comments not accepted and the reasons why
these comments were not accepted.
*Please note that Citizen Comments and Responses may be included as additional files within the CPMP
Tool.
Program Year 4 Action Plan Citizen Participation response:
-:
As a recipient of Federal funds, the City of Miami Beach must implement a
Citizen Participation Plan that sets forth the City's policies and procedures for
involving the community in developing the Consolidated Plan, incremental action
plans, any substantial amendments to such plans, and for developing the
Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation Report (CAPER). Below is a
summary of all the opportunities for citizen input in the development of the FY
201 0-201 1 Action Plan.
Summary of Citizen Participation Process
Community Development Advisory Committee Meeting - January 27,
201 1
Request for Proposal Process - March 1 to April 9, 201 1
Community Development Advisory Committee Meeting - April 27, 201 1
Community Development Advisory Committee Meeting - May 4, 201 1
Community Development Advisory Committee Meeting - May 18,201 1
Public Meeting - June 22, 201 1
Publication of Plan for 30 Day Public Comment Period - June 13, 201 1 to
July 12, 201 1
Commission Approval - July 13, 201 1
Summary of Efforts to Broaden Citizen Participation
Notices of all public hearings were published prior to the hearings, in a non-legal
section (i.e. display advertisement) of at least one newspaper of general
circulation. The Request for Proposals application process was also published in
a newspaper (i.e. display advertisement).
16
City of Miami Beach 201 1-201 2 Action Plan
In addition to public meetings required to be held regarding the 201 1-2012 Action
Plan, City staff met as necessary with the Community Development Advisory
Committee (CDAC). The CDAC is a 14-member volunteer board that is
appointed by the City Commission. The CDAC members reviewed CDBG project
funding requests.
In 2009, the City completed a community satisfaction survey which over 1000
residents and 500 businesses participated. Phone surveys were conducted in
both English and Spanish. The surveys provided the City with the information
needed to develop, improve and implement strategic priorities for the future of
the City. The 2009 survey was a follow up to the community satisfaction surveys
conducted in 2005 and 2007.
Any comments received from the public pertaining to the Action Plan will be
addressed in the format described the City's Citizen Participation Plan. Written
comments received are included under "Exhibits".
Institutional Structure --:
1. Describe actions that will take place during the next year to develop
institutional structure.
Program Year 4 Action Plan Institutional Structure response:
While the Office of Real Estate, Housing and Community Development serves as
the lead agency, the One-Year Action Plan is implemented with the assistance of
various non-profit social service providers, the Miami Beach Community
Development Corporation, the Miami Beach Housing Authority, and various other
for-profit entities.
The Office also strengthens efforts of the continuum of care for homelessness by
providing emergency shelter and other support services for homeless individuals
and families, andlor interim assistance for the prevention of homelessness. The
City previously collaborated with the other local entitlement jurisdictions including
Miami-Dade County, City of Miami, City of Hialeah and City of North Miami in the
creation of a "Metropolitan Fair Housing Advisory Committee" as part of its effort
to complete an updated Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice report,
which was prepared by Housing Opportunities Project for Excellence (H.O.P.E.)
I nc.
17
City of Miami Beach 201 1-201 2 Action Plan
Monitoring
1. Describe actions that will take place during the next year to monitor its
housing and community development projects and ensure long-term
compliance with program requirements and comprehensive planning
requirements.
Program Year 4 Action Plan Monitoring response:
The overall standards used to monitor the management and implementation of
the City's Action Plan are the applicable laws found in the Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 24 which pertains to HUD. In addition, policy memorandums
and notices issued by HUD and consultation with the HUD's Miami Field Office -
Community Planning and Development Department, serve as guidance in
maintaining and monitoring program compliance. HUD's Community Planning
and Development Office has developed a monitoring guide that is used to
monitor grantees. Other applicable regulations and policies such as those from
the Department of Labor, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity, and the Environmental Protection Agency are
standard for any monitoring tools and procedures developed for housing and
community development programs.
Subrecipients will be monitored for compliance with the following HUD rules and
regulations:
National Objective and Eligibility
Conformance to the Subrecipient Agreement
Record-Keeping Systems
Financial Management Systems
Insurance
Procurement
Equipment and Real Property
Non-Discrimination and Actions to Further Fair Housing
The goal of subrecipient monitoring is to ensure that services are provided as
prescribed in the subrecipient contract and to identify concerns and or findings
and implement corrective action. The emphasis is on prevention, detection and
correction of problems. All quarterly reports submitted by the subrecipients will
undergo a desk review and risk assessment. Technical assistance workshops,
training and monitoring visits will be performed throughout the program year.
Communication is the key to a good working relationship with the subrecipient
agencies. Monitoring is an ongoing process involving continuous subrecipient
communication and evaluation. The staff of the Office of Real Estate, Housing
18
City of Miami Beach 201 1-201 2 Action Plan
and Community Development is experienced in subrecipient monitoring criteria
and techniques.
Lead-based Paint
1. Describe the actions that will take place during the next year to evaluate and
reduce the number of housing units containing lead-based paint hazards in
order to increase the inventory of lead-safe housing available to extremely
low-income, low-income, and moderate-income families, and how the plan for
the reduction of lead-based hazards is related to the extent of lead poisoning
and hazards.
Program Year 4 Action Plan Lead-based Paint response:
The City of Miami Beach will continue to evaluate lead-based paint hazards by
contacting the Miami Dade Health Department annually to determine whether
any residents have been diagnosed with high levels of lead and where the
housing units are located.
As part of any City administered housing program, the City will ensure that all
appropriate lead hazard disclosures, brochures and testing are done in
compliance with Federal regulations for those homes that were built prior to
1978. If abatement is required, specifications by a certified lead contractor will be
written and incorporated into rehabilitation specifications to be implemented by
the City with CDBGIHOME funding. These actions will prevent lead poisoning
and hazards in the community.
Specific Housing Objectives
*Please also refer to the Housing Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook.
1. Describe the prioriti
during the next ye
2. Describe how F
that are reasona
needs for the p
Program Year 4 Action Plan Specific Objectives response:
Increasing decent affordable housing opportunities is a priority objective in the
City. The City currently has programs such as first-time home buyer assistance
and multi-family residential rehabilitation which are funded from CDBG, HOME
andlor SHIP. Maintaining and increasing affordable rental properties is a priority
of the City. Continuing to fund these activities and programs will remain a priority.
19
City of Miami Beach 201 1-201 2 Action Plan
As evidenced by the CHAS special tabulation data, the priority need in the City
remains affordable rental housing. The highest priority continues to address the
households that have very low income and are paying more than 50% of their
income on housing needs andlor are living in substandard housing.
The medium priority is assigned to households at 51% to 80% AMI, therefore
having less severe issues. The lowest priority will be assigned to those
households with incomes 80% AM1 or greater.
20
City of Miami Beach 201 1-201 2 Action Plan
370
TABLE: SUMMARY OF 2011-2012 HOUSING PLAN OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES Priority Proposed ActivitieslProject Objectives Decent Housing Housing Rehabilitation Decent Housing Scattered Site Home Purchase - Assistance (Down PayrnentlClosing And Mortgage Buy Down) Decent Housing Scattered Site Home Counseling Decent Housing Multi-Family Housing Rehabilitation Program Decent Housing Outreach Activities Suitable Living Code Compliance Environment Outcome Statement Indicator Performance Measure Improve availability and Homes Rehabilitated accessibility of decent housing in the City in an effort to maintainlimprove housing stock conditions for lowlmod households. Improve affordability of Homes Purchased decent housing within City for lowlmod households. Improve availability and Persons Counseled accessibility of decent housing in the City Improve availability and Rental Units Rehabilitated accessibility of decent rental housing in the City. Improve availability and Training Sessions Per Year accessibility of decent housing opportunities in the City. 1 Year Goal 10 Units 10 Units 60 Persons 25 Units 4 Sessions Encourage suitable living Number of Code Violations Detected 10 Units environments that promote andlor Corrected as a Direct Result of sustainability in the City. Program Assistance Funding Sources CDBG HOME SHlP CDBG SHlP CDBG HOME, CDBG and Private Investment RD A CDBG CDBG 2 1 City of Miami Beach 2010-201 1 Action Plan
Resources Available
(Federal) CDBG - Community Development Block Grant. Funds will be used
primarily for home repair assistance, purchase assistance and may be utilized for
one time emergency assistance needs.
(State) SHIP - State Housing Initiative Partnership. Remaining funds from prior year
allocations will be utilized primarily for rehabilitation of units in the City. This is only
funding that will be available for households that are at 80% to 120% AMI.
(Federal) HOME - Home Investment Partnerships Funds will be used primarily for
the rehabilitation of units. Funds will be set aside for a certified Community Housing
Development Organization to undertake eligible HOME activities.
(Local) Redevelopment Agency Funds (RDA) - Through tax increment financing
available to the City Center RDA, funds are available for target areas.
Additional Leverage Resources --
Section 202 - Program designed to promote the creation of new units or substantial
rehabilitation of units, by a non-profit, for housing and related facilities for the elderly,
and mentally or physically disabled.
Public Housing Grants - Grants that are provided by HUD to local public housing
agencies. Funds are used to construct or rehabilitate publicly owned housing which
is rented at below market rate to very low and low income households.
Potential State Leverage Resources
SHADP - Special Housing Assistance and Development Program. This program is
designed to target smaller rental developments for hard-to-serve populations such
as persons with a disability, frail elders and people who are homeless. SHADP helps
finance development and operation of developments that have other resources.
Tax Exempt Bonds - Issued by Florida Housing Finance to provide funding to
subsidize units for very low and low income households.
22
City of Miami Beach 201 0-201 1 Action Plan
Needs of Public Housing
1. Describe the manner in which the plan of the jurisdiction will help address the
needs of public housing and activities it will undertake during the next year to
encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management
and participate in homeownership.
2. If the public housing agency is designated as "troubled" by HUD or otherwise is
performing poorly, the jurisdiction shall describe the manner in which it will
provide financial or other assistance in improving its operations to remove such
designation during the next year.
Program Year 4 Action Plan Public Housing Strategy response:
The following HACMB projects are underway:
HACMB - Lois Apartments Rehabilitation - $150,000 - Rehabilitation of the Lois - :
Apartments, located at 21 1 Collins Avenue. This project will provide for the
replacement of windows and doors in this 16-unit, rental (Section 8) property with
hurricanelimpact resistant doors and windows.
HACMB - Replacement of the roof at Rebecca Towers
The HACMB, which operates independently from the City of Miami Beach, will
undertake its own programs.
Barriers to Affordable Housing
1. Describe the actions that will ta
to affordable housing.
Program Year 4 Action Plan Barriers to Affordable Housing response:
As a recipient of Florida's SHIP funds, the City of Miami Beach is required to
reinstate its Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC). The AHAC is an 11-
member advisory board that is charged with the responsibility of reviewing the City's
Comprehensive Plan and affordable housing policies and making recommendations
to the City commission about how to enhance policies and incentives to promote
affordable housing within the City. The City is required to submit to the State the
committee's updated policy review and recommendations every three years.
23
City of Miami Beach 201 0-201 1 Action Plan
HOME/ American Dream Down payment Initiative
(ADDI)
1. Describe other forms of investment not described in 5 92.205(b).
2. If the participating jurisdiction (PJ) will use HOME or ADD1 funds for
homebuyers, it must state the guidelines for resale or recapture, as required
in 5 92.254 of the HOME rule. -
3. If the PJ will use HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by
multifamily housing that is being rehabilitated with HOME funds, it must state
its refinancing guidelines required under 5 92.206(b). The guidelines shall
describe the conditions under which the PJ will refinance existing debt. At a
minimum these guidelines must:
a. Demonstrate that rehabilitation is the primary eligible activity and ensure
that this requirement is met by establishing a minimum level of
rehabilitation per unit or a required ratio between rehabilitation and --
refinancing.
b. Require a review of management practices to demonstrate that
disinvestments in the property has not occurred; that the long-term needs
of the project can be met; and that the feasibility of serving the targeted
affordable units, create addit
24
City of Miami Beach 201 0-201 1 Action Plan
Program Year 4 Action Plan HOMEIADDI response:
The City of Miami Beach receives HOME funds which are utilized by the City's
CHDO for rehabilitation and refinancing of buildings to provide affordable rental
housing and rental assistance to income eligible persons to increase the number of
affordable housing units in the housing stock.
Appropriate Refinance Options
To ensure a lower interest rate.
Inability or unwillingness of the existing lender to cooperate with the planned
HOME program financing or improvements.
The Subrecipient (CHDO) used interim financing in order to secure an
available property.
Secure advantageous terms, conditions or procedures offered by a
refinancing lender (No payments required during the construction period) or
Other circumstances as may be approved on an individual basis.
Refinancing must be incidental to the overall goal of the multi-family
rehabilitation.
Staff Review
Each HOME program involving refinancing will be evaluated by the Housing and
Community Development Division. The staff review will consist of:
A determination that rehabilitation, not refinancing is the primary activity.
Ensure project has a minimum affordability period of 15 years or longer period
if determined appropriate.
A determination that the cost of rehabilitation is not less than an aggregate
cost of $10,000 per unit in any project that is included.
A review of management practices which should demonstrate disinvestment
in the property has not occurred.
A determination that the long term needs of the project can be met.
A determination that serving the targeted population over an extended
affordability period is feasible.
A statement of whether the new investment is being made to maintain current
affordable units or to create additional affordable units or both.
The policies above apply to HOME activities regardless of where they occur within
the City. HOME funds cannot be used to refinance multi-family loans made or
insured by another federal program, including CDBG. To expedite staff review, each
project for which refinancing is sought shall be submitted to the Housing and
Community Development Division with information addressing the purpose, and
each of the above mentioned review items.
The City will not receive ADD1 funds in FY 201 1-201 2.
25
City of Miami Beach 201 0-201 1 Action Plan
Specific Homeless Prevention Elements
*Please also refer to the Homeless Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook.
1. Sources of Funds- Identify the private and public resources that the jurisdiction
expects to receive during the next year to address homeless needs and to
prevent homelessness. These include the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act programs, other special federal, state and local and private funds targeted to
homeless individuals and families with children, especially the chronically
homeless, the HUD formula programs, and any publicly-owned land or property.
Please describe, briefly, the jurisdiction's plan for the investment and use of
funds directed toward homelessness.
2. Homelessness- In a narrative, describe how the action plan will address the
specific objectives of the Strategic Plan and, ultimately, the priority needs
identified. Please also identify potential obstacles to completing these action
steps. - -
3. Chronic homelessness-The jurisdiction must describe the specific planned
action steps it will take over the next year aimed at eliminating chronic
homelessness by 201 2. Again, please identify barriers to achieving this.
4. Homelessness Prevention-The jurisdiction must describe its planned action
steps over the next year to address the individual and families with children at
imminent risk of becoming homeless.
5. Discharge Coordination Policy-Explain planned activities to implement a
cohesive, community-wide Discharge Coordination Policy, and how, in the
coming year, the community will move toward such a policy.
Program Year 4 Action Plan Special Needs response:
While Miami Beach does not have any homeless facilities within its boundaries, the
City collaborates with the Miami-Dade Homeless Trust and other homeless services
providers that offer emergency shelter in Miami-Dade County. The City receives an
allocation of 10 beds out of the 400 beds funded by the Miami-Dade County
Homeless Trust. The City also utilizes $381,290 in resort tax funds to purchase
additional emergency shelter beds at the Salvation Army (31 beds) and Miami
Rescue Mission (1 5 beds) to provide shelter to homeless individuals and families. In
addition, the City contracts two treatments beds with Citrus Health Network, Inc., a
community mental health services provider that enables the provision of short-term
housing to the City's chronic homeless clients suffering from mental illness and/or
substance abuse addiction. The City will continue with these efforts and related
activities facilitated through the City's Homeless Services Program.
26
City of Miami Beach 201 0-201 1 Action Plan
Citv of Miami Beach
Priority Homeless Needs specific to Miami Beach include:
Homeless Prevention
Outreach
Emergency Shelter/Transitional Housing
The City of Miami Beach intends to support homeless initiatives and outreach efforts
that promote ending chronic homelessness by 2012. These include initiatives and
efforts focused on homelessness prevention, comprehensive street level outreach,
assessments, emergency shelter and transitional housing placements and referrals
for services to address the needs of the homeless in the City. The goal is to help
homeless persons (especially the chronically homeless) make the transition to
permanent housing and independent living. The City, through its Homeless Services
Division, will utilize the referral system and network of providers available through
the Miami-Dade County Continuum of Care.
The City, through the ARRA, will receive funding for the Homelessness Prevention
and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP). These funds will provide homelessness --".
prevention assistance to individuals and households who would otherwise become
homeless and to provide assistance to rapidly re-house persons who are homeless
as defined by Section 103 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 1132). The HPRP aims to assist households and persons at or below 50
percent of the Area Median Income.
Discharge Coordination
The City of Miami Beach no longer receives McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG). However, the City is a sub-recipient of
Supportive Housing Program (SHP) funds from the Miami-Dade County Homeless
Trust. It matches these funds with available Resort Tax funds. The City's Homeless
Services office coordinates homeless activities at the City level, including
implementing its discharge policy.
Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG)
This section does not apply to the City of Miami Beach as it no longer receives ESG
funding.
City of Miami Beach 2010-201 1 Action Plan
377
Community Development
*Please also refer to the Community Development Table in the Needs.xls workbook.
1. ldentify the jurisdiction's priority non-housing community development needs
eligible for assistance by CDBG eligibility category specified in the Community
Development Needs Table (formerly Table 2B), public facilities, public
improvements, public services and economic development.
2. ldentify specific long-term and short-term community development objectives
(including economic development activities that create jobs), developed in
accordance with the statutory goals described in section 24 CFR 91 .I and the
primary objective of the CDBG program to provide decent housing and a suitable
living environment and expand economic opportunities, principally for low- and
moderate-income persons.
*Note: Each specific objective developed to address a priority need, must be identified by number and contain
proposed accomplishments, the time period (i.e., one, two, three, or more years), and annual program year
numeric goals the jurisdiction hopes to achieve in quantitative terms, or in other measurable terms as identified A
and defined by the jurisdiction.
Program Year 4 Action Plan Community Development response:
The following section addresses non-housing community development needs in the
City of Miami Beach. In general the City's priority non-housing community
development needs have been public facilitieslinfrastructure improvements and
public service needs. Through the 2008-2012 Consolidated planning process the
City of Miami Beach has identified priority needs and a community development
needs worksheet can be found under the Exhibits section. Public service activities
that assist youth, elderly, homeless, and special needs, will continue to be priorities.
The North Beach revitalization district will also remain a priority.
Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements
Activities such as senior centers, community centers, youth centers, neighborhood
facilities, recreational facilities, and waterlsewer projects are eligible CDBG
activities. These improvements must benefit low to moderate income persons.
These activities can be undertaken in low to moderate income areas or public
facilities can be constructed where it is clear the presumed beneficiaries are low to
moderate-income citizens. Specific public facilities and infrastructure improvements
have been identified on the needs worksheet.
The use of CDBG funds can be leveraged against available resources from the
City's Redevelopment Area Tax Increment Financing, Capital Improvement
Program, Enterprise Zone, or private investment to carry out activities within the
community. CDBG funds are not meant to replace an existing funding source but
rather to serve as a catalyst for projects that would not be accomplished without the
assistance of the CDBG program.
28
City of Miami Beach 201 0-201 1 Action Plan
North Beach Revitalization
The City of Miami Beach's priority community development needs continues to focus
on the North Beach Community. In 2001, HUD approved the City's adopted
Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) for North Beach. The NRS includes a
list of projects targeted for this area, an area that has not experienced the
revitalization felt in South Beach and other areas. There is also a redevelopment
plan in place that provides for tax increment financing (TIF) revenue.
North Beach is the northernmost section of Miami Beach and encompasses the area
of 63rd Street north to 87th Street and Biscayne Bay east to the Atlantic Ocean.
Residents are primarily low to moderate-income renters.
Also, many parts of the North Beach area are included in a State-designated
Enterprise Zone, including all of the commercial areas and portions of the residential
neighborhoods. The area is being expanded. The Florida Enterprise Zone program
offers financial incentives to businesses located in designated areas found in urban
and rural communities. These incentives are offered to encourage private * .
investment in the zones as well as employment opportunities for the area's
residents. Such incentives include:
Enterprise Zone Jobs Tax Credit (Corporate Income Tax)
Enterprise Zone Jobs Tax Credit (Sales and Use Tax)
Enterprise Zone Property Tax Credit (Corporate Income Tax)
Sales tax refund for building materials used in rehabilitation of real property
Sales tax refund for business machinery and equipment
Sales tax exemption for electrical energy
Community Contribution Tax Credit Program
The NRS and North Beach Redevelopment Plan contain a variety of strategies that
drive revitalization efforts in the area.
The NRS captures a variety of CBDG eligible community development strategies to
address the diverse needs of the community range from historic preservation to
upgrading public infrastructure and facilities.
Basis for Priority: The City has an approved NRS for the area specifically designed
to improve the area to help sustain the overall economic vitality of the City.
Obstacles: Sufficient funding to address the many needs is difficult to assemble.
The various needs of the community such as economic opportunity, housing, and
legal issues may serve as an obstacle to attracting private investment needed to
help revitalize it. Cost of homeownership is out of reach for many low income
persons. The lack of ownership may thus continue to reduce the stability of the
community.
29
City of Miami Beach 201 0-201 1 Action Plan
Basis for Priority: The key to revitalizing a community and attracting private
investment is for the City to invest in its infrastructure.
Obstacle: Funding.
Public Service Needs
Activities such as outreach, counseling, substance abuse, child care services,
outreach activities, and training are generally considered public service activities.
These funds are subject to a 15% cap under the CDBG program. With a diverse
community such as Miami Beach, a variety of services is needed. Some of the
services addressed as priorities include:
Child Care Services
Economic Development
Employment Training
General Public Services
Health Services
Public Facilities and Improvements
Senior Programs and Senior Services
Services to Persons with Disabilities
Youth Programs
Basis for Priority: Each year, during the City's Request for Proposal process, the
majority of applications received are public service based.
Obstacle: Funding, capacity of service providers, and possible unnecessary overlap
in delivery.
30
City of Miami Beach 2010-201 1 Action Plan
TABLE: SUMMARY OF 2010-2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES Prior Proposed Activities Objectives /Projects Economic Opportunity Job TraininglPublic Service Suitable Living Senior Centers Environment Economic Opportunityl Public Service Activities: Suitable Living Child Care Services Environment General Public Services Health Services Senior Programs and Senior Services Services to Persons with Disabilities Youth Programs Economic Opportunityl Fapde Improvement Program Suitable Living Environment Outcome Statement Improve availability and accessibility of jobs to lowlmod persons. Encourage suitable living environments that promote sustainability in the City. Promote economic opportunities andlor suitable living environment with newlimproved access to public services. Indicator Performance Measure 1 Year Goal Funding Sources Job Training 50 Persons Trained CDBG Physical Improvements Made To 3 Public Facilities CDBGISection 108, RDA Benefit Low To Moderate Income Persons In Target Areas Including North Beach Revitalization Area Persons Assisted 1 1,450 Persons CBDG Promote economic opportunities Businesses Assisted andlor suitable living environment. 10 Businesses CDBG Private Match 31 City of Miami Beach 201 0-201 1 Action Plan
Anti-Poverty Strategy
I. Describe the actions that will take place during the next year to reduce the number
of poverty level families.
Program Year 4 Action Plan Antipoverty Strategy response:
The Anti-Poverty Plan is intended to increase incomes and job opportunities for low-
income households. Miami Beach's economy relies on lower paying service-sector and
seasonal tourism-oriented jobs. Many of these jobs are open to people with low skills
and low educational attainment. In response to the Welfare Reform Act, the City of
Miami Beach focused its core to combat poverty and focused on the creation of secure,
well-paying jobs. Implementation of these anti-poverty efforts remains a cooperative
effort between the City, the local business community, community development
agencies, nonprofit organizations, the City's designated CHDO, the Housing Authority
of the City of Miami Beach, Inc., and other service organizations.
A major objective of the City's economic development activities is the stimulation of
economic revitalization and job creation by facilitating business development and - ."
expansion, job creationlretention, encouraging private development through public
support, and carrying out housing and neighborhood revitalization. The development of
convention-quality hotels is an economic development objective which is an example of
business development that provides significant employment opportunities for persons
entering the job market.
The purpose of this strategy is to link individuals and families to the programs and
services available to them and to build upon existing anti-poverty program
infrastructure. External factors that impact the economy will have an impact on the
resources and programs available to move individuals towards economic self sufficiency
as well as jobs available. These factors can also have an impact on affordable housing.
However, even with negative external factors the overall goals, objectiveslpolicies will
remain the same as programs and activities are adapted to reflect market change. The
City will continuously seek out opportunities that support or improve its anti-poverty
strategy.
Non-homeless Special Needs (91.220 (c) and (e))
*Please also refer to the Non-homeless Special Needs Table in the Needs.xls workbook.
I. Describe the priorities and specific objectives the jurisdiction hopes to achieve for
the period covered by the Action Plan.
2. Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are
reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the
period covered by this Action Plan.
Program Year 4 Action Plan Specific Objectives response:
As indicated in the 2008-12 Consolidated Plan Housing Assessment, one-fifth of the
City's households are headed by a household 65 years or older and more than half are
cost burdened. The burden of housing leaves many other needs unaddressed. The
needs of the elderly and frail elderly are a priority in the City. -:
Approximately 18 percent of the population has a disability. The highest prevalence of
disabilities exists among seniors. Most of the disability is physical. The needs of the
disabled are a priority.
Miami Beach and the surrounding neighborhoods have some of the highest
concentrations of reported adult HIVIAIDS cases in the County. Over the past ten
years, there were 3,097 reported AIDS cases and 1,686 reported HIV cases in the area.
The supportive needs of households with HIVIAIDS are a priority.
Obstacles
The major obstacle in meeting the needs of the non-homeless special needs
populations is funding and a potential decrease in funding for non-profits. A decrease in
funding will lead to fewer services provided to the community and may result in more
wait-list type situations for the services.
Housing and Supportive Services - Facilities and Programs
Supportive housing and social services for special needs residents, including housing
for persons with disabilities or HIVIAIDS, are provided by the City, County, local housing
authorities and numerous nonprofit organizations. Primary programs are listed as
follows:
City of Miami Beach
Shelter Plus Care Program
The Shelter Plus Care Program administered by the Miami-Dade Housing Authority
(MDHA) provides housing assistance to homeless individuals or families who have a
permanent disability, such as mental illness, substance abuse and/or HIV+/AIDS. The
goal of the program is to provide self-sufficiency to the residents.
Veterans Assisted Supportive Housing Program
The MDHA in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs provides 50
rental vouchers to homeless veterans with severe psychiatric or substance abuse
disorders.
HOPWA-Supported Housing
The countywide HOPWA Program is administered by the City of Miami. The goal is to
assist program participants in achieving and maintaining housing stability so as to avoid
homelessness and improve their access to, and engagement in, HIVIAIDS treatment
and care. Local HOPWA funds are directed towards long-term rental assistance, -
project-based rental or operating assistance and, when funds allow, capital funding for
rehabilitation or new construction (new construction limited to single-room occupancy
units and community residences).
Approximately 1,000 households (well over 3,000 persons) are provided long-term
tenant-based rental assistance and the support of housing specialists. Sixty (60)
households are provided subsidized project-based housing. An additional thirty-one
(31) units of housing, built in part with HOPWA funds, are restricted to housing only for
persons living with AIDS.
Assisted Living Facilities
Shelbourne House: Through CDBG program funds, the City regularly provides funding
to the Shelbourne House. Shelbourne House provides housing and supportive services
to income eligible persons with HIVIAIDS in Miami Beach. Housing vouchers are also
available to eligible residents.
Douglas Gardens: Douglas Gardens provides housing and supportive health services
on a citywide basis for the elderly in Miami Beach.
Meridian Place Apartment: This apartment building located at 530 Meridian Avenue
provides 34 units for eligible elderlylformerly homeless persons. The City provided
HOME Program funds for this project.
Council Towers and Stella Maris: Non-profits in the Miami Beach community have
received CDBG funding from the City to provide various supportive services to the
elderly who reside in Council Towers apartments and Stella Maris retirement community
in Miami Beach.
Housing Accessibilitv Programs
Currently, 42 units from the City's assisted housing inventory are dedicated to persons
with disabilities. HACMB is continuing to update and improve its public housing
inventory. In accordance with their Section 504 needs assessment, HACMB is
renovating Rebecca Towers to be ADA compliant. In addition, all new construction and
renovation projects within the City must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Miami Beach Senior Centers
UNIDAD of Miami Beach has entered into a long-term management agreement with the
City of Miami Beach for the construction of an oceanfront North Beach Senior Center in
the City owned property of Bandshell Park at 7251 Collins Avenue. The City has also
provided CDBG funding for the construction of this facility. The center will have over
8,000 sq. ft. of program space and some 10,000 sq. ft. of terraces and walkways when
completed and will serve the low and moderate-income senior population.
Jewish Community Services has also received funding to make improvements to -: another senior center and provide supportive services.
Tenant Based Rental Assistance
The City does not currently have a tenant based rental assistance program funded from
HOME. However, with such a large presence of cost burdened elderly households on
fixed incomes, the City may undertake a tenant based rental assistance program in the
future.
Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS
*Please also refer to the HOPWA Table in the Needs.xls workbook.
1. Provide a Brief description of the organization, the area of service, the name of the
program contacts, and a broad overview of the range1 type of housing activities to be
done during the next year.
2. Report on the actions taken during the year that addressed the special needs of
persons who are not homeless but require supportive housing, and assistance for
persons who are homeless.
3. Evaluate the progress in meeting its specific objective of providing affordable
housing, including a comparison of actual outputs and outcomes to proposed goals
and progress made on the other planned actions indicated in the strategic and action
plans. fhe evaluation can address any related program adjustments or future plans.
4. Report on annual HOPWA output goals for the number of households assisted
during the year in: (I) short-term rent, mortgage and utility payments to avoid
homelessness; (2) rental assistance programs; and (3) in housing facilities, such as
community residences and SRO dwellings, where funds are used to develop andlor
operate these facilities. Include any assessment of client outcomes for achieving
housing stability, reduced risks of homelessness and improved access to care.
5. Report on the use of committed leveraging from other public and private reso
that helped to address needs identified in the plan.
6. Provide an analysis of the extent to which HOPWA fu
different categories of housing
plans identified in its approved
7. Describe any barriers (including
barriers, and recommendations
8. Please describe the expected t
persons living with HIVIAIDS a
administration of services to p
9. Please note any evaluations, studies or
the local HOPWA program du
Program Year 4 Action Plan HOPWA response:
The City of Miami receives and administers HOPWA funds for the Miami-Dade County
metropolitan area. Local HOPWA funds are directed towards long-term rental
assistance, project-based rental or operating assistance and when funds allow, capital
funding for rehabilitation or new construction (new construction limited to single-room
occupancy units and community residences).
Citv of Miami Beach
---
specific ~PWA objectives
Describe how Federal, State, and local public and private sector resources that are
reasonably expected to be available will be used to address identified needs for the
period covered by the Action Plan.
Program Year 4 Specific HOPWA Objectives response:
The City of Miami Beach does not receive HOPWA funding directly. HOPWA program
objectives are identified by the City of Miami who is responsible for administering the
HOPWA program for the metropolitan area. The City will support housing and other
initiatives for persons with HIVIAIDS through appropriate public service/public facility
dollars.
Include any Action Plan information that was not covered by a narrative in any other
section. -:
RESOLUTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title: I Resolution authorizing a Substantial Amendment to the City's 2008 Action Plan to reprogram $80,600.00 of Homeless I
Prevention and ~apid~e-~ousing Program funds to reduce the funding from program staffing and data collection and
evaluation costs, while increasing the funding for direct financial assistance services to eligible homeless clients; further
authorizing the City Manager to execute all contracts, agreements and amendments necessary to carry out the above
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Reduce the number of homeless.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): Based on the 2009 Community Satisfaction Survey, 44% of
residents ranted the City's ability to address homelessness as excellent or good.
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Commission authorize the City Manager to substantially amend Miami
Beach's 2008 Action Plan to reprogram $80,600 in Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program funds to
reduce funding for program staffing costs and increase funding for direct financial assistance services to eligible clients.
Issue:
Shall the Mayor and City Commission authorize substantially amending the City's 2008 Action Plan to reporgram
$80,600.00 of Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-housing program funds and authorize the City Manager to execute all
contracts, agreements and amendments between the City and US HUD?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the City received a US HUD allocation of
$715,418 for Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing (HPRP) to provide financial assistance and services to
prevent individuals and families from becoming homeless, or help those who are experiencing homelessness to be
rapidly re-housed and stablized. On July 14,2009, the City entered into a grant agreement with US HUD for the program
in two distinct components: Homeless Prevention Services-providing short-term and medium-term assistance in rental
costs to eligible individuals or families at risk of becoming homeless and who were at or below 50% of the Area Median-
Income; and Rapid Re-Housing Services-providing assistance to homeless persons transitioning from emergency
shelters or the streets into permanent housing, which involves outreach and case management services. The grant
agreement and program rules allowed for funding to be utilized for operational costs such as program staffing,
equipment and software licensing, and administrative costs. City staff recommends re-allocating funds from certain
categories to the Rapid Re-Housing component, which will more directly address the growing needs of the City's
homeless population.
I I
Advisory Board Recommendation:
NIA
3 .
"
I Account #I 53-5850-0031 2
2 ( $15,000 1 FY 201 1 Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP)
Financial Information:
!
OBPl I Total 1 $80.600 I FY 201 1 Homeless Prevention and Ra~id Re-housing Proaram (HPRP)
Account Source of Funds:
m
1 I $65,600 I FY 201 1 Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-housing Program (HPRP)
] Amount
I Account #I 53-5851 -000343
3 1
reallocate HPRP funds to meet the most urgent and critical needs of the City's homeless population.
-
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Anna Parekh
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-I 3-1 l\Reprogram HPRP Funds Su mary.doc 'C
Financial Impact Summary: Approval of this resolution will not have a fiscal impact on the City. This Resolution will simply
- - --~ . . - - I Account #I 53-5851 -000345
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: July 13, 201 1
2008 ACTION PLAN TO REPROGRAM $80,600 OF HOMELESS PREVENTION
AND RAPID RE-HOUSING PROGRAM FUNDS TO REDUCE THE FUNDING FROM
PROGRAM STAFFING AND DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION COSTS,
WHILE INCREASING THE FUNDING FOR DIRECT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE HOMELESS CLIENTS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS AND
AMENDMENTS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE ABOVE PROGRAM.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution.
ANALYSIS
Through Title XII, Division A, of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA),
Congress designated $1.5 billion for Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing (HPRP),
allowing states and units of local government to provide financial assistance and services to
prevent individuals and families from becoming homeless, or help those who are experiencing
homelessness to be rapidly re-housed and stabilized. On July 14, 2009, the City entered into a
grant agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (US HUD) for a
total of $715,418 in HPRP funds. US HUD rules require that 60% of the funds be spent within
two years of the City's execution of the agreement with US HUD (which was achieved well
before the July 14, 201 1 deadline), and the remaining balance must be spent by the end of the
third year (July 14, 2012). The City Administration opted to administer the program internally
instead of allocating the funding to a sub-grantee. Therefore, the City, through its Homeless
Services Program and its Office of Community Services, has been carrying out the
Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing services in two distinct components, as listed
below:
1. Homeless Prevention Services: The City provided short-term assistance (defined as rental
costs accrued over a period of three months) and medium-term assistance (defined as actual
rental costs accrued over a period of four months to 18 months) to eligible individuals or families
at risk of becoming homeless and who were at or below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI).
2. Rapid Re-Housinn Services: The City provides assistance to homeless persons (as
defined by US HUD) transitioning from emergency shelters or the streets into permanent
housing. The following activities are eligible: security and utility deposits; rental assistance;
housing search; and placement. An outreach and case management component is part of this
program to allow for the arrangement, coordination and delivery of these services.
City Commission- HPRP Reallocation of Funds
July 13, 201 1
Page 2 of 2
Reallocation of HPRP Funding
Based on the Homeless Services Program's assessment of the current scope of its programs
and projected use of funds, the staffing level that was originally projected to meet the objectives
of HPRP are no longer necessary. Accordingly, the Homeless Services Program staff
recommends reducing program staffing costs by $65,600 from the Homeless Prevention
Services component, which has fully exhausted all of its financial assistance funds and is no
longer serving clients; and shifting $15,000 unexpended from the Data Collection and
Evaluation line items (equipment and software licenses from the Rapid Re-Housing Services),
for a total of $80,600, to provide direct services under the Rapid Re-housing component.
The Homeless Services Program staff has experienced an increase in homeless individuals
meeting Re-Housing Program eligibility criteria, thus increasing demand for financial assistance.
As of June 29, 201 1, the Re-Housing Program had $19,378.57 remaining in HPRP grant funds
for direct services. The proposed reallocation of the $80,600 from staffing costs and equipment
and licensing, will increase the available funding to provide financial assistance to eligible clients
through the Rapid Re-Housing Program.
With the recommended reallocation of funding, the Homeless Services Program will be able to .'
respond to the growing demand for financial assistance services under the Rapid Re-Housing
Program.
CONCLUSION
HPRP has enabled the Homeless Services Program to expand the level and depth of supportive
services offered to homeless persons requesting services. HPRP funding allows the City to offer
to the City's homeless residents several months of rental assistance, utility assistance, and
outreach and case management services.
City Commission approval of the proposed amendment will enable the City to expend the HPRP
funds in a manner that most directly addresses the growing needs of the City's homeless
population.
It is recommended that the Mayor and City Commission substantially amend the City's 2008
Action Plan to reprogram $80,600 in Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program
funds. More specifically, this resolution will reduce funding for program staffing, and equipment
costs, and increase funding for direct financial assistance services to eligible clients.
JMGIHMFIAPIKM
T:MGENDA\201 I \7-13-1 I \Reprogram HPRP Funds - MEMO.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING A SUBSTANTIAL
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S 2008 ACTION PLAN TO REPROGRAM
$80,600 OF HOMELESS PREVENTION AND RAPID RE-HOUSING
PROGRAM FUNDS TO REDUCE THE FUNDING FROM PROGRAM
STAFFING AND DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION COSTS, WHILE
INCREASING THE FUNDING FOR DIRECT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE HOMELESS CLIENTS; FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE ClTY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL CONTRACTS,
AGREEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE
ABOVE PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated
$715,418 under Title XI1 of the Act for Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing
(HPRP) to the City of Miami Beach (City) to provide program participants with financial
-
assistance, housing relocation and stabilization, as well as data collection and evaluation,
and administrative costs; and
WHEREAS, the City entered into a grant agreement with the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on July 14,2009 for the Homeless Prevention
and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) in the amount of $71 5;418; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2009, the City approved Resolution No. 2009-27072,
approving the City's planned use of funds to provide homeless prevention assistance to
participants who are at or below 50% of the Area Median Income and to rapidly re-house
persons who are homeless as defined by HUD; and
WHEREAS, the expiration date of the HPRP Agreement is July 14, 2012; and
WHEREAS, in order to reprogram the funds, reducing program staffing costs,
and data collection and evaluation costs, while increasing funding for direct financial
assistance services to eligible clients, the City must amend the 2008 Action Plan in
accordance with its Citizens1 Participation Plan, and submit a Substantial Amendment to
HUD; and
WHEREAS, the City will comply with the public comment period required by HUD
to obtain citizen input.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission here by approve a Substantial Amendment to the City's 2008 Action Plan for
the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program to reflect the recapture,
reallocation, and lor substantial amendment of $80,600 in HPRP funds; and further
authorizes the City Manager to execute all contracts, agreements and amendments, as
are required, to carry out the above Program.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ,2011.
ATTEST:
ClN CLERK
Robert Parcher
MAYOR
Matti Herrera Bower
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOH EXECUTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Resolution approving an eight (8) month extension of the Lease between the City and Meridian Miami, LLC for the 5,311
SF located at 1680 Meridian Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida currently being used by the Fire Department's Administration I Office. I
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Increase resident satisfaction with the level of services and facilities.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
Approximately 40% of retail businesses surveyed, rank Miami Beach as one of the best places to do business and 61% of the same
group would recommend Miami Beach as a place to do business.
ssue:
Should the City approve the extension of the Lease agreement?
tem SummarylRecommendation:
The renovation of Fire Station 2 required that the Fire Department's Administrative and Fire Prevention offices be
relocated to privately leased space at 1680 Meridian Avenue. Prior to the expiration of the 2007 Lease, the Administration
proposed relocating the Fire administration and prevention staff to City-owned space at 1701 Meridian Avenue (the 777
Building) for the duration of the time necessary to complete the construction of Fire Station 2. On January 13, 2010,
Resolution 2010-27298 approved funding for the renovation of the 2nd floor and a portion of the 4th floor of the 777
Building. Renovation was completed on the 2nd floor and the Fire prevention staff relocated, but renovations to the 4th
floor of the 777 Building are not anticipated to be completed prior to the August 31, 201 1 expiration of the current,
extended private Lease for space at 1680 Meridian Avenue. The completion of Fire Station 2 was recently projected to
occur by March 31, 2012 - nine months sooner than was originally anticipated.
An extension of the lease until March 2012 for Fire Administration staff will prevent a disruption in services and costs
associated with moving two times in a short period of time (August and March). On June 23, the City Finance atid
Citywide Projects Committee recommended in favor of an additional extension to the private Lease term under the same
terms and conditions of the existing Lease. A market analysis determined that the current rent is a market rent for office
space on Miami Beach. Funding for the Lease extension will be included in the Fire Department's budget.
The proposed extension terms for the Lease commencing on September 1, 201 1 are as follows; all other terms of the
Lease shall remain in full force and effect:
I TENANT: City of Miami Beach, a Florida municipal corporation. I I LANDLORD: Meridian Miami, LLC, a Florida limited liability company. I 1 DEMISED PREMISES: 5.31 1 rentable SF located at 1680 Meridian Avenue, Suites 201 and 203. I I TERM: Eight Months, Commencing September 1, 201 1 expiring April 30, 2012 I
RENT: $27.00 PSF; $1 1,949.75 monthly. Rent includes Additional Rent (i.e. operating expenses,
property taxes and insurance costs) and electric.
Advisory Board Recommendation: I Finance and Citywide Projects Committee recommended favorably on June 23, 201 1.
:inancia1 Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: nla $95,598.00 01 1-1210-000323
Financial Impact Summary:
FY 2010-201 1: $1 1,949.75 x 1 month (September 1,201 1 - September 31,201 1) = $1 1,949.75
FY 201 1-2012: $1 1,949.75 x 7 months (October 1, 201 1 -April 30, 2012) = $83,648.25
2ity Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Anna Parekh, Ext 7260
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.rniarnibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti H. Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager C\ .4
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl
BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AN EIGHT (8) MONTH EXTENSION OF THE LEASE
BETWEEN THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, AS TENANT, AND MERIDIAN MIAMI, LLC, AS
LANDLORD, FOR APPROXIMATELY 5,311 RENTABLE SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY,
LOCATED AT 1680 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITES 201 AND 203, MIAMI BEACH, -I
FLORIDA, TO BE USED AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES FOR THE CITY'S FlRE
DEPARTMENT; SAID EXTENSION COMMENCING ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2011 AND
EXPIRING ON APRIL 30, 2012, SUCH EXTENSION WILL ALLOW THE FlRE
DEPARTMENT TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC WITHOUT THE
DISRUPTION OF MOVING ITS OFFICES TWICE IN AN EIGHT MONTH PERIOD.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOMES SUPPORTED
To ensure well-maintained facilities.
BACKGROUND
The planned construction of a new Fire Station No.2, and the renovation of the existing historic building
into administrative offices for the City's Fire Department, required the relocation of the Fire Department's
Administration and Fire Prevention offices. At that time, there was no vacant City-owned property
available that could accommodate the Fire Department's needs. Therefore, on October 11, 2006, the
Mayor and the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2006-26344, approving a Lease Agreement
between the City and Meridian Center, LLC, for the Fire Department's use of a portion of the property
located at 1680 Meridian Avenue, for a three year term which commenced on February 1, 2007, and
expired on January 31, 2010 (the "Lease").
Prior to the January 2010 expiration of the Lease, and following a comprehensive review of the City's
office space use and the projected timeline (at that time) of the completion of construction of Fire Station
2, staff determined that it would be necessary to extend the private Lease until such time that portions of
the City-owned property located at 1701 Meridian Avenue (a.k.a 777 Building) could be renovated to
accommodate the Fire Department staff housed in the leased, private offices. The improvements would
be functional for private tenants after the Fire Department moved to its permanent home.
On December 9, 2009, the Mayor and the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2009-27280,
extending the Lease for an additional eight (8) month term, commencing on February 1, 2010, and
expiring September 30, 201 0. Consequently, on September 15, 201 0, the City Commission approved: 1)
a two month extension of the lease for all of the leased space (8,300 sf) for Fire Administration and Fire
Prevention staff; and 2) a new lease agreement for a reduction of space at 1680 Meridian Avenue to
Commission Memo Fire Department Lease Extension
July 13, 201 I
Page 2 of 2
accommodate only the Fire Administration staff (5,311 sf) for nine months (12/1/10-8/31/11), with a
corresponding reduction in rent from $1 8,675lmo to $1 1,949.75lmo. The Fire Prevention staff was able to
relocate to renovated space on the 2nd floor of the 1701 Meridian Building.
Completion of the 4th floor renovations to accommodate the balance of Fire staff is now projected for
December 201 1. Concurrently, we have been advised by CIP that the renovations to Fire Station 2 will be
completed by March 31, 2012 - nine months sooner than was originally expected. Extending the Lease
for an additional eight (8) months allows the Fire Department's Administrative offices to remain in their
current location instead of relocating twice in an eight month period - something that would be costly and
cause disruption to their operation. Funding for the lease extension will be included in the Fire
Department's budget. The new eight (8) month extension will commence on September 1, 2011 and
terminate on April 30, 2012. All other terms and provisions of the Lease remain in full force and effect,
including the rental rate. The landlord of the private Lease has also agreed to two additional one-month
extensions of time at the City's option, if necessary, at the same rent. A search of Loopnet commercial
real estate database on June 20, 201 1 confirms that this rental rate of $27/SF for office space in Miami
Beach is a market rent for office space on Miami Beach.
Once the renovations are complete to the 4th floor space at the 777 Building, the City will proceed to look
at options, including private tenants, for the space.
ANALYSIS
The proposed extension terms for the Lease commencing on September 1, 201 1, are as follows; all other
terms of the Lease shall remain in full force and effect:
TENANT: City of Miami Beach, a Florida municipal corporation.
LANDLORD: Meridian Miami, LLC, a Florida limited liability company.
DEMISED PREMISES: 5,311 rentable SF located at 1680 Meridian Avenue, Suites 201 and 203.
TERM: Eight Months, Commencing September 1, 201 1 expiring April 30,2012
RENT: $27.00 PSF; $11,949.75 monthly. Rent includes Additional Rent (i.e. operating
expenses, property taxes and insurance costs) and electric.
SECURITY DEPOSIT: None required.
USES: The Demised Premises shall be used by the Tenant as an office location for the
City of Miami Beach Fire Department. The Demised Premises shall be generally
open for Tenant's use Monday-Friday, from 6:OOAM to 7:OOPM.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission adopt the Resolution approving the
proposed eight (8) month lease extension between the City and Meridian Miami, LLC, for office space
located at 1680 Meridian Avenue to accommodate our Fire Department Administration and Fire
Prevention office until such time as City-owned space is available for move-in.
JMG\HMF\AP\SH
Attachments
T:MGENDA\201 IVuly 13Fire Dept Lease Mem.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
ARESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OFTHE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA, APPROVING AN EIGHT (8) MONTH EXTENSION OF THE LEASE BETWEEN THE
ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, AS TENANT, AND MERIDIAN MIAMI, LLC, AS LANDLORD, FOR
APPROXIMATELY 5,311 RENTABLE SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 1680
MERIDIAN AVENUE, SUITES 201 AND 203, MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES FOR THE CITY'S FlRE DEPARTMENT; SAID EXTENSION
COMMENCING ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2011, AND EXPIRING ON APRIL 30, 2012; SUCH
EXTENSION SO AS TO ALLOW THE FlRE DEPARTMENT'S ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF TO
REMAIN IN THE SAME OFFICE SPACE WITHOUT THE DISRUPTION OF MOVING ITS
OFFICE TWICE IN AN EIGHT (8) MONTH PERIOD
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2006 the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2006-
26344, approving a Lease Agreement between the City and Meridian Center, LLC for the Fire Department's
use of a portion of the property located at 1680 Meridian Avenue for a three year term which commenced on
February 1,2007 and expired on January 31,2010 (the "Lease"); and
WHEREAS, on December 09, 2009, a month before the January 201 0 expiration of the Lease, the
Mayor and the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2009-27280, extending the Lease for an additional
eight (8) month term, commencing February 1, 2010, and expiring September 30, 2010; and
WHEREAS, on September 15, 201 0, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 201 0-27489,
approving: 1) a two month extension of the Lease for all of the leased space (8,300SF) for Fire Administration
and Fire Prevention staff; and 2) a new lease agreement for a reduction of space at 1680 Meridian Avenue to
accommodate the Fire Administration staff (5,311 SF) for nine months (12/1/10-8/31/1 I) with a corresponding
reduction in rent from $1 8,675Imo to $1 1,949.75lmo.; and
WHEREAS, on June 23,201 I, the City's Finance and Citywide Projects Committee recommended in
favor of an additional eight (8) month extension of the Lease, commencing on September 1, 201 1, and
expiring on April 30, 2012.
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 approve an eight (8) month
extension of the Lease between the City of Miami Beach, as Tenant, and Meridian Miami, LLC, as Landlord,
for approximately 5,311 rentable square feet of property located at 1680 Meridian Avenue, Suites 201 and
203, Miami Beach Florida, for administrative offices for the City's Fire Department; said extension
commencing on September 1, 201 1, and expiring on April 30, 2012; further authorizing the City Manager to
execute any and all such contracts, as may be required to memorialize the extension.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 13th day of Julv, 201 1.
ATTEST:
Robert Parcher, CITY CLERK Matti Herrera Bower, MA^^^ AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
T:MGENDA\POll Wuly 13\Fire Dept Lease Reso.doc
Ci@ Commission Meeting
City Hall, Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, 1"/0 Convention Center Drive
July 13,2011
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower
Vice-Mayor Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Jorge Exposito
Commissioner Michael Gbngora
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
City Manager Jorge M. Gonzalez
City Attorney Jose Smith
City Clerk Robert E. Parcher
Visit us at .miamibeachf~.gov for agendas and video "streaming" of City Commission Meetings.
ATTENTION ALL LOBBYISTS
Chapter 2, Article Vli, Division 3 of the City Code of Miami Beach entitled ""bbbyIsts" requires the
REGLIMW AGENDA
R2A Request For Approval f o Award Contracts To ISS Facility Services, Inc., Omarcio Cleaning Services,
Inc., Petformance 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. 13-10111, 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 401)
(ProcurementlPublic Works)
(Deferred from June 1, 201 1)
R5 - Ordinances
R5A 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 (C) To Provide That The
Chairperson Of The Committee May Designate A Committee Member To Obtain Information From
And Provide Input To Other City Agencies Boards, Or Committees Relative To Accessibility Related
Issues; Providing For Codification, Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date. 18:16 a.m. Second
(Page 443)
(Requested by Vice-Mayor Edward L. Tobin)
(Legislative Tracking: City Clerk's OfficeICity Attorney's Office)
(Continued from May 11, 201 IIReferred to NeighborhoodICommunity Affairs Committee)
Regular Agenda, July 13,201 1
R5 - Ordinances (Continued)
R5B Ordinances Modifying To The Building, Fire, Planning And Public Works Department Fees Related
To The Building Development Process Implemented On February 1, 201 0. (Page 449)
1. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 14 Of The City Of Miami Beach Code, Renaming Articles
And Divisions; Amending Fees, Clarifying Administrative Processes And Their Respective
Fees; Creating A Process For Reevaluating Permit Fees; Deleting Sections 14-421 Through
14-431, And 14-466 Through 14-698 In Their Entirety; And Amending Appendix A By
Modifying Inspection Fees For Building, Plumbing, Electrical, And Mechanical Work, And For
Other Building Department Activities; Providing For Repealer, Severability, Codification, And
An Effective Date. (Page 457)
2. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 50 Of The City Of Miami Beach Code, By Amending Section
50-3 Thereof, Entitled "Plans Examination, Inspection, Permits"; And Amending Appendix A,
By Adding New Fees And Modifying The Fee Schedule For The Fire Department Review
Process; Providing For Repealer, Severability, Codification, And An Effective Date.
First Reading (Page 471)
3. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 15 Of The City Of Miami Beach Code, Article II, Entitled
"Zoning Review Fee Associated With The Building Process", By Amending 15-31 And Adding
New Sections 15-38 Through 15-43, Thereof; And Amending Appendix A, Adding New Fees
And Modifying The Fee Schedule For Zoning Review Associated With The Building Process;
Providing For Repealer, Severability, Codification, And An Effective Date.
(Page 479)
4. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 98 Of The City Of Miami Beach Code, Article Ill, Division 2,
Section 98-92, Entitled "Application; Amount Of Deposit; Use Of Deposit To Replace Surface;
Permit Fees," By Amending Subsection (E), Adding Subsections (F) Through (I); Amending
Section 98-94, Entitled "Refunds"; And Amending Appendix A By Adding New Fees And
Modifying The Fee Schedule For Public Works Review Associated With The Building
Process; Providing For Repealer, Severability, Codification, And An Effective Date.
(Page 487)
(Requested by Finance &I Citywide Projects Committee)
(Legislative Tracking: Building Department)
R5C Stay Of Work And Proceedings On Appeal
An Ordinance Amending The Land Development Regulations Of The City Code By Amending
Chapter 118, "Administrative And Review Procedures," Article II, "Boards," Division 5, "Board Of
Adjustment,'' Section 1 18-1 37, "Stay Of Work And Proceedings On Appeal," Clarifying And Amending
The Stay Provisions Applicable To Matters On Appeal To The Board Of Adjustment; Providing For
Repealer; Codification; Severability And An Effective Date. (Page 495)
(Requested by Commissioners Edward L. Tobin, Jerry Libbin &I Michael Gongora)
(Legislative Tracking: Planning Department)
R5D An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 0 Of The City Code, Entitled "Utilities," By Amending Article
IV, Entitled "Fees, Charges, Rates And Billing Procedure," By Amending Division 3, Entitled "Billing
Procedure," By Amending Section 110-1 91, Entitled "Payment Of Bills," By Amending 110-191 (B) By
Changing The Due Date For Utility Bills To 21 Days From 15 Days From The Date Of The Bill;
Providing For Repealer, Severability, Codification And Effective Date. (Page 507)
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
(Legislative Tracking: Finance Department)
Regular Agenda, July 13,201 1
W6 - Ordinances (Continued)
R5E An Ordinance Amending Chapter 46 Of The Miami Beach City Code Entitled "Environment," By
Amending Article IV Entitled "Noise" By Amending Section 46-1 51 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 46-1 52; By Amending Section 46-1 58 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 Written
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, To Clarify The Penalties For Noise Violators Also Engaged In An Illegal
Commercial Or Nonpermitted Non- Residential Use, To Amend The Period Of Time Within Which A
Separate Notice Of Violation May Be Issued, And To Make The Failure To Comply With Certain
Notices Of Violation Within A 24 Hour Period A Misdemeanor; And Providing For Repealer,
Severability, Codification, And An Effective Date. (Page 51 3)
(Requested by Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee)
(Legislative Tracking: City Attorney's Office)
R5F Recycling Ordinance
An Ordinance Amending Chapter 90 Of The Miami Beach City Code, Entitled "Solid Waste," By
Amending The Definitions In Article I, Entitled "In General," By Amending Section 90-2, Entitled
"Definitions"; By Amending Article II, Entitled "Administration" By Amending The Penalties For Solid
Waste Violations And To Provide Provisions And Penalties Relative To Recycling For Multifamily
Residences And Commercial Establishments; By Creating Article V, To Be Entitled "Citywide
Recycling Program For Multifamily Residences And Commercial Establishments," To Provide
Provisions For Recycling Requirements And Enforcement, A Public Education Program, A Warning
Period, An Enforcement Date, Collector Liability, A "Red Tag" Noticing System, Penalties, And
Special Master Appeal Procedures; Providing For Repealer, Severability, Codification, And An
Effective Date. (Page 523)
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
(Legislative Tracking: Public Works)
837 - Resolutions
R7A A Resolution Authorizing The City Manager, Or His Designee, To Select, Negotiate, Award And
Reject All Bids, Contracts, Agreements, Purchase Orders, Change Orders And Grant Applications;
Renew Existing Contracts Which May Expire; And Terminate Existing Contracts, As Needed, From
The Last Commission Meeting On July 13, 201 1, Until The First Regularly Scheduled Commission
Meeting On September 14, 2011, Subject To Ratification By The City Commission At Its First
eeting On September 14, 201f. Joint - Commission and
(Page 545)
(Procurement)
Regular Agenda, July 13,201 1
W7 - Resolutions (Continued)
R7B A Resolution Approving And Accepting, Following A Duly Noticed Public Hearing, As Required
Pursuant To Section 82-504 Of The City Code, The Recommendation Of The
Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee For 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). 10:15 a.m. Public Hearing (Page 549)
(Parks & Recreation)
R7C A Resolution Setting The Proposed Millage Rates For Fiscal Year (FY) 201 1/12, The Calculated
"Rolled-Backn Rate, And The Date, Time, And Place Of The First Public Hearing; Further Authorizing
The City Manager To Transmit This lnformation To The Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser In
The Form Required By Section 200.065, Florida Statutes. (Page 559)
(Budget & Performance Improvement)
R7D A Resolution Of The Board Of Directors Of The Normandy Shores Local Government Neighborhood
lmprovement District Setting 1) The Proposed General Operating Millage Rate For The Normandy
Shores Neighborhood lmprovement District; 2) The Calculated Rolled-Back Rate; And, 3) The Date,
Time And Place Of The First Public Hearing To Consider The Operating Millage Rate And Budget For
Fiscal Year (FY) 201 111 2; Further Authorizing The City Manager To Transmit This lnformation To The
Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser In The Form Required By Section 200.065, Florida Statutes.
(Page 579)
(Budget & Performance Improvement)
R7E A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager, Pursuant To Request For
Proposals (RFP) No. 33-1011 1, For Consulting Services Relative To The Expansion And
Enhancement Of The Miami Beach Convention Center (MBCC) CarnpuslDistrict; Authorizing The
Administration To Enter Into Negotiations With The Top-Ranked Firm, ; And Should The
Administration Not Be Able To Successfully Negotiate An Agreement With The Top-Ranked Firm,
Authorizing The Administration To Negotiate With The Second-Ranked Firm, ; And Further
Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute An Agreement Upon Conclusion Of Successful
Negotiations By The Administration. (Page 587)
(City Manager's Office/Procurement)
(Memorandum 4% Resolution to be Submiaed in Ssspglemenhl)
R7F 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 Full Building Permit For Construction Of The Sculpture Park
Proposed Improvements, From May 13,201 1, To March 31,201 2; 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 Improvements Has Been
Secured. (Page 589)
(Tourism & Cultural Development)
(Deferred from June I, 201 1)
Regular Agenda, July 13,201 1
R9 - New Business and Commission Requests
R9A Board And Committee Appointments. (Page 6 15)
(City Clerk's Office)
R9A1 Board And Committee Appointments - City Commission Appointments. (Page 61 9)
(City Clerk's Office)
R9A2 Nomination Of Richard Milstein, As One Of The City's Representative To The Adrienne Arsht Center
For The Performing Arts Center Trust. (Page 631)
(Requested by Mayor Matti Herrera Bower)
R9B1 Dr. Stanley Sutnick Citizen's Forum. (1230 p.m.) (Page 641)
R9B2 Dr. Stanley Sutnick Citizen's Forum. (5:30 p.m.)
R9C FDOT Report On The Proposed Alton Road Improvements Between 5th Street To Michigan Avenue.
(Page 643)
(Public Works)
R9D Discussion Regarding An Update On Security Analysis By The Police Department Investigation
Related To Security Of The Mayor And Commission Offices And Chamber. (Page 657)
(Requested by Commissioner Jorge Exposito)
R9E Discussion And Update On Art Basel Miami Beach Contract Renewal Negotiations. (Page 659)
(Requested by Commissioner Deede Weithorn)
R9F Discussion And Update Regarding The Progress For Repairs To South Pointe Park. (Page 661)
(Requested by Vice-Mayor Edward L. Tobin)
Reports and Informational Items (see LTC #168-201 1)
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.rniamibea~hfl.~ov
HOW A PERSON MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE ClTY COMMISSION OF
THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE ClTY COMMISSION ARE ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION. SCHEDULED
MEETING DATES ARE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, DISPLAYED ON MBTV 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, 12:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, provided that the Commission
Meeting has not already adjourned 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 MBTV 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 Thursday morning prior to the regularly scheduled City Commission
meeting. The Agenda and backup materials are also available on the City's website: www.miamibeachfl.gov the Thursday
prior to a regularly scheduled City 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 subiect maiter 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
public 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 (305)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,
1700 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 13 [Wednesday] April 27 [Wednesday]
May 1 1 [Wednesday] May 18 [Wednesday)
June 1 [Wednesday]
July 13 Wednesday] July 20 Wednesday]
August - City Commission in recess
September 14 [Wednesday)
October 19' [Wednesday) October 26 [Wednesday]
November 2 [Wednesday] - Election related 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
July 13, 2011
LOBBYIST NAME RETAINED BY DATE REGISTERED DISCLOSURE
C7K Approve Month To Month Extension/Towing Permits-Beach Towing & Tremont 9/1 – 12/31D
David Custin Beach Towing Services, Inc. 02/04/2011 $2,223/month
David Nevel Tremont Towing, Inc. 05/11/2011 $275/hour
Eston Melton III Beach Towing Services, Inc. 05/06/2011 $1,000/month
Kenin Menin Tremont Towing 05/11/2011 No comp.
Kent Robbins Beach Towing Services, Inc. 09/27/2010 $450/hour
Neisen Kasdin Tremont Towing 03/24/2008 $500/hour
Rafael Andrade Beach Towing Services, Inc. 01/06/2011 No comp.
Randall Hilliard Beach Towing Services, Inc. 05/09/2011 $2,500/month
Russell Galbut Tremont Towing 05/11/2011 No comp.
R5C Recycling Ord./Citywide Recycling Prog./Multifamily Residences & Commercial Establishments
Eston Melton III Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. 06/06/2011 $1,000/month
Russell Mackie Waste Pro of Florida, Inc. 05/27/2011 Employee
R5D Stay Of Work & Proceedings On Appeal Amending Stay Provisions Appeal To The BOA
David Nevel 1747 Bay Road Properties 02/08/2011 $275/hour
R9C Presentation By FDOT On 60% Plans For Alton Road Reconstruction/5th Street To Michigan
Andrew Frey Crescent Heights R&D 11/02/2008 $290/hour
Neisen Kasdin Crescent Heights R&D 11/13/2008 $550/hour
C:\Documents and Settings\centvalk\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK67\Lobbyist List (2).doc
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 Invitation
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.
Issue:
) Shall the City Commission approve the award of Contracts?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
lnvitation to Bid (ITB) No. 13-09/10, was issued on January 27,201 1, and 27 bids were received on March 11,
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.
The contract price to provide janitorial services resulting from ITB 13-10/11 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.
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 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.
:
I APPROVE THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS.
Advisory Board Recommendation: 1 NlA I
Financial Information:
Source of
Funds:
OBPl
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Ofice Legislative Tracking:
Gus Lopez Ext. 6641
Account
Property Management Account 520-1720-000325
Parking Department Account 480-0463-000325 (12'",
lfh, 1 7th, 4Yd Street, City Hall and Penn Av Garages)
Parking Department Account 142-6976-000325 (7"
Street Garage)
Parking Department Account 463-1 990-000325 (1 6'"
Street Garage)
Public Works Water Account 425-041 0-000325
Public Works Sewer Account 425-0420-000325
Public Works Stormwater 427-0427-000325
Fire Department Account 01 1-1210-000325
I
-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
Amount
$792,885.00
$342,342.60
$82,800.00
$77,520.00
$3,184.00
$3,184.00
$3,184.00
$6,000.00
$1,311,099.60
AMIBEACH
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: July13,2011
SUBJECT: 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: ClTY HALL PARKING
GARAGE AND OFFICES LOCATED AT ClTY HALL PARKING GARAGE;
PURSUANT TO INVITATION TO BID NO. 13-10111, 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.
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
(12'~, 13'~, 1 7'h, 4Pd Street, City Hall and Pennsylvania Av. Garages)
Parking Department Account 142-6976-000325 (Fh Street Garage)
Parking Department Account 463-1 990-000325 (1 6" Street Garage)
Public Works Water Account 425-041 0-000325
Public Works Sewer Account 425-0420-000325
Public Works Stormwater 427-0427-000325
Fire Department Account 01 1-1 21 0-000325
Total
ANALYSIS
The purpose of Invitation to Bid (ITB) 13-10/11 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 ITB is subject to the requirements
of the Living Wage and Equal Benefits Ordinances.
Commission Memorandum - ITB 13-09/10 Janitorial Services
July 13, 201 1
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
othewise 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
(VOC1s). 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 Februarv 25,201 1. A Pre-Bid Conference was held on Februarv 1 1.201 1, and site a -
visits were conducted on February 24 and 25,201 1. Five (5) Addendums were issued to
provide additional information andto respond to all questions submitted by the prospective
bidders, thus extending the bid opening due date to March 11, 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 Inc.
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 - ITB 13-09/10 Janitorial Services
July 13, 20 1 1
Page 3
D&A Building Powermind Global Service
Diamond Contract Services Professional Building Services
Dream Clean Inc. Stockton Maintenance Group
Federal Janitorial Triangle Services
FMC Services Vista Building Maintenance
Frank Medina & Associates
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:
I. 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 (1 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, D&A, withdrew its bid from consideration due to errors in their
calculations. Award of these locations was subsequently moved to the second ranked
companies.
404
Commission Memorandum - ITB 13-09/10 Janitorial Services
July 13, 201 1
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.
405
commission Memorandum - ITB 13-09/10 Janitorial Services
July 13, 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 Facility Services
ISS Facility 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 discussedlnegotiated upon award.
Omarcio Cieanins 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
yo the City limits to employ residents.
Performance Cleanina 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 Buildinn 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 I. This amount would have increased
at the beginning of Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 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 I is fixed
and firm through September 30, 2013, which means savings of approximately
$58,572 through September 30, 2011. After October 1, 2011, the annual savings
realized are approximately $281,228 for Fiscal Year 2012 and $282,356 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
July 13, 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 30,201 3.
Annual Cost Facilities and Garages until September
30,201 1 (current contract)
ITB 13-10111 Annual Cost Facilities and Garages
until September 30,2013
Annual Savings from current contract
Fiscal Year 201 1 Savings (3 Months thru September
30,201 1 - $1 9,524lmonth)
Fiscal Year 2012 Savings ($234,288 + $46,940)
Fiscal Year 2013 Savings ($234,288 + $48,068)
Savings through September 30,201 3
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,
2011, that Vista and its subcontractor had previously entered into "Card Check"
(recognition) agreements with SElU 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 $327,139/annually, 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, 19 are awarded to
the lowest bidder and two (2) are being renewed under the current contract. The 20
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
July 13, 201 1
Page 7
DISCUSSION AT JUNE I. 2011 ClN COMMISSION MEETING
At the June 1, 201 1 City Commission meeting Mr. Eric Brakken, from SElU spoke and
indicated he had concern about the job security for the current janitorial employees and a
requirement that all employees must be fully conversant in English.
Mr. Gus Lopez, Procurement Director, responded that he believed the requirement to be
fully conversant in English, related to janitorial supervisors and although the contract also
made reference to the employees, he indicated that that it was not the intent of the
agreement nor had it ever been enforced. Mayor Bower stated that she will like to be
notified via LTC if this was new language in this contract or if this language is in other City
contracts.
Commissioner Libbin requested that the Administration check other similar contracts to
determine if this language is in any other contract before we set a precedent of rejecting all
bids. Additionally, he requested to defer the item to the July 13, 201 1 City Commission
meeting.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the aforementioned, the Administration recommends that the Mayor 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 $1,34 1,099.60; and authorize the Administration to evaluate the
current services levels to further reduce the total cost.
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-11\ITB 13-1 0-1 1 Janitorial Services MEMO.doc
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-1011 1 - JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST Current Cost I $ 11,220.90 Powermind Global Service 1 $ 9,180.00 Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing servic 1 City Hall ........- ............................................................................... ........................................................................ ................................................ ............................................................................................ .$ .,,..,, i[:~&ceg E,,;t~~$f(+i$ ;~ri $!R@ ;&ii ~ellil )s&kib)g :[iDillr;np Omarcio Cleaning Come Land Maint Serv Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Savings from current contract: * id cost is over current contract, reject 11.33% or $1,270.901month and renew current. Lowest Bidder was scored low by the Panel on Corporate Responsibility plan and past performance (no past performance surveys were received). $ 9,950.00 $ 9,968.65 Professional Building Serv Federal Janitorial Vista Building Maintenace OJS Svstems Page 1 of 11 $ 10,004.42 $ 10,547.65 $ 10,842.12 $ 10.884.00 3 777 Building (City Hall Annex Bldg) -- Current Cost $ 3,762.15 Best Janitorial & Supplies $ 2,960.00 1 Powermind Global Service I $ 3,102.121 ISS Facility Services 1 $ 3,120.20 Chi-Ada I $ 3.160.00 Diamond Contract Serv $ 3,169.73 Carolina Cleaning $ 3,301.00 Boro Building & Prop Maint $ 3,360.00 Omarcio Cleaning $ 3,450.00 Professional Building Serv $ 3,452.00 OJS Systems $ 3,484.00 l~ederal Janitorial 1 $ 3,497.741 ~ABP Maintenance 1 $ 3,516.23) Top Ranked: ISS Facility Services Savings from current contract: 17.06% OR $641.951month Lowest Bidder was scored low by the Panel because company had compliancelperformance issues in previous City contracts. 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 Page 2 of 11 FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing services) I A 1 Police Station Current Cost 1 $ 15,396.95 Best Janitorial & Su~~lies I $ 13,400.00 . . I Professional Building Serv I $ 13,706.67 Federal Janitorial 1 $ 14,473.13 Performance Cleaning Group ( $ 14,603.00 Boro Building & Prop Maint Powermind Global Service Come Land Maint Serv ~ABP Maintenance ( $ 14,791.191 $ 13,820.00 $ 13,920.14 $ 14,074.68 l~ista Building Maintenace 1 $ 14,843.441 Top Ranked: ISS Facility Services Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Top Ranked: Professional Building Savings from current contract: Savings from current contract: Savings from current contract: 30.59% or $655.931month 18.53% OR $1,594.961month 10.98% or $1,690.281month ISS received higher scores in experience, Lowest Bidders were scored low by the Panel because: Lowest Bidder was scored low by the Panel because qualifications, past performance and corporate Powermind: did not submit Corporate Responsibility company had compliancelperformance issues responsibility plan than lowest bidder. plan; no past performance surveys were received. in previous City contracts. Best Janitorial: compliancelperformance issues in previous City contracts. Diamond - performance below average: complaints have been received for several of their locations under their current contract with the City. Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis. ' 1.
.s!seq uo!jeaol Jad uo!jeaol e uo laued aqj Aq pajenleAa jou aJaM eaJe papeqs uo sa!uedwo3 llaqspueg aJoqS 'N 3 asnoqpJeng saJoqS Apuew~o~ 'eaJe awes aql u! suo!leaol Jaqlo JOJ papuawwoaa~ osle aJe Aaql pue 'p!q Jam01 e paJajjo Aaqj aau!s laued aql Aq papuawwoaa~ s! 6u!pl!ng leuo!ssajoJd Janamoq 'laued aql Aq payueJ doj sew op~ewo L(Juowl9 C'OPZ$ Jo %90'PE :pe~juo:, jua~~n:, wo~j s6u!~es - 6u!pl!ng leuo!ssajoJd :(payueu puz) papuawwo:,aN 6u!ueal3 o!a~ewo :payueu do1 rajua3 &!unwwo3 aroqs qjnos 8 sa3!~as yoddns ar!~ L uas 6u!p!no~d 40 $so3 jua~~na Jano sp!q sjuasa~da~ eaJe papeqs) uo!leaol ad jsaq6iq oj jsamol WOJJ umoqs sp!g
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 services) 10 21st Street Recreation Center Current Cost I $ 2,830.00 Performance Cleanina G~OUD I $ 1,790.00 l~arolina Cleaning I $ 2,313.431 \come Land Maint Serv 1 $ 571.281 11 Ocean Front Auditorium Current Cost 1 $ 1,906.50 N&K Enterprises 1 $ 300.00 Powermind Global Service 1 Best Janitorial & Supplies 1 $ 2,390.00) l~arolina Cleaning 1 $ 591.001 Performance Cleaning Group Diamond Contract Serv Best Janitorial & Supplies $ 440.00 $ 446.20 $ 550.00 ISS Facility Services I $ 2,397.39 ABP Maintenance 1 $ 2,479.34 High Maint Serv (HMS) 1 $ 640.43 Vista Building Maintenace 1 $ 661.40 Omarcio Cleaning Boro Building & Prop Maint Professional Building Serv l~ista Building Maintenace I $ 2,689.881 lomarcio Cleaning I $ 1,625.001 N&K Enterprises I $ 2,600.00 Federal Janitorial 1 $ 2,632.00 ~OJS Svstems 1 $ 2.784.001 . $ 2,500.00 $ 2,560.00 $ 2,568.33 Boro Building & Prop Maint 1 $ 1,426.00 Dream Clean Inc. 1 $ 1,596.46 Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: 36.75% or $1,040.001month l~rofessional Building Serv 1 $ 1,648.331 ABP Maintenance Triangle Services ISS Facility Services Powermind Global Service 1 $ 1,695.10 Chi-Ada 1 $ 1,750.00 $ 689.75 $ 720.00 $ 743.71 l~ederal Janitorial 1 $ 1.772.521 ~OJS svstems I $ 1.782.001 Page 4 of 1 1 Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Top Ranked: Professional Building Savings from current contract: Award to lowest Hourly Rate provided 76.92% or $1,466.50/month by one of the four companies being N&K Enterprises was top ranked by the Panel, recommended for award. however declined servicing of one location. Performance Cleaning became Top Ranked. Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis. I. I .,
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-10111 - JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE Page 5 of 1 1 FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing services) . '1 I 1 R I . - North Shore Recr & Tennis Center I Current Cost 1 $ 6,984.60 Powermind Global Service 1 $ 6.370.00 Professional Building Serv / $ 6,424.00 Come Land Maint Serv 1 $ 6,492.59 l~ederal Janitorial 1 $ 6,565.521 l~est Janitorial & Supplies I $ 6,700.001 l~arolina Cleaning I $ 6,748.30) ~ABP Maintenance I $ 6.858.231 Chi-Ada OJS Systems Top Ranked: Professional Building Recommended (2nd Ranked): Performance $ 6,760.00 $ 6,834.00 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. I Muss Park Current Cost 1 $ 608.26 Performance Cleaninn Group 1 $ 398.00 - I Omarcio Cleaning 1 $ 475.00 l~rofessional Building Serv 1 $ 490.831 ABP Maintenance Carolina Cleaning l~owermind Global Service I $ 592.001 $ 490.90 $ 535.86 Boro Building & Prop Maint ISS Facility Services Federal Janitorial $ 550.00 $ 569.07 $ 571.76 Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: Savings from current contract: Not available - new location. 34.57% or $210.261month 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. Cleaning Systems Inc. OJS Systems 1 Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis. ' 1. $ 600.00 $ 604.00
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-10111 -JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded I I6 I I- Crespi Park I Current Cost 1 $ 627.85 Performance Cleaning Group I $ 408.00 l~i~h Maint Serv (HMS) 1 $ 51 1.651 - ABP Maintenance Omarcio Cleaning 1 Professional Building Serv I $ 520.831 $ 490.90 $ 500.00 federal Janitorial $ 583.74 Powermind Global Service $ 592.00 Boro Building & Prop Maint Carolina Cleaning ISS Facilitv Services Cleaning Systems Inc. $ 600.00 OJS Systems $ 618.00 Rest .lanitorial & Suo~lies $ 620.00 $ 540.00 $ 545.97 $ 569.07 -- Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: 35.02% or $21 9.851month area represents bids over current cost of providing servic I 17 I I I Tatum Park Current Cost 1 $ 627.85 ABP Maintenance I $ 190.90 Performance Cleaning Group Omarcio Cleaning [rolina Cleaning ISS Facility Services High Maint Serv (HMS) 581.26 Federal Janitorial $ 408.00 $ 500.00 Professional Building Serv Boro Building & Prop Maint 1 Powermind Global Service I $ 592.001 $ 520.42 $ 540.00 Cleaning Systems Inc. $ 600.00 OJS Systems $ 618.00 Best Janitorial & Supplies $ 620.00 Page 6 of 1 1 '1 18 Still Water Park Current Cost I $ 572.48 Performance Cleaning Group I $ 408.00 Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: 35.02% or $219.851month 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. Omarcio Cleaning Professional Building Serv ABP Maintenance Federal Janitorial Boro Building & Prop Maint Carolina Cleaning Powermind Global Service ISS Facility Services Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: 28.73% or $1 64.481month $ 430.00 $ 445.00 $ 490.90 $ 538.13 $ 540.00 $ 545.97 $ 565.00 $ 569.07 Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis. ' \ r , 9.
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-1011 1 -JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST Page 7 of 1 1 Omarcio Cleaning I $ 430.00 Professional Building Serv I $ 445.00 Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing services) Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Savings from current contract: 30.48% or $174.48lmonth . .................................. : ........................................ ... "" ...................................................................... : ................................................................................ ..... irlllllllllllllllll,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ..,,. q% - '2 :I ........................................... .' ...""' .' ..'..' W~I: ~:&t tdy 5 ~VDI!~#S Gl~:~amb ~%.~RRFR 19 Fairway Park , Carolina Cleaning Powermind Global Service ISS Facility Services Current Cost I $ 655.97 Cleaning Systems Inc. I $ 400.00 20 Normandy Shores Park $ 545.97 $ 565.00 $ 569.07 lomarcio Cleaning I $ 500.00/ Professional Building Serv Boro Building & Prop Maint Powermind Global Service l~onor Cleaning I $ 650.001 $ 516.25 $ 540.00 $ 592.00 =Maintenance Federal Janitorial 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. $ 595.35 $ 616.61 Top Ranked: Professional Building Savings from current contract: 7.46% or $21.191month 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. ' \ 1 ..
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-1 011 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 Current Cost 1 $ 616.21 Omarcio Cleaning I $ 500.00 22 Normandy Isle Park and Pool Facility Current Cost High Maint Serv (HMS) Boro Building & Prop Maint Professional Building Serv Professional Building Serv $ 531.67 ISS Facility Services $ 576.54 23 Parks Maintenance Building $ 2,447.76 $ 587.28 $ 1,200.00 $ 2,008.33 Fzda 1 $ 2,045.041 I Federal Janitorial 1 $ 579.241 I~ederal Janitorial 1 $ 2,275.741 N&K Enterprises Powermind Global Service Omarcio Cleaning 1 $ 2,300.00 Diamond Contract Serv 1 $ 2,319.90 l~arolina Cleaning 1 $ 2,384.421 $ 2,081.44 $ 2,120.00 Top ~anked: bmarcio Cleaning Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Powermind Global Service $ 595.12 Honor Cleaning $ 615.00 Savings from current contract: Savings from current contract: 6.04% or $147.76lmonth $ 147.76 18.86% or $1 16.2llmonth HMS was top ranked but declined one location. Omarcio became top ranked, scored high on past performance and Corporate Responsibility Plan. Omarcio recommend over lowest bidders since currently servicing this location. End user highly satisfied with their service. This will ensure end user satisfaction while still realizing savings from current contract. Page 8 of 1 1 Top Ranked: ~r*ional Building Companies on shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis. ' \.
'qluour Jad aaua~ag!p aapd ayl uo paseq uo!l!sod yueJ do1 e sp!q lsaMol aql pJoge lou saop uo!leaolle lu!od eyal!~:, uo!palas 'surooJlsau s!uual yJed o6u!urelj JOJ papuaur~uoaa~ osle aJe Aayl pue 'p!q JaMol e paJago Aaql aau!s laued ayl Aq papuaururoaa~ s! 6u!pl!ng jeuo!ssajoJd JaAaMoy 'laued ayl Aq p~y payueJ seM aaueur~ogad Y~uo~loz'zzz$ JO %CC'9 C :ple~quo:, qua~~n:, uro.14 s6uyleg - 6u!pl!ng :. . i qseq uo!qle:,ol ad uo!qe:,ol le uo lauled ayq Aq paqenlelra qou aJaM leaJle papleys uo sa!ueduro3 .spequoD 4!3 sno!AaJd u! sanss! aaueur~o~ad~aaue!~dur03 - lsag 'A~!~!~!suo~s~J ale~od~oa U! MOI pa~oas 'aaueur~ojJad lsed a6eJaAe Molaq - o~og '43 aql yl!~ pe~luoa lua~~na qayl Japun suo!leaol J!aqljo IeJaAas JOJ pa~!aaa~ uaaq aAey slu!elduroa :a6e~a~e Molaq aaueur~ojJad - puoLue!a :uo paseq laued ayl Aq MO~ pa~oas sJapp!q IsaMol Y3UOurlOL'9P9$ JO % CO'SP :pe~quo:, qua~~n:, UOJJ s6u!lreg CE'PEC'C $ saa!Nas Al!l!aed SSI 00.PCC'C $ dnom 6u1uea1n aaueur~o~~ad IS03 AlHlNOW - S311ll13Vd 3CllMh113 S331AM3S 1VlMOllNVr - CCIOC-CC all NOllblnaVl ala - V lN3WH3VllV
Page 10of 11 Current Cost 1 $ 1,051.77 Boro Building & Prop Maint 1 $ 890.00 ATTACHMENT A - BID TABULATION ITB 13-1011 1 - JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE FACILITIES - MONTHLY COST ,f Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing services) Current Cost I $ 1,313.11 Hiah Maint Serv (HMS) I $ 1,044.90 30 Public Works Operations Building 28 Flamingo Park Tennis Courts Restr. Professional Building Sew Federal Janitorial 29 Flam Prk BaselSoWFootball Restr High Maint Serv (HMS) Diamond Contract Serv $ 898.00 $ 902.10 TOD Ranked: ISS Facilitv Services ISSgcility Services Honor Cleaning Powermind Global Service - Boro Building & Prop Maint $ 992.74 $ 1,010.00 $ 1,015.00 Performance Cleaning Group Honor Cleaning $ 1,142.00 $ 1,150.00 Omarcio Cleaning Professional Building Serv Pnwermind Global Service Current Cost I $ 1,940.08 Performance Cleaning Group I $ 796.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 1,156.33 $ 1.218.00 - Federal Janitorial Best Janitorial & Supplies ISS Facility Services $ 1,234.32 $ 1,240.00 $ 1,245.69 I Federal Janitorial I $ 1,823.671 - N&K Enterprises Professional Building Serv $ 1,500.00 $ 1,723.33 Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning Carolina Cleaning OJS Systems Powermind Global Service Top Ranked: Performance Cleaning $ 1,830.00 $ 1,834.00 $ 1,865.00 Recommended (2nd Ranked): Professional Bldg Savings from current contract: Savings from current contract: Savings from current contract: 13.03% or $1 71 .I llmonth 58.97% or $1,144.08lmonth 13.95% or $146.77lmonth Lowest Bidder was scored low by the Panel on ISS was ranked first by the Panel, however Corporate Responsibiliy. Professional Building is recommneded by the Panel 2nd lowest bidder had below average past since they offered a lower bid, and they are also performance survey; scored low on recommended for Flamingo Park Pool. Corporate Responsibility Selection criteria point allocation does not afford the lowest bids a top rank position based on the price difference per month. 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 GARAGES - MONTHLY COST Page 2 of 3 Bids shown from lowest to highest per location (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing services) P 2 * ~idderadvised of error in pricing Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Top Ranked: Omarcio Cleaning Savings from current contract: Savings from current contract: Savings from current contract: 10.27% or $290.741month 10.92% or $792.131month 16.04% or $1,547.021month Lowest Bidder was scored low by the Panel on Corporate Responsibility plan and past performance. Companies in shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis.
ATTACHMENT A - BID TABUALTION ITB 13-10111 - JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE GARAGES - MONTHLY COST E$ids !it'.~R~r. rrorr Icrbcms: ......... r0 hsgrle~: FZEI br:d~krr;Jk:: (shaded area represents bids over current cost of providing services) I , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ",,h, " -" I I Pennsylvania Avenue Garage Current Cost * Dream Clean Inc. Omarcio Cleaning Vista Building Maintenace Come Land Maint Serv Best Janitorial & Supplies Professional Bldg Serv Federal Janitorial High Maint Serv (HMS) Honor Cleaning $ 8,900.00 Boro Building & Prop Maint $ 9.041.00 Chiada $ 9,178.00 Powermind Global $ 9.210.00 * 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 $1,107.50lmonth Companies in shaded area were not evaluated by the Panel on a location per location basis. Page 3 of 3
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:
* 19 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.
* 20 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
423
# of Facilities
3
16
13
9
41
Itern
1
* 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Current Cost
Savings
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
North Shore Open Space Offices
Muss Park
Crespi Park
Tatum Park
Still Water Park
Fairway Park
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
Performance Cleaning
Performance Cleaning
Performance Cleaning
Performance Cleaning
Performance Cleaning
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
$13.881hr
$6,985.00
$408.00
$398.00
$408.00
$408.00
$408.00
$398.00
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
$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 CITYWIDE
Page 2 of 2
* Locations being rejected and renewed with Ornarcio under RFP 4-07/08
424
Annual Cost
$6,000.00
$3,152.04
$27,600.00
$6,000.00
$1 2,680.04
$9,480.00
$19,104.00
$13,863.96
$1 0,860.00
$13,704.00
$9,552.00
$7,920.00
$1 1,821.08
$5,100.00
$808,437.00
Item
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
*7 -
8
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
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 BaselSoftlFootball Restr
Public Works Operations Building
Parking Depart Operation Bldg
Marine Patrol Office & Public Restr
South Pointe Park
Garage
7* Street Garage
12* Street Garage
1 3* Street Garage
1 6* Street Garage
17* Street Garage
42"d Street Garage
0
Total Cost Garages
Total Cost Facilties and Garages
$67,369.75
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
Penn Garage Omarcio Cleaning $8,200.00 $98,400.00
Monthly Cost
$6,900.00
$1,660.00
$1,660.00
$6,460.00
$8,100.00
$2,540.00
$6,368.55
Company Name
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
Omarcio Cleaning
Annual Cost
$82,800.00
$1 9,920.00
$1 9,920.00
$77,520.00
$97,200.00
$30,480.00
$76,422.60
$41,888.55
$1 09,258.30
$502,662.60
$1,311,099.60
JANTIZE TAMPA BAY
LIVING WAGE
CERTl FlCATlON
PAGE 03/16
~uriusnt to Section 2408(e) of the Miami Beach Clty Code, entiied Csdfication
mqqimd beftre paymenf. 'Any and all contracts for covered services' may be voidable,
andjno funds may be released, unless prior to entering any ~greement with me city for a
covered services contra&&, the service contracto? certifies to the city that it wlll pay each
of itk covered employees no less than the living wage described in section 2-408(a). A
cop$ of this certificate must be made available to the public +upon request The
oefi@cate, at a minimum, must Include the following:
1. The name, address, and phone number of the oovered employer, a locel contact
: persbn, and the specific project for which the covered seruiees contract is sought;
2;. The amount of the covered services conb~ct, a brief description of the project or
: service provided and the city department the contract will serve;
i
I CSty Department($):
i Description of senrice or pmjed
red senr/cesn Contracts inwiving the cws €xp3ndim of over $10D,OOD per year and which indu
types of senrim: Food Pmparation andlor Disttlbution; Sew* Services;' Routine
Mainenante S~wirm such as Custndlal, Cleaning, Refuse Removal, Re@&, Refinishing and Recycling:
Cleric@ or Mher NonSupeNisory Mfim Work (Wether temporary or permanent); Transprpation and
Parkidg Services; Printin0 and bpmdudlon Seruicers; kndsoaping, Lawn, andlor Agricuhral Se~ces; and -
Park qnd Public bpeq Mainknenoe. -
"Se@loe cmtr&W b iB any individual. corp~~tion (whether for pmnt or ndfor pmM), psrmemhip, limited 2 d 2
liabilq company, joint venture, or Other businam entity who is cbnducting business in Miami Beam, and
who ia ~ithec (1) paid in wh4 or parl from a. or more of the City% gene~al fund, apbl prajed funds. jrlin;w*
specid revenue funda, or any other funds, whether by competitive bid process, informal bids, Iquests for - fl propo#sls, some fom of mliifion, n~otiation, or agwrnent, or any other decision to enter into o met; /7. f7
or (2) engagd in the businass.of, or part of, a cantract to provide, or a subcontract to provide, services, for
the beefit of the city. However, th$ does not apply tD conhacfs related primarily to the sale of produots or
QwdSi 20 /3
JANTIZE TAMPA BAY
4. A commitment to pay all covered employees fhe living wage, as defined by
section 2408(a) and including, without limitation, any annual Indexes thereto (as i ; provided in section 2-408(d).
i
~ffe#tive Odober 1, 2010, service contractors shall be required to pay all its employees
whq provide services for covered service contracts, the hourly iiving wage rates based
on the following three (3) year phase-in appmach:
! / Commencing with City fiscal year 2010-11 (October 1, 2010), he ha& living
j wage rate will be $lQ.l6lhr. with health beneMsB of at least $1.25hr, and
j $1 1.41hr withbut benefits;
k Commencing with City fiscal year 201 1-12 (October 1, 201 'I), the hourly living
i wage rate will be $10.721hr with health benefits of at least $1.45/hr, and
j $12.17hr without benafits, and
Commencing with City fiscal year 2512-13 (October 1, 2012), the hourly living
! rate will be $1 1.28hr with health benefits of at least $I.M/hr, and 812.921hr I wfthout benefits.
I fuker understand and agree and acknowledge that fallun to comply with the Living
Wa$e Ordinance requirements shall constitute a material breach of the contract by
whi$h the City may immediately terminate same,
. I dhclare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida that the
fo*oing is true and correct, and that I am authorized to bind this entlty contractually.
d
, in the year A, at
1Yo2 d 6hg 9 S'?k
Maliing ~cidress
r ~a&e of Signatory (plead print) Clty, State, Zip Code
Tiil(?
~odrnore inf~rrnation m the Living Wage or e ~opy of the Ordinance, refer to the CM. of
Miqi Beach website: htta:llweb.miamlbeachfl.aovlamurement
i - . . -. City of Mlami Beach I PROCUREMENT DIVISION
1700 Convention Center Drive I third floor I Mlami Beach, FL-I 33139
T; 305,673.7490 1 F: 786.3g4A000
pr~curement@miamibeachfl.gov
"~eatth Benew shall, at a minimum, mean health insurance coverage whfch mnei3t~ of ~~llfle8~ and
preu' ntive care, including maternity, and that meats the requirements of a 'standard health beneMs Plan" as
dsfihd in Subadon 627.8888 (IWb)(4), Flo"da Siatutea', as may be mended mrn time time.
PAGE 04/16
LIVING WAGE
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 2408(e) of the Miami Beach City Code, entitled Cerfificafion required before
payment. 'Any and at1 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
contractor certifies to the ~ity 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:
I The name, address, and phone number of the covered employer, a local contact person, and the
specific project for which the covered services cuntract 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 ~ov~~B~.s~M'G~s contra&, 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(s):
Description of senrice or project: Janitorial and related services.
3, A statement of the wage levels for all employees; All ISS Faellity Services Inc. employees will
be compensated in compliance with the Living Wage ordinance for the City sf Miami Beach
Florida.
'u Covered services" Contracts involving the city's expenditure of over $100,000 per yearand which include the following :types
of se~ces: Food Preparation andlor DiMbution; Security Se~ces; Routine Maintenance Se~ces such as Custodial, Cleaning,
Refuse Removal, Repair, Refinishing and Recycling; Clerical or Other Non-Supervisory Mfice Work (whether temporary or
Permanent); Transportation and Parking Services; Printing and Reproduction Services; Landscaping, Lawn, anWor.Agricultural
Swims; and Park and Public Property Maintenance. ' "Service contractof, is is any individual, ~0rpl3ti0n
(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 wh~ is either: ('I) paid in whole or part from one or '
more of the City's geneml fund, capital project funds, special revenue funds, or,any other funds, whether
by competitive bid process, informal bids, requests for proposals, some fmm of solicitation, negotiation,
or agreement, or any other decision to enter into a contract; or (2) engaged in the business of, or pafi of,
a contract to pr~vide, ,or a subcontract to provide, services, for the benelit 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 2408(d).
Effective October I, 2010, service contractors shall be required to pay all its employees who provide
services for covered service coritracts, the hourly living wage .rates based on the following three (3) year
phase-in approach:
. Commencing wiih City fiscal year 2010-1 1 (October 1, 2010), the hourly living wage rate will be
3
$10,16/hr. with health benefits of at least $1.25/hsI and $3 1.411hr .without benefits;
Commencing with City fiscal year 201 1-12 (October 1, 201 l), the hourly living wage rate will be
$10.72/hr with health benefRs of at least $1.45/hr, and'$12.17/hrwithout benefits; and
Commencing with City fiscal year 2012-13 (October 1,2012), the hourly living rate will be
$1 1.28Ihr with health benefits of at least $1.64/hr, and $12.92/hr without benefits.
I further understand and agree and acknowiedge that failure to comply with the Living Wage Ordinance
requirements shall constitute a material breach of the cantract 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 Surinas
9363 W. Sample 'Road Coral Snrinas, Florida 33065
Name of Signatory (please print) City, State, Zip Code
Laura Thompson
Title: Director of Business Develooment
For more information on the Living Wage or a copy of the Ordinance, refer to the City ofMiami Beach
website: htt~:llweb.miamibeachfi,oov~~rocurernent
City of Miami Beach 1 PROCUREMENT DlVlSlON 1700
Convention Center Drive I third floor I Miami Beach, FL 1 331 39
T: 305.673.749D 1 f: 786.39mt.4000
procurernent@miamibeachfl.gov
1
"Health Benefitsn shall, at a minimum, mean health insurance coverage which consists of weliness and
preventive care, including maternity, and that meets the requirements of a "standard health benafds plan"
as defined in Subsection 627.6699 (.12)/b)(4), Florida Statutes*, as may be amended from time to time.
We are committed to pmviding excellent public serviceancf safefy to all wtro live, work, end play ln our vibmnt, tmpicai, historic community.
LIVING WAGE
CERTl F l CATION
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: 578 E43 /3-101~!~; ,
Name of Contractor: Orv\ AR ~i O C I F* L.4 -t l).
'MA# c;c PIG43 ah " Contact person:
Address: 47 SC.J R 6*$
Phone number: "IFZI,. La\ ,oaota
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: $ DnkhhSn
; nJs City Department(s): \I A A
Description of service or project:
CI-~an?nt wo19-
3. A statement of the wage levels for all employees;
~mmr:? wi\~ TO LIV~M) ln)U~ ~T;LU;C~~-~
"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, iniormal 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 reiated 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 1, 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 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 1.41Ihr without benefits;
1 Commencing with City fiscal year 201 1-12 (October I, 2011), the hourly living
wage rate will be $10.72/hr with health benefits of at least $1.45/hr, and
$12.1 7/hr without benefits; and
1 ' 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 $1.641hr, 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 taws of the State of Florida that the
foregoing is true and correct, and that I am authorized to bind this entity contractually.
City
,FG
State
42b sd 3 STC~QT &j
Mailing Address
of Signatory (please print)
N*
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 I PROCUREMENT DIVISION
1700, Convention Center Drive I third floor I Miami Beach, FL 1 331 39
T: 3b5.673.7490 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.
~L'F oors comn~ined m pm\,td,ng e.\cellenf public ssmico ond soky IJ oli who liv~.. ~ar; on<! in our \iLron: rrop~cul. 1>1s;ur1c coninrunrh
LIVING WAGE
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 2-408(e) of the Miami Beach City Code, entitled Cerfification
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 contracto12 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:
I. 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 Nan-Supervisory Offrce Work (whether temporary or permanent); Ttansportation and
Parking Services; Printing and Reproduction Services; Landscaping, Lawn, andlor Agricultural Services; and -
Park and Public Pmperty 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 Cis general fund, capital project funds,
speaal 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 2010-1 1 (October 1, 2010), the hourly living
wage rate will be $10.16/hr. with health benefits3 of at least $1.251hr, and
$1 1.4lfhr without benefhs;
Commencing with City fiscal year 2011-12 (October 1, 2011), the hourly living
wage rate will be $10.721hr with health benefits of at least $1.45/hr, and
$12.171hr without benefits; and
Commencing with City fiscal year 2012-13 (October 1, 2012), the hourly living
rate will be $1 1.28fhr with health benefits of at least $1.64/hr, and $12.921hr
without benefits.
I further understand and agree and acknowledge that failure to comply with the Living
Wage Ordinance requirements shall constitute a material breach of the contract by
which the City may immediately terminate same.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida that the
foregoing is true and correct, and that I am authorized to bind this entity contractually,
Executed this :day of March , in the year 201 1 , at Plantation FL
1-
City State
7027 W. Broward Bivd., #303
Mailing Address
Craig Saxner Plantation, FL 33317
Name of Signatory (please print) City, State, Zip Code
President
For more information on the Living Wage or a copy of the Ordinance, refer to the City of
Miami Beach website: htt~:lheb.rniamibeachfl.aovl~rocurement
- City of Miami Beach ( PROCUREMENT DIVISION
1700 Convention Center Drive I third floor I Miami Beach, FL 1 33139
T: 305.673.7490 1 F: 786.394.4000
procurernent@miamibeachfl.gov
3 'Health Benefits" shall, at a minimum, mean health insurance coverage which consists of wellness and
preventive care, including matern'@, and that meets the requirements of a 'standard health benefits plan" as
defined in Subsection 627.6699 (12)(b)(4), Fiorida Statuts*, as may be amended from time to time.
We ore cornmifled fo providing excellent public service ood solely lo all do live, work, ond ploy in our vibrant, tropical, his~oric community.
JANTIZE TAMPA BAY PAGE 01/02
Qfy of &mi Beach, I700 Convenlon Center Drive, Miami Beach, Rodda 33 139, www,mi~rnikhR.~ov
PROCUR~MENT DIVISION
Tel: 305.q~ -7490 , Fax: 7863944003
May 1% 2011
Mr. ~aiiel Gorrih.
Perfor ance Cleaning Group 1 7402 N. 56'" Street, ~te 840
Tamp14 Fl33817 Sent Via e-mail: daniela~8cgclean.corn
RE: ~ITE) NO. 13-IOfI l JANITORIAL SERVICRS CITYWIDE
Dear I$[. Forritz:
It is thdpolicy 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
contrar#s or the expiration of the contracts under which the employees were hired, a right of first
refusalbf employment under this contract in posifions for which employees are qualified.
The cr(stodia1 companies shall determine the number of employees necessary for efficient
perfor$ance of this contract and may elect to employ fewer employees than the predecessor
custod@l company employed in connection with performance of the work. It is the policy of the City
that all kmplayees hired by the custodial companies who were employed under the predecessor
c~ntr;r& should be retained for at least a 90-day transition period during which the custodial
cornpaby should refrain from discharging without cause any employee retained pursuant to this
su bsec#on.
Pleasejadvise if you're awarded a contract for janitorial services, if you would be agreeable to the
followi4g contract provision:
:(a) Consistent with the efficient performance of this contract, the contractor and its
subcorltractors shall, except as otherwise provided herein, in good faith offer those employees
(other than managerial and supervisory employees) employed under the predecessor contract
whose bmployment will be terminated as a result of award of this contract or the expiration of the
contradt under which the employees were hired, a right of first refusal of employment under this
contradt in positions forwhich employees are qualified. The contractor and its subcontractors shall
deterdne the number of employees necessary for efficient perhrmance of this contract and may
elect td employ fewer employees than the predecessor contractor employed in connection with
perforn)ance of the work Except as provided in paragraph (b) there shall be no employment
openin$ under this contract, and the contractor and any suboontmctors shall not offer employment
undertbis contract, to any person prior to having complied fully with this obligation. The contractor
and its~ubcantractars shall make an express offer of employment to each employee as provided
herein Qnd shall state the time within which the employee must accept such offer, but in no case
shall tije period within which the employee must accept the offer of employment be less than
10 day+.
We ofe e&mt& e prodding emellent ~srvice andmfety ta d 40 I&. wrk, md ploy m our vibr~nr,. ~plcol, hisroric cornmunip.
05/12/2011 14: 30 8138307569 JANTIZE TAMPA BAY PAGE 02/02
j(b) Notwithstanding the obligation under paragraph (a) above, the contractor 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 of this contract
and whrb would otherwise face lay-off or discharge, (2) are not required to offer a tight offirst refusal
to any~ernployee(s) of the predecessor contractor who are not service employees within
the megning 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($) of the predecessor contractor whom the
contracfor or any of its subcontractors reasonably believes, based on the particular employee's past
perfodnca, has failed to perform suitably on the job.
; jc) The contractor shall, not less than 10 days before completion of this contract, furnish the
Procurdment Director a certified list of the names of all service employees working under this
eantrad and its subcontracts during the last month of contract performance. The list shall also
cantainianniversary dates of employment of each service employee under this contract and its
predec&ssor contracts either with the current or predecessor contractor6 or their subcontractors.
The ~kcurement Director will provide the list to the successor contractor, and the list shall be
providd on request to employees or their representatives.
gd) If it is determined by the C'i Manager, that the contractor or its subcontractors are not
in comfbliance with the requirements of this clause, appropriate sanctions may be imposed and
rernedii#s invoked against the contractor or its subcontractors, as provided in the Miami Beach City
Code, dr a3 otherwise provided by law.
~(e) In every subcontract entered into in order to perform services under this contract, the
contraqr will include provisions that ensure that each subcontractor wlll honor the requirements of
paragt4phs (a) through (b) with respect to the employees of a predecessor subcontractor or
subcor$ractars working under this mntract, as well as of a predecessor contractor and its
subco@ractors, The subcontract shall also include provisions to ensure that the subcontractor will
provid4 the contractor with the information about the employees of the subcontractor needed by the
contraiftor to comply wlth paragraph 5(c), above. The contractor will take such adon with respect
to any $uch subcontract as may be directed by the Procurement Director as a means of enforcing
such pfovisions, including the imposition of sanctions for non-compliance.
~leaseiadvise in writing, if you are agreeable to the aforementioned pro\risian.
L t
Gus ~dpez, CPPO
Direct* oMcurement
- -
/I hereby agree in good faith to consider employing those employees under the predecessor
icontract. - ;I do not agree with the provisions set forth in this letter, and as such, f 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 conditions:
Cii of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Mislrni Beach, Florida 331 39, ww.miamibeochfl.gov
PKUCUREMENT LJIVISl'irN
Tel; 305.673.7490 , Fax: 786.3964003
: May 12,2011
i Mr. Ornar Quintanilla
: Omarcid Cleaning Services, Inc.
. 426 SW 8'h Street
: Miami, FI 33130 Sent Via e-mail: omarciocs@.vahoo.com
i RE (ITB) NO. 13-1 0111 JANITORIAL SERVICES CITYWIDE
. Dear. Mr. Quintanilla:
if 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 Rrst
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 cmploycd in connection with performan= of the work. It ia 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 00-day transition period during which the custodial
company should refrain from discharging without cause any employee retained pursuant to this
subsection.
Piease 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 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
contrad under which the employees were hlred, a right of first refusal of' employment under thts
contract in positions for which employees are qualified. The contractor and its subcontractors shall
determine the number of employees necessary for efficient perforrnanra 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
openlng under thls 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 emplayee 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.
bVe art: cornrnitl~d 10 probaiding excllcnf plhlic: BCW~CC and ;nbty fu 011 who liw. ~rk, and ploy in our vibrunt, trupic.cl, hbloric c~romrnurrity.
(b) Notwithstanding the obligation under paragmph (a) above, the contractor and any
subcontractors (4) 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 ernployee(a) af 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 cmployee(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 af the names of all service employees working under this
i 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: tneir 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 cnf 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 se~ces 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
subcantractors working under this contract, as well as of a predecessor contractor and its
subcontractors. The subcontract shall also include provisions to ensure that the subcontraaor will
provide the contractorwith the information about the employees of the subcontractor needed by the
contrachr Lu 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 nan-compliance.
Please advise in writing, if you are agreeable to the aforementioned provision.
Thank you,
L
Gus Lopez, CPPO
Director of Procurement
k) I hereby agree in good faith to consider employing those ernp\oyees 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 a contract award
to my company under the following conditions:
'Print Name - Title Date F We uk? comrnltkd to pra~i~icling sxceIknt public ~slvlce ond sohty to ol who live, work, and ploy h our vll~mnt, ~ro~ical, hi~loric comtnt.rni?/.
RROCLiREt4ENT DI:v'lSlC)N
Tel: 305.673.7490 , Fax: 7863944003
May 12,201 I
Mr. Craig M. Saxner
Professional Building Services, lnc.
7027 W. Broward BIvd
Plantation, FI 33177 Sent Via e-mail: ~~~n&~r;j~~g&~iIdi~~irservices. into
RE: (ITB) NO. 13-10194 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 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 priorto 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 0 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 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 woMng 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 contractorwith the information about the employees of the subcontractor needed by the
contractor to comply with paragraph 5(c), above. The contractorwill 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
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 'a contract award
to my company under the following conditions:
/If?...J+- l6*-4)tY/f - k(1s
Print Name - Title
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miornibeachfl.gov
PROCUREMENT DIVISION
Tel: 305.673.7490 , Fox: 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.thom~son@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 QUALlFlED 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 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 empioyment
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.
We are commitled lo providing excebn: p;rbik service and saiety :o a8 who he; work, ond piay in ovc vibran!. frc~ica!, hblcric ccrnrnuoib,
(b) Notwithstanding the obligation under paragraph (a) above, the contractor and any
subcontractors (I) 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 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
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 a contract award
to my company under the following c~nditi~ns:
Director of Business Development May 16,201 1
rint Name - Title Date
C/ ~Lch'drnrni~ :o providing ewfekn: pubii: lervice and :o si! who live, work, and ploy m our vibron:. ?opd, hisfoi;c cornmunib.
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
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(C) To Provide That The
Chairperson Of The Committee May Designate A Committee Member To Obtain Information From And
Provide Input To Other City Agencies Boards, Or Committees Relative To Accessibility Related Issues;
Providing For Codification, Repealer, Severability, And An Effective Date.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
NIA
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): NIA
Issue: --. -
Shall the Mayor and City Commission amend the City Code by amending Sec. 2-31 (C) to provide that the
chairperson of the committee may designate a committee member to obtain information from and provide
input to other city agencies boards, or committees relative to accessibility related issues
Item SummarylRecommendation:
SECOND READING PUBLIC HEARING
The item was originally referred to the NeighborhoodICommunity Affairs Committee (NCAC) at the July 14,
2010 Commission Meeting; item was discussed at the December 14,2010 NCAC meeting and approved
by the City Commission at the January 9, 201 1 Commission Meeting.
This ordinance was approved on first reading at the February 9,201 1 Commission meeting with a referral
to the NCAC. The item was opened and continued on March 9 and April 13,201 1 by the City Commission,
and considered at the NeighborhoodICommunity Affairs Committee on June 3,201 1.
As a result of the discussions held at the June 3, 201 1 NCAC meeting, the attached amendments are
proposed which will provide for a committee member, appointed by the committee chairman, to attend
meetings of other City agencies, boards, or committees for the purpose of providing and obtaining input
regarding accessibility related issues and reporting to the Disability Access Committee so that the
committee may provide recommendations to the certain City departments or to the City Commission. At
the June 3, 201 1 NCAC meeting the Committee requested Mr. New, DAC chairperson, to work with the
City Attorney's Office on the ordinance revisions. Mr. New was emailed a copy of the revised ordinance.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I Nei~hborhoodICommunity Affairs Committee meeting of June 3,201 1 recommended to send item back to I I thekity Commission pending changes by the Legal Department.
3 1
OBPl Total I
Financial Impact Summary: None.
Financial Information:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Robert Parcher, Ext 6451
@ MIAMIBEACH ,,
Account Source of
Funds:
I:
DATE ?-13-rl,
1
2
Amount
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 Manage
SECOND READING
DATE: July 13, 201 1 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TH k' 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(C) TO PROVIDE THAT THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE
COMMITTEE MAY DESIGNATE A COMMITTEE MEMBER TO OBTAIN
INFORMATION FROM AND PROVIDE INPUT TO OTHER ClTY AGENCIES -.
BOARDS, OR COMMITTEES RELATIVE TO ACCESSIBILITY RELATED ISSUES;
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends adoption of the ordinance.
BACKGROUND
The item was originally referred to the Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee (NCAC) at
the July 14, 2010 Commission Meeting; item was discussed at the December 14, 2010 NCAC
meeting and approved by the City Commission at the January 9, 201 1 Commission Meeting.
This ordinance was approved on first reading at the February 9, 201 1 Commission meeting with
a referral to the NCAC. The item was opened and continued on March 9 and April 13, 201 1 by
the City Commission, and considered at the Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee on
June 3,201 1.
CONCLUSION
As a result of the discussions held at the June 3, 2011 NCAC meeting, the attached
amendments are proposed which will provide for a committee member, appointed by the
committee chairman, to attend meetings of other City agencies, boards, or committees for the
purpose of providing and obtaining input regarding accessibility related issues and reporting to
the Disability Access Committee so that the committee may provide recommendations to the
certain City departments or to the City Commission. At the June 3, 2011 NCAC meeting the
Committee requested Mr. New, DAC chairperson, to work with the City Attorney's Office on the
ordinance revisions. Mr. New was emailed a copy of the revised ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE
ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE
ClTY OF MlAMl 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(C) TO PROVIDE THAT THE CHAIRPERSON OF
THE COMMITTEE MAY DESIGNATE A COMMITTEE MEMBER TO
OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM AND PROVIDE INPUT TO OTHER
ClTY AGENCIES, BOARDS, OR COMMITTEES RELATIVE TO
ACCESSIBILITY RELATED ISSUES; PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICATION, REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the Disability Access Committee (DAC) has recently considered measures
to increase awareness of and to address accessibility related issues in the City; and
WHEREAS, various amendments to the Disability Access Committee have been
considered by the Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee (NCAC) at its December 14,
2010 and June 3,201 1 meetings; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the discussions held at such meetings, the following
amendments are proposed which will provide for a committee member, appointed by the
committee chairman, to obtain information from and provide input to other city agencies, boards,
and committees relative to disability issues.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That Section 2-31 of Chapter 2 of the City Code is hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 2
ADMINISTRATION
Article Ill. Agencies, Boards And Committees
* * *
Division 2. Disability Access Committee
Sec. 2-31. - Established; purpose; composition.
(a) Established. There is hereby established the disability access committee, whose
purposes, power and duties, composition, membership qualification and general
governing regulations are as set forth in this section.
(b) Purpose. The purpose of this committee is to review, formulate and coordinate
information, suggestions, proposals and plans and to address complaints from the
general public to provide more conveniently accessible facilities, public buildings,
streets, sidewalks and programs for the persons with disabilities in the city. The
committee, in the context of this transition plan, is consulted with in terms of prioritization
of accessibility-related improvements to city facilities. The priorities are in terms of both
the order of which facilities to modify, and also the particular improvements to each
respective facility. The committee may provide accessibility-related input to the following
departments: building services, recreation, culture and parks, police and code
compliance.
(c) Powers and duties. See subsection (b) of this section. In addition, the chairperson of -_
the committee mav desiqnate a committee member to attend meetings of other city
agencies, boards, or committees for the purpose of providing and obtaining input
regarding accessibilitv related issues and reporting to the disabilitv access committee on
matters set forth in subsection (b) so that the disabilitv access committee mav provide
recommendations to the city departments specified in subsection (b) or to the city
commission.
(d) Composition. The disability access committee shall be composed of seven voting
members who shall be direct appointees by the mayor and city commissioners. A
quorum shall consist of three members. Formal action of the board shall require at least
three votes. Consideration shall be given, but not limited to, the following categories:
persons having mobility impairment; deaf and/or hard-of-hearing persons in the
community; blind and/or vision-impaired persons in the community; mental, cognitive or
developmental disabilities; and the industries of tourism and convention, retail,
hospitality (restaurant or hotel), and health care (or rehabilitation). The city attorney's
office shall provide legal counsel.
(e) Knowledge and experience. All appointments shall be made on the basis of civic pride,
integrity, experience and interest in the needs of persons with disabilities. Consideration
shall be given but not limited to recommendations solicited by the city commission from
associations to be specified by the disability access committee at a later date.
(f) Supporting department. The supporting department of the committee is public works.
SECTION 2. CODIFICATION.
It is the intention of the City Commission, 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 as
amended; that the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered to accomplish
such intention; and that the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section" or other appropriate
word.
SECTION 3. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances and all sections and parts of sections in conflict
herewith are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the
remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Passed and adopted this day of ,2011.
This Ordinance shall take effect the day of ,2011.
ATTEST:
MAYOR MATTI HERRERA BOWER
ROBERT PARCHER, CITY CLERK
Underline denotes additions.
APPROVED AS TO
F:\ATTO\TURN\ORDINANC\Disability Access Cornrnittee2.docx
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Ordinances Modifying The Building, Fire, Planning And Public Works Department Fees Related To The Building
Development Process Implemented On February 1,2010
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Strengthen Internal Controls; Maximize Efficient Delivery Of Services; Increase Community Satisfaction With City
Government; Minimize Taxes 1 Ensure Expenditure Trends Are Sustainable Over The Long Term; Improve The City's
Overall Financial Health And Maintain Overall Bond Rating
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): 47.4% of residents and 57.1 % of businesses who had
contact with the Building Department rated their experience as excellent or good in the 2009 Community Satisfaction
survey, an increase of 5.4% for residents and 11 .I % for businesses from the 2007 survey.
Issue: --. -
Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the ordinances amending various fees related to the Building
Development Process in the City of Miami Beach?
Item Summary1Recommendation: FIRST READING
I On January 13,2010, the City Commission approved 4 ordinancesfor the Building, Fire, Planning and Public Works I
I departments related to the fees for the Building Development Process. ~hese ordinances went into effect on
February 1,2010 and provided a complete overhaul of the fee structure for the above mentioned departments. I
As a result of concerns that were raised by certain segments of the development community, as well as by staff,
regarding the fee amounts and administrative processes related to the fees, in September 201 0, the Administration
brought to the City Commission proposed ordinances which sought to refine certain permit types and create those
that were still needed. The City Commission referred the proposed ordinances to the Finance and Cityvvlde Projects
Committee ("Committee") for further discussion and consideration. At the same time as the referral to Committee,
the Administration and City Commission began hearing concerns from customers regarding permit fees being too
high, and that it was less expensive in other jurisdictions to obtain a permit for the same type of work.
With regard to the concerns that permit fees are too high, the Administration retained JRD and Associates to
compare the City's fees to those in otherjurisdictions. The Administration also brought Maximus back to review the
status of the permit fee implementation to answer whether or not the City met its original objectives, if staff was
applying the fee structure correctly, and to review the issues being encountered and identify appropriate solutions.
While JRD and Maximus are still analyzing data and developing proposed recommendations, staff from the four
departments has reexamined the levels of effort for many permit types and proposed adjustments. The proposed
adjustments have been developed in a manner consistent with the methodology of allocating fees based on the
required level of effort by staff.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission move forward with the Administration proposed
modifications at this time, even though the JRD and Maximus outcomes are still pending. This will provide permitfee
. relief to customers, with potential further revisions in the future.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
[ At its June 23,201 1 meeting, the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee recommended this item.
Financial Information:
herein will be. It is assumed that the revenues collected from permit fees will decrease once the changes
discussed herein are implemented. Assuming that revenues do decrease, and expenditure trends are stable, the
Building Department reserves will be similarly decreased. If these assumptions are held true, it is anticipated that
at some point in the next year or two, the Building Department reserves will be depleted and General Fund dollars
will be required to supplement the difference.
OBPl
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: 1 Jorge Gomez, Assistant City Manager
Account
I I
Total 1
AGENDA ITEM ,=,
DATE -7-13-11
Amount Source of
Funds:
Financial Impact Summary: At this time, it is unknown what the fiscal impact of the proposed changes discussed
1
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: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: ORDINANCES MODIFYING THE BUILDING, FIRE, PLANNING AND PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT FEES RELATED TO THE BUILDING DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS IMPLEMENTED ON FEBRUARY 1,2010
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the four ordinances
amending various fees related to the Building ~evelopment Process in the City of Miami
Beach.
INTRODUCTION
On January 13,201 0, the City Commission approved four ordinances for the Building, Fire,
Planning and Public Works departments related to the fees for the Building Development
process
These ordinances went into effect on February 1,2010 and provided a complete overhaul of
the fee structure for the above mentioned departments. As staff has worked with the new
fee structure since implementation, the various departments involved in the process have
identified a series of refinements to the fee structure that help to clarify and bring equity to
certain types of permit requests.
BACKGROUND
Building Development Process
The Building Development Process ("Process") in the City of Miami Beach includes the
Building Department, the Fire Department's Prevention Services Division, the Planning
Department and the Public Works' Engineering Division.
The Building Department provides process intake, routing, billing, and computer support for
the entire "Process". The Building Department staff conducts plans review and inspections
for plumbing, structural, building, electrical, governmental compliance, elevator, accessibility
and mechanical trades as required by the different permit types for compliance with Florida
Building Code as well as the Miami Beach City Code. Additionally, the Building Department
reviews permit applications for compliance with outside regulatory agencies.
City Commission Memorandum
July 13,201 1
Building Development Process Fees
Page 2 of 7
The Fire Department's Fire Prevention Division is involved in the majorityof building permits
issued by the City, with the exception of single-family homes. A Fire Department fee is
collected for each building permit corresponding to the Fire Department's review and
inspection.
The Planning Department serves as staff to the City's Planning Board, Board of Adjustment,
Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Board, and Single Family Residential Review
Panel. Depending on the scope of the project, a new development is required to receive
approval from one or more of these Boards. The Planning Department processes the
applications, reviews them and prepares recommendations to all of the above Boards. Fees
are assessed for the various planning applications according to a fee schedule contained
within the City Code. The Planning Department also reviews all building permits for
compliance with the City's land development regulations, comprehensive plan and
consistency with architectural review guidelines and preservation appropriateness criteria.
This zoning review is required to ensure compliance with existing legislation, zoning
requirements, and state growth management requirements.
The Public Works Department Engineering Division staff conducts plan reviews and
inspections for all construction activities that occur within the public right-of-way (streets, /.
roadways, waterways, alleys and sidewalks), public property and easements. The Public
Works Department also performs plan review activities supporting a variety of Building
Department permits in private property that will connect and/or will have potential impacts to
City owned utilities, right-of-way andlor utility easements.
Further, the Building, Fire, and Planning Departments participate in the Certificate of
Occupancy or Completion process that allows for the use and occupancy of the structure
based on certifying that the use is permitted and that the structure is in compliance with
applicable City Codes.
2009 Building Development Process Fees Study
In mid-2009, the City initiated a study of costs and fees related to the Process with the
consulting firm, Maximus Consulting Services Inc. (!'Maximus"). The primary focus of the
study was to develop a simplified fee structure and associated fee levels for services
performed by the Building Department in enforcing the Florida Building Code, as well as
services performed by the Fire, Planning, and Public Works Departments in enforcing other
Federal, State and City Codes related to building permits. .
On January 13,201 0, the City Commission approved four ordinances for the Building, Fire,
Planning and Public Works departments related to the fees for the Building Development
Process, as outlined in the Maximus study. These ordinances went into effect on February
1, 2010 and provided a complete overhaul of the fee structure for the above mentioned
departments.
At the time of implementation, there were increases in the fees related to the building
development process for the Fire, Planning, and Public Works Departments. These were
offset by short-term decreases (discounts) in the Building Department fees so that, in the
aggregate, the total combined fees charged to the development communitywere to remain
at current levels. Decreases in Building Department revenues are being replaced by
previously set aside Building Department reserves so that costs related to enforcing the
Florida Building Code continue to be offset by Building revenues.
City Commission Memorandum
July 13,201 1
Building Development Process Fees
Page 3 of 7
Issues since Implementation and Steps Taken
As a result of concerns that were raised by certain segments of the development community,
as well as some concerns raised by staff, regarding the fee amounts and administrative
processes related to the fees, in September 2010, the Administration brought to the City
Commission proposed ordinances which sought to refine certain permit types and create
those that were still needed. The City Commission referred the proposed ordinances to the
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee ("Committee") for further discussion and
consideration. At the same time as the referral to Committee, the Administration and City
Commission began hearing concerns from customers regarding permit fees being too high,
and that it was less expensive in other jurisdictions to obtain a permit for the same type of
work.
The Administration has taken steps to re-evaluate the fee structure since the referral of the
proposed ordinances. With regard to the concerns that permit fees are too high, the
Administration retained JRD and Associates to compare the City's fees to those in other
jurisdictions. The Administration also brought Maximus back to review the status of the
permit fee implementation to answer whether or not the City met its original objectives, if
staff was applying the fee structure correctly, and to review the issues being encountered --: and identify appropriate solutions. Additionally, staff from all applicable departments have
revisited the levels of effort on those permit types where concerns have been raised to see if
any fee reductions could be recognized.
After reviewing the implemented permit fee structure, JRD and Associates (JRD) concurred
with Maximus' approach and methodology in determining the building permit fees for Miami
Beach. They also concurred, in general, with the times associated with building plan reviews
and inspections, as determined by Maximus and the City.
JRD also conducted a comparative analysis of the 20 most commonlrevenue-producing
permit types for the Building Department (comparing Building Department fees to Building
Department fees in the respective jurisdictions) and six (6) Right of Way permit types for the
Public Works Department. Further evaluation of fees for other departments in other
jurisdictions is still ongoing. Once JRD concludes their evaluation, the feasibility and impact
of any proposed fee changes will be analyzed further to determine if they should be
implemented.
Maximus' re-evaluation of the City's implementation revealed that the City's new permit fee
structure based on square feet is more simplified than the previous schedule, which was
based on cost. Maximus spoke at length with Building Department staff to determine if the
staff was feeing permit applications correctly and found that indeed they were. With regard
to whether or not the Building Department was recovering more in fees than costs for
operation, Maximus determined that the Building Department was under-recovering its
actual costs. Fee collection was actually less than what Maximus originally projected, and
not covering the Building Department costs.
Based on discussions Maximus had with staff, Maximus is proposing that plan review and
permit inspection times for AlterationIRemodel permit types be reviewed and potentially
revised downward. City staff has preliminarily reviewed the AlterationIRemodel levels of
effort, and changes are being proposed, which should lower permit fees. These proposed
levels of effort are currently being evaluated by Maximus. It should be noted that the levels
of effort suggested for adjustment are not significant components of the overalls fees, so a
drastic drop in fees is not anticipated. It is recommended that the City Commission move
forward with the ~dministration'~roposed modifications at this time, even though the JRD
City Commission Memorandum
July 13,201 1
Building Development Process Fees
Page 4 of 7
and Maximus outcomes are still pending. This will provide permit fee relief to customers in
the most expeditious timeframe, with potential further revisions in the future.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE FEE STRUCTURE
While JRD and Maximus are still analyzing data and developing proposed
recommendations, staff from the four departments has reexamined the levels of effort for
many permit types and proposed adjustments. The proposed adjustments to the fee
schedules have been developed in a manner consistent with the Maximus methodology of
allocating fees based on the required level of effort by staff.
The proposed fee modifications to the fee structure can be grouped into the following
categories:
Specialty Permits: Additional fee categories are recommended for frequently
requested smaller permits that are interdisciplinary in nature.
New Fee categories: New categories are proposed to account for less commonly
used permit types.
Revised Permit Fees for Certain Categories: Staff revisited times allocated to a
process based on concerns raised by staff andlor customers.
Multiple Fee Levels: Multiple levels are proposed for some categories based on the
level of complexity of the work.
Many fee categories will result in permit fee decreases and no existing fees will be
increased. Examples of proposed fee changes resulting in decreased fees include the
following:
WindowsIExterior Doors
Fees for blocking Right-of Way
Awnings
KitchenlBathIFlooring Specialty Permit
Watercraft LiftsIPilingslMoorings
Temporary Generators
Temporary Power for TestlConstruction
Relocating Buildings/Structures over 1,500 square feet
Gas Water Heater Replacement
Water Drainagelconnections
Commercial Air Conditioning Unit installation or replacement
Elevator Permits (for new installation)
Water and Drainage Risers and Mains
Natural Gas and Liquified Petroleum
In addition to the permit fee changes outlined above, staff has reviewed the administrative
language in the ordinances and is recommending revisions to simplify the language,
streamline processes, and clean up language that should have been removed in earlier edits
to the ordinances. Following is a description of the pertinent administrative language that is
being recommended for revision.
The Building Department ordinance already contains language providing the Building
Official with discretion to fee a project without a clearly identified permit type. If there
is no specific fee category directly matching a permit application request, the
Building Official may find a like category and fee it under that, or determine that the
City Commission Memorandum
July 13,201 1
Building Development Process Fees
Page 5 of 7
work will be charged based on the time dedicated for intake, plans review and
inspection. For those permit applications where the Building Department is not a
part of the plan review or inspection process, no such discretion exists for the Fire
Marshal, Planning Director or Public Works Director. The Administration is
proposing adding such language to the respective ordinances to provide the Fire
Marshal, Planning Director or Public Works Director such discretion.
The Administration is also recommending that the fees to renew an expired permit
also be revised to incentivize compliance with the Florida Building Code. Currently,
the language allows for a credit of 50% of the original permit fee for a renewal permit
(defined as a same project involving the same plans) for reapplications made within
180 days of the expiration date of the original permit. It is proposed that a fee of
25% of the original permit fee (effectively a 75% credit) plus a $57 processing fee be
charged. For projects that have expired permits over 180 days, the existing
regulations require a full payment of the original fee to reapply. Staff is
recommending that for these projects, a fee 25% of the original permit fee (also a
75% credit) plus 20% of the new permit fee is charged.
, . Currently, City projects are not paying permit fees until the project receives its
certificate of occupancy or certificate of completion, as opposed to all other
customers, who pay their permit fees at or prior to a permit being issued.
Additionally, City projects are paying permit fees based on actual time for plans
review and inspection processes, as opposed to the permit fee structure already
created. This means that there is administrative staff time that has to be dedicated
from both the Building Department and the builder department (i.e., CIP, Public
Works, etc.) in order to reconcile the project at or after the time of completion, which
is a tedious process. The Administration is recommending that City projects be
treated like all other projects and pay at the time (or before) a permit being issued,
and that the fees be calculated according to the adopted permit fee schedule.
The language in the Building Department ordinance relative to refunding permit fees
is not clear. The Administration is recommending slight changes to the ordinance to
clarify how permit fees are to be refunded.
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee Presentation and Suggestions
At the May 25,201 1 Finance and Citywide Projects Committee meeting, the Administration
presented many of the concepts and discussion points included in this memorandum.
Individual Commissioner briefings were held in preparation of this meeting. During those
discussions and as reviewed at the May 25'h meeting, there are some additional language
changes that were proposed as well. At the May 25, 2011 Committee meeting, the
Committee requested that the item be discussed at its June 23,201 1 meeting, with copies
of the actual ordinances available for review and discussion.
At the June 23,201 1 meeting, the Committee provided guidance on the following items:
As discussed above, when the current fee structure was adopted, there were some
short-term decreases (discounts) built into the fee structure that were set to expire
on September 30, 201 1. However, given that the economy still has not quite
recovered, and the concerns regarding the new permit fee structure, the
Administration recommended that these short-term decreases be extended past
September 30,201 1. The Committee recommended that the decreases remain in
City Commission Memorandum
July 13,201 1
Building Development Process Fees
Page 6 of 7
place until at least September 30,2012, with another discussion to take place with
the Committee in a year to determine if the decreases should sunset at that point or
not.
One suggestion was that language be added to the respective ordinances so that
permit fees are re-evaluated every so often (for example, every 3 years) to
determine if they are still in line with the surrounding jurisdictions and commonly
accepted cost estimating practices. The draft ordinances include such language.
However, the existing language also includes an annual adjustment of fees based
on the Consumer Product Index (CPI). The Administration is recommending that the
CIP adjustments for 201 1 and 2012 be waived, given the current discussion. The
Committee requested that the CPI language remain in the ordinances, with the
waivers through 2012. The Committee will review the situation in a year and
determine if further waivers or other action is required at that time.
Lastly, it was suggested that the draft ordinances include a "trigger" whereby if permit
fees exceeded more than a certain dollar amount and/or a certain percentage of the
value of construction, the Building Official would be required to review the permit
fees being charged. The Administration drafted language along these lines, which - .'
was included in the draft ordinances.
If the permit fee (including all City department permit fees, but not including any
outside agency fees or surcharges) calculated at time of permit application submittal
is greater than ten percent (10%) of the value of construction as declared on the
permit application, the permit fee will be reevaluated by the Building Official or
designee. However, for those permit applications where the value of construction is
less than $1,000.00 or the permit fee is the minimum permit fee, no further
evaluation shall be required and the fees calculated at the time of permit application
shall stand. For those permits where there are no Building Department plan review
or inspections required, this responsibility shall be delegated to the Department
Director in the required review departments (Fire, Planning, Public Works), or their
respective designees. The permit applicant shall pay the up-front processing fee
while the permit fee is being reevaluated.
The reevaluation shall consist of the respective City representative(s) using industry
standard cost estimating resources (as determined solely by them) to determine the
estimated construction value. Using that determined value, the permit fee shall not
exceed ten percent (1 0%) or the minimum permit fee identified for that type of work,
as outlined in appendix A, whichever is greater. If the determined construction value
cannot be determined by the above indicated resources, the actual level of effort for
plan review and inspection shall be calculated and charged, but shall not exceed the
originally calculated fee at time of permit application. Refunds, if required, shall be
given for any payment over a final permit fee and subject to the provisions in the
applicable sections of the City Code of Ordinances regarding permit fee refunds.
The Committee suggested trying this methodology for a year's time and tracking the
results. Feedback would be taken and a discussion of the re-evaluation would be
discussed at the same time as the discounts and CPI to see if this methodology is
the best practice or if further refinements are needed.
City Commission Memorandum
July 13, 201 1
Building Development Process Fees
Page 7 of 7
The Committee also requested individual briefings be offered to each Commissioner prior
to the July 13, 201 1 City Commission meeting so that the Administration may hear any
concerns or questions the Commissioners may have prior to the public hearing.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF PROPOSED REVISIONS
At this time, it is unknown what the fiscal impact of the proposed changes discussed herein
will be. It is assumed that the revenues collected from permit fees will decrease once the
changes discussed herein are implemented, based on the following assumptions:
Permit activity remains level,
No fees are being increased,
Fees for certain types of permits are being decreased, and
The re-evaluation of permit fess exceeding ten percent (10%) of the permit
application value of construction may be lessened, but at this time it is uncertain how
much those fees will be decreased.
It should be noted that the General Fund continues to support Building Department
operations. Costs have increased while revenue collections remain essentially at FY -. 2007108 levels. Projected Building Department revenues, including the use of $1.5 million in
Building reserves, for FY 2010/11 are $9 million, while expenses, including the overhead for
administrative functions as described above, are projected at $1 1.5 million, resulting in the
use of $2.5 in other General Fund revenues in support of the activities, an increase from
$1.4 million in FY 200911 0.
Assuming that revenues do decrease under the proposed ordinance, and expenditure
trends are stable, the Building Department operations will continue to require contributions
from the General Fund and Building reserves.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the four ordinances
amendi~g various fees related to the Building Development Process in the City of Miami
T
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 l\Building Development Process Fees\Building Development Process Fees - memo.doc
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF
THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER
14 OF THE CITY OF MlAMl BEACH CODE, RENAMING
ARTICLES AND DIVISIONS; AMENDING FEES, CLARIFYING
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES AND THEIR RESPECTIVE
FEES; CREATING A PROCESS FOR REEVALUATING
PERMIT FEES; DELETING SECTIONS 14-421 THROUGH 14-
431, AND 14-466 THROUGH 14-698 IN THEIR ENTIRETY; AND
AMENDING APPENDIX A BY MODIFYING INSPECTION FEES
FOR BUILDING, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, AND
MECHANICAL WORK, AND FOR OTHER BUILDING
DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER,
SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2010, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 2010-
3670, related to the fees for the Building Development Process; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance went into effect on February 1, 2010 and provided a :
complete overhaul of the fee structure; and
WHEREAS, the City Administration has worked with the new fee structure since
implementation, and has identified a series of refinements to such fee structure that will help to
clarify and bring equity to certain types of permit applications; and
WHEREAS, the Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the
following Ordinance amending Building Department fees related to the Building Development
Process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 14, Part I, Article I of the City Code is hereby amended to read
as follows:
ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL Wch 1,2092)
SECTION 2. That Chapter 14, Article II, Division 2 "Permit Fees" of the City Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 14-61. - Permit fees, generally.
(1) City projects. The cost of enforcing the building code on city related projects will
be reimbursed based on the actual time spent in the processing, review and
inspection of such projects. The payment will be due prior to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy or completion for the project. Effective October 1, 201 1,
for anv active permit applied for on or after Februarv 1, 2010, fees shall be based
on the permit fee schedule in place at the time of the permit application submittal,
and should be paid accordinglv.
(m) [Adjusted rates.] The rates in appendix A pertaining to this division will be
administratively adjusted annually to reflect increase(s) or decrease(s) in the
Consumer Price Index for Consumers in the Southeast United States for all
items, unless otherwise directed by the city commission. Notwithstanding the
precedinq sentence, the rate adiustments set to take place in Februarv 201 1 and
Februarv 2012 shall be waived, findinq such waiver to be in the best interest of
the Citv and the public.
lo) The rates in appendix A for permit fees pertaining to this chapter shall be re-
evaluated administrativelv no less than everv three (3) vears from the last
ado~ted chanqes. Anv recommended chanqes shall be brought to the citv
commission for consideration and final approval.
f~) If the permit fee (including all citv department permit fees, but not including anv
outside aaencv fees or surcharges referenced in Sections 14-69, 14-70, or 50- -:
3(n) herein) calculated at time of permit application submittal is areater than ten
percent (10%) of the value of construction as declared on the ~ermit application,
the permit fee will be re-evaluated bv the buildina official or hislher designee.
However, for those permit applications where the value of construction is less
than $1,000.00 or the permit fee is the minimum permit fee, no further evaluation
shall be reauired and the fees calculated at the time of permit application shall
stand. For those permits where there are no buildina de~artment plan review or
inspections reauired, this responsibilitv shall be delegated to the department
director in the required review departments (such as, for example purposes onlv,
fire, planning, public works), or their respective desiqnees.
The permit applicant shall pav the up-front processing fee, as outlined in the
applicable sections in Chapters 14, 15, 50 and 98 of the Citv Code, while the
permit fee is being re-evaluated.
The re-evaluation shall consist of the respective citv representative(s) usinq
industrv standard cost estimating resources (as determined bv them in their sole
and reasonable discretion) to determine the estimated construction value. Usinq
that determined value, the permit fee shall not exceed ten percent (10%) or the
minimum permit fee identified for that tvpe of work, as outlined in appendix A,
whichever is areater. If the determined construction value cannot be determined
bv the above indicated resources, the actual level of effort for plan review and
inspection shall be calculated and charged, but shall not exceed the originallv
calculated fee at time of permit application. Refunds, if reauired, shall be given
for anv ~avment over a final permit fee and subiect to the ~rovisions in the
applicable sections in Chapters 14, 15, 50 and 98 of the Citv Code resardinq
permit fee refunds.
Sec. 14-62. - Building permits.
(b) Refunds, time limitations, cancellations, change of contractor. The fees charged
pursuant to the schedule in appendix A, provided the same are for a permit
required by Section 4844105.1 of the Florida Building Code, may be refunded by
the building official subject to the following:
(1) No refunds shall be made on requests involving:
a. Permit fees of $100.00 or less; or
b. Permits revoked by the building official under authority granted by the
Florida Building Code; or
c. Permits cancelled by court order; or
d. Permits which have expiredpi
or
e. Permits under which work has commenced as evidenced by any recorded
inspection having been made by the department, unless the refund is due
to an overcharge by the city.
(2) A full refund shall be granted to a permit holder who takes out a permit
covering work outside the jurisdictional inspection area.
(3) A full refund less the $50.00 minimum up-front permit fee and anv outside
aaencv fees shall be granted to a permit applicant who reauests a refund in
writina, provided that no plan review has commenced.
A full refund less $100.00 or the up-front permit fee. whichever amount is
greater, rounded down to the nearest dollar, and anv outside aaencv fees
shall be aranted to a permit applicant who reauests a refund in writing,
provided that a permit has not been issued.
A full refund less $100.00 or the up-front permit fee, whichever amount is
greater, rounded down to the nearest dollar, and anv outside aaencv fees shall
be granted to a permit holder fto whom a permit has been issued) who
requests a refund in writing, provided:
a. That the permit holder makes a written request prior to the permit
expiration date; and
b. That no work as evidenced by any recorded inspection has commenced
under such permit.
nr
x~iqr
becomes null and void, or expires because of lack of work or abandonment, a
new permit coverinq the pr0~0sed construction shall be obtained before
proceeding with the work, pursuant to Section 105.4.1 .I of the Florida Buildinq
Code. If no more than 180 davs of the expiration date of the oriainal permit
has oassed, and no refund has been made according to this section, the
applicant mav a~plv to renew the oermit. The reapplication must be coverinq
the same oroiect and involving the same plans, and must be submitted with
the plans and the applicant's validated copv of the original permit. A fee of
twentv five percent (25%) of the original permit fee, plus an additional $57.00
processing fee, shall be charaed for a renewal under these circumstances.
Where the permit is revoked, or becomes null and void or expires because of
lack of work or abandonment, a new permit covering the D~ODOS~~
construction shall be obtained before proceeding with the work. pursuant to
Section 105.4.1 .I of the Florida Building Code. If more than 180 davs but no
more than 365 davs since the expiration date of the oriainal oermit has
passed. and no refund has been made accordincl to this section, the applicant -. mav applv to renew the oermit. The reapolication must be covering the same
proiect and involving the same plans, and must be submitted with the plans
and the applicant's validated cow of the oriainal permit. A fee of twentv five
percent (25%) of the original oermit fee, plus a fee of twentv percent (20%) of
the new permit fee, shall be charued for a renewal under these circumstances.
For permits that have expired where the only missing component is one or
more final inspections, the fee for reopening the permit. oerforminu the final
inseection(s), and providincl a final approval on the permit shall be charged at
based on the time dedicated for inspection(s).
Sec. 14-70. - General information.
This section contains a list of other fees collected by the building department for other
departments or agencies. Specific amounts are given in appendix A.
(1) A surcharge will be added to building permits for the state to study building code
requirements for radon gas, as per F.S. § 553.721. This amount is non-
refundable.
(2) A surcharge will be added to building permits for the code compliance program
established by the county. This amount is non-refundable.
[3) A surcharge to the building permits will be added when processing marine
structures according to schedule established by city ordinance.
/4) A fee shall be charged to anv buildina or structure for which a certificate of
occupancv is beina issued.
4){51 A sanitation twpehkesurcharae shall be charged for all building, electrical,
plumbing, and mechanical and demolition permits.
161 A separate fire safety, public works and/or zonina review fee associated with the
building permit process shall be charaed as outlined in appendix A. *****
SECTION 3. That Chapter 14, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
DIVISION 3. - BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS PERMITS APPLIED FOMEEQRF MARCH I,
iz!?zZa
SECTION 4. That Chapter 14, Part II, Article I of the City Code is hereby amended to
delete the following:
SECTION 5. That Chapter 14, Article II of the City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
SECTION 6. That Division 2, Sections 14-421 through 14-431 of Chapter 14, Part II,
Article II, of the City Code are deleted in their entirety.
SECTION 7. That Articles Ill, IV, V, and VI, Sections 14466 through 14-698 of Chapter 14,
Part II of the City Code are deleted in their entirety.
SECTION 8. That Appendix A of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
parate installation not covered
SECTION 9. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 10. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is, for any
reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and
independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 11. 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 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect on the lSt day of October 201 1, which is at least ten (10) days
after adoption.
PASSED and ADOPTED on first reading this day of ,2011.
PASSED and ADOPTED on second reading this day of I
2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Letters or numbers that are are deletions from existing ordinance.
Letters or numbers that are underlined are additions to existing ordinance.
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-11\Building Development Process Fees\Building Ordinance Strikethrough.doc
\%Q I\'
Date
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY
COMMISSION OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 50 OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH CODE, BY
AMENDING SECTION 50-3 THEREOF, ENTITLED
"PLANS EXAMINATION, INSPECTION, PERMITS"; AND
AMENDING APPENDIX A, BY ADDING NEW FEES AND
MODIFYING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE FIRE
DEPARTMENT REVIEW PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR
REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2010, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No.
201 0-3671, related to the fees for the Building Development Process; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance went into effect on February 1, 2010 and provided a
complete overhaul of the fee structure; and
WHEREAS, 'the City Administration has worked with the new fee structure since
implementation, and has identified a series of refinements to such fee structure that will
help to clarify and bring equity to certain types of permit applications; and
WHEREAS, the Administration recommends that the City Commission approve
the following Ordinance amending Building Department fees related to the Building
Development Process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY
COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 50, Section 50-3 of the City Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Sec. 50-3. Plans examination, inspections, permits
(m) Refunds, time limitations, cancellation, change of contractor. The fees charged
pursuant to this Code, may be refunded by the fire marshal subject to the
following:
(1) No refunds shall be made on requests involving:
a. Permit fees of $100.00 or less; or
b. Permits revoked by the fire marshal or building official; or
c. Permits cancelled by court order; or
d. Permits which have expired; or
e. Permits under which work has commenced as evidenced by any recorded
inspection having been made by the fire department.
(2) A full refund shall be granted to a permit holder who takes out a permit
covering work outside the jurisdictional inspection area.
(3) A full refund less the $50.00 minimum up-front permit fee and anv outside
aaencv fees shall be qranted to a permit applicant who reauests a refund in
writing, provided that no plan review has commenced.
A full refund less $100.00 or the up-front permit fee, whichever amount is
greater, rounded down to the nearest dollar, and anv outside aaencv fees
shall be granted to a permit applicant who requests a refund in writin%
provided that a permit has not been issued.
A full refund less $100.00 or the upfront fee, whichever amount is greater,
rounded down to the nearest dollar, and anv outside aqencv fees shall be
granted to a permit holder (to whom a permit has been issued) who requests
a refund in writing, provided:
--: a. That the permit holder makes a written request prior to the permit
expiration date; and
b. That a validated copy of the permit be submitted with such request; and
c. That no work, as evidenced by any recorded inspection, has commenced
under such permit.
Thrr
kn -: + rrnt +n nr '
. .
s~h~te b;kriit andvbG
f~n f
because of lack of work or abandonment, a new ~ermit covering the
proposed construction shall be obtained before proceeding with the work,
pursuant to Section 105.4.1 .I of the Florida Buildina Code. If no more than
180 davs of the expiration date of the original permit has ~assed, and no
refund has been made according to this section, the ap~licant mav ap~lv to
renew the permit. The reapplication must be coverinq the same proiect and
involving the same plans, and must be submitted with the plans and the
applicant's validated copv of the original permit. A fee of twentv five percent
/25%) of the original permit fee, plus an additional $57.00 processing fee,
shall be charqed for a renewal under these circumstances.
Where the permit is revoked, or becomes null and void or expires because of
lack of work or abandonment, a new permit covering the R~ODOS~~
construction shall be obtained before proceedinq with the work, pursuant to
Section 105.4.1 .I of the Florida Building Code. If more than 180 davs but no
more than 365 davs since the ex~iration date of the original permit has
passed, and no refund has been made accordina to this section, the applicant
mav applv to renew the permit. The reapplication must be coverina the same
proiect and involvina the same plans, and must be submitted with the plans
and the ap~licant's validated co~v of the oriainal permit. A fee of twentv five
percent (25%) of the original permit fee, plus a fee of twentv percent (20%) of
the new permit fee, shall be charqed for a renewal under these
circumstances.
For permits that have expired where the onlv missing component is one or
more final inspections, the fee for reopening the permit, performins the final
inspection(s), and providing a final approval on the permit shall be charged at
based on the time dedicated for inspection(s).
(CC) [Adjusted rates.] The rates in appendix A pertaining to this section will be
administratively adjusted annually to reflect increase(s) or decrease(s) in
Consumer Price Index for Consumers in the Southeast United States for all
items, unless otherwise directed by the city commission. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence. the rate adiustments set to take place in Februarv 201 1 and
Februarv 2012 shall be waived, finding such waiver to be in the best interest of
the Citv and the public.
(dd) The rates in appendix A for permit fees pertaining to this chapter shall be re-
evaluated administrativelv no less than everv three (3) vears from the last
ado~ted channes. Anv recommended channes shall be brounht to the city
commission for consideration and final approval.
(ee) Permits for work not identified in a~~endix A. If it is determined that no specific
fee categorv directlv matches a permit application request, the fire marshal mav
identifv a cateaorv that closelv matches the level of effort or determine what the
work will be charged at based on the time dedicated for plans review and
inspection. The fire marshal mav reauire an upfront fee and a deposit to cover
the estimated cost of the services to be provided.
SECTION 2. That Appendix A of the City Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
SECTION 3. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby
repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is, for
any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed a separate,
distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of the remaining portions 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 ISt day of October 201 1, which is at least ten (1 0)
days after adoption.
PASSED and ADOPTED on first reading this day of
,2011.
PASSED and ADOPTED on second reading this day of
,2011.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Letters or numbers that are are deletions from existing ordinance.
Letters or numbers that are underlined are additions to existing ordinance.
T:\AGENDAY2011\7-13-1 l\Building Development Process Fees\Fire Ordinance Strikethrough.doc
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF
THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER
15 OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH CODE, ARTICLE II,
ENTITLED "ZONING REVIEW FEE ASSOCIATED WlTH THE
BUILDING PROCESS", BY AMENDING 15-31 AND ADDING
NEW SECTIONS 15-38 THROUGH 15-43, THEREOF; AND
AMENDING APPENDIX A, ADDING NEW FEES AND
MODIFYING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING REVIEW
ASSOCIATED WlTH THE BUILDING PROCESS; PROVIDING
FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2010, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 2010-
3672, for Zoning review, related to the fees for the Building Development Process; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance went into effect on February 1, 2010 and provided a -.
complete overhaul of the fee structure; and
WHEREAS, the City Administration has worked with the new fee structure since
implementation, and has identified a series of refinements to such fee structure that will help to
clarify and bring equity to certain types of permit applications; and
WHEREAS, the Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the
following Ordinance amending Building Department fees related to the Building Development
Process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY
COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA:
Section 1 . That Chapter 15 of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 15-31. - Zonina review fees associated with the building permit process levied.
A separate zoning review fee associated with the building permit plans review process is
hereby levied and imposed, and shall apply to the city's planning department zoning
reviews of building, plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits and other plans review
activities associated with the permit plans review process undertaken by that department.
Said fee shall be collected by the building department on behalf of the planning
department, (see also subsection 44430(@14-70(6)).
Sec. 15-38. - Permits for work not identified in appendix A.
if it is determined that no specific fee category directlv matches a ~ermit application
request, the planning director mav identifv a category that closelv matches the level of effort
or determine what the work will be charqed at based on the time dedicated for plans review
and inspection. The planning director mav require an upfront fee and a deposit to cover the
estimated cost of the services to be provided.
Sec. 15-39. - Expedited Plans Review and Inspection Fee
Upon request from the applicant, the department mav schedule an expedited plans review
or inspection, on an overtime basis bv citv staff. When such service is provided, the
applicant will reimburse the citv for the cost of the citv ernplovee(s), in addition to the
reaular permit and other applicable fees.
Sec. 15-40. - Refunds
The fees charged pursuant to this chapter, rnav be refunded bv the planning director
subiect to the following:
[I) No refunds shall be made on requests involving:
a. Permit fees of $1 00.00 or less; or
b. Permits revoked bv the fire marshal or buildinq official; or
c. Permits cancelled bv court order; or
d. Permits which have expired; or .- _
e. Permits under which work has commenced as evidenced bv anv recorded
inspection having been made bv the department.
f2) A full refund shall be granted to a permit holder who takes out a permit covering work
outside the iurisdictional inspection area.
(3) A full refund less the $50.00 minimum up-front permit fee and anv outside aaencv
fees shall be granted to a permit applicant who requests a refund in writing, provided
that no plan review has commenced.
A full refund less $100.00 or the up-front permit fee, whichever amount is areater,
rounded down to the nearest dollar, and anv outside agencv fees shall be granted to
a permit applicant who requests a refund in writing, provided that a permit has not
been issued.
A full refund less $100.00 or the upfront fee, whichever amount is greater, rounded
down to the nearest dollar, and any outside agencv fees shall be granted to a permit
holder (to whom a permit has been issued] who requests a refund in writing,
provided:
a. That the permit holder makes a written request prior to the permit expiration date;
and -
b. That a validated copv of the permit be submitted with such request: and
c. That no work, as evidenced bv anv recorded inspection, has commenced under
such permit.
Sec. 15-41. Expired Permits
Where the permit is revoked, or becomes null and void, or expires because of lack of work
or abandonment, a new permit covering the proposed construction shall be obtained before
proceeding with the work, pursuant to Section 105.4.1 .I of the Florida Building Code. If no
more than 180 days of the expiration date of the original permit has passed, and no refund
has been made accordinq to this section, the applicant mav applv to renew the permit. The
reapplication must be covering the same proiect and involving the same plans, and must be
submitted with the ~lans and the applicant's validated copv of the oriqinal permit. A fee of
twentv five percent (25%) of the original permit fee, plus an additional $57.00 processinq
fee, shall be charged for a renewal under these circumstances.
Where the permit is revoked, or becomes null and void or expires because of lack of work
or abandonment, a new permit covering the proposed construction shall be obtained before
proceedinq with the work, pursuant to Section 105.4.1.1 of the Florida Buildina Code. If
more than 180 davs but no more than 365 davs since the expiration date of the oriainal
permit has passed, and no refund has been made accordinq to this section, the applicant
mav apply to renew the permit. The reap~lication must be covering the same proiect and
involving the same plans, and must be submitted with the plans and the applicant's
validated copv of the original permit. A fee of twentv five percent (25%) of the original
permit fee, plus a fee of twentv percent (20%) of the new permit fee, shall be charged for a
renewal under these circumstances.
For permits that have expired where the onlv missinq component is one or more final
inspections, the fee for re-opening the permit, performing the final inspection(s), and
providing a final approval on the permit shall be charged at based on the time dedicated for -. inspection(s).
Sec. 15-42. - [Adiusted rates.]
The rates in appendix A pertaininq to this section will be administrativelv adiusted annually
to reflect increase(s1 or decrease(s) in Consumer Price Index for Consumers in the
Southeast United States for all items, unless otherwise directed bv the citv commission.
Notwithstandins the preceding sentence, the rate adiustment set to take place in February
2012 shall be waived, finding such waiver to be in the best interest of the Citv and of the
public.
Sec. 15-43
The rates in appendix A for permit fees pertaining to this chapter shall be re-evaluated
administrativelv no less than even/ three (3) vears from the last adopted changes. Any
recommended changes shall be brouqht to the citv commission for consideration and final
Section 2. That Appendix A of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 3. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is, for any
reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and
independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions 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 "section1', "article", or
other appropriate word.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect on the lSt day of October 2011, which is at least ten (10) days
after adoption.
PASSED and ADOPTED on first reading this day of ,2011
PASSED and ADOPTED on second reading this day of ,
201 1.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Letters or numbers that are are deletions from existing ordinance.
Letters or numbers that are underlined are additions to existing ordinance.
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-11 \Building Development Process Fees\Planning Ordinance Strikethrough.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOH EXECUTION
kk%l ii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF
THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER
98 OF THE ClTY OF MlAMl BEACH CODE, ARTICLE Ill,
DIVISION 2, SECTION 98-92, ENTITLED "APPLICATION;
AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT; USE OF DEPOSIT TO REPLACE
SURFACE; PERMIT FEES," BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (E),
ADDING SUBSECTIONS (F) THROUGH (I); AMENDING
SECTION 98-94, ENTITLED "REFUNDS"; AND AMENDING
APPENDIX A BY ADDING NEW FEES AND MODIFYING THE
FEE SCHEDULE FOR PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW ASSOCIATED
WITH THE BUILDING PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR
REPEALER, SEVERABI LITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2010, the City Commission adopted Ordinance No. 2010-
3673, related to the fees for the Building Development Process; and -:
WHEREAS, the Ordinance went into effect on February 1, 2010 and provided a
complete overhaul of the fee structure; and
WHEREAS, the City Administration has worked with the new fee structure since
implementation, and has identified a series of refinements to such fee structure that will help to
clarify and bring equity to certain types of permit applications; and
WHEREAS, the Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the
following Ordinance amending Building Department fees related to the Building Development
Process.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY
COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. Chapter 98, "Streets and Sidewalks," Article Ill, "Excavations," Division 2,
"Permit," of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 98-92. Application; amount of deposit; use of deposit to replace surface; permit fee.
*****
(e) A surcharge to building permits in the amount(s) set forth in appendix A will be added
by the public works department for construction activities which may impact city-owned
property, rights-of-way, or easements. The surcharge collected will cover processing,
plans review, and inspection services rendered by the department. The surcharge rate in
appendix A will be administratively adjusted annually to reflect increases or decreases in
the Consumer Price Index for consumers in the southeast United States for all items,
unless otherwise directed by the city commission. Notwithstandinq the wrecedinq
sentence, the rate adiustment set to take place in Februarv 2012 shall be waived, findinq
such waiver to be in the best interest of the Citv and of the public.
if) Permits for work not identified in amendix A. If it is determined that no specific fee
categorv directlv matches a permit application reauest, the public works director may
identifv a cateqorv that closelv matches the level of effort or determine what the work will
be charaed at based on the time dedicated for plans review and inspection. The public
works director may reauire an upfront fee and a deposit to cover the estimated cost of
the services to be provided.
Lq) Expired Permits. Where the permit is revoked, or becomes null and void, or expires
because of lack of work or abandonment, a new permit covering the proposed
construction shall be obtained before proceeding with the work, pursuant to Section
105.4.1 .I of the Florida Buildinn Code. If no more than 180 davs of the expiration date
of the original permit has passed, and no refund has been made accordina to this
section, the applicant rnav applv to renew the permit. The reaoplication must be
covering the same proiect and involving the same plans, and must be submitted with the
plans and the a~plicant's validated copv of the oriainal permit. A fee of twentv five
percent (25%) of the original permit fee, plus an additional $57.00 processing fee, shall
be charged for a renewal under these circumstances.
Where the permit is revoked, or becomes null and void or expires because of lack of
work or abandonment, a new permit covering the proposed construction shall be
obtained before proceeding with the work, pursuant to Section 105.4.1.1 of the Florida
Building Code. If more than 180 davs but no more than 365 davs since the expiration
date of the original permit has passed, and no refund has been made according to this
section, the applicant rnav awlv to renew the permit. The rea~~lication must be covering
the same proiect and involving the same plans, and must be submitted with the plans
and the applicant's validated copv of the original permit. A fee of twentv five percent
/25%) of the original permit fee, plus a fee of twentv percent (20%) of the new permit
fee, shall be charqed for a renewal under these circumstances.
For permits that have expired where the onlv missing component is one or more final
inspections, the fee for re-openinn the permit, performing the final inspection(s), and
providing a final approval on the permit shall be charged at based on the time dedicated
for inspection(s).
/h) The rates in appendix A for permit fees pertaining to this chapter shall be re-
evaluated administratively no less than everv three (3) vears from the last adopted
chanqes. Anv recommended changes shall be brought to the citv commission for
consideration and final approval.
li) Expedited Plans Review and Inspection Fee
Upon reauest from the applicant, the department rnav schedule an expedited plans
review or inspection, on an overtime basis bv citv staff. When such service is provided,
the applicant will reimburse the citv for the cost of the citv emdovee(s), in addition to the
regular permit and other applicable fees.
Sec. 98-94. - Refunds.
The fees charged pursuant to this Code, may be refunded bv the public works director
subiect to the foilowins:
/I) No refunds shall be made on reauests involving:
a. Permit fees of $100.00 or less; or
b. Permits revoked bv the fire marshal or building official; or
c. Permits cancelled bv court order; or
d. Permits which have expired; or
e. Permits under which work has commenced as evidenced bv anv recorded
ins~ection having been made bv the department. a
12) A full refund shall be qranted to a permit holder who takes out a permit covering work
outside the iurisdictional ins~ection area.
/3) A full refund less the $50.00 minimum up-front permit fee and anv outside agency
fees shall be granted to a permit applicant who reauests a refund in writina, ~rovided
that no plan review has commenced.
A full refund less $100.00 or the up-front permit fee, whichever amount is greater,
rounded down to the nearest dollar, and anv outside agencv fees shall be granted to
a permit applicant who requests a refund in writing, provided that a permit has not
been issued.
A full refund less $100.00 or the upfront fee. whichever amount is areater. rounded
down to the nearest dollar, and anv outside aaencv fees shall be qranted to a permit
holder (to whom a permit has been issued) who reauests a refund in writin~
provided:
a. That the permit holder makes a written request prior to the permit expiration date;
and -
b. That a validated copv of the permit be submitted with such request; and
c. That no work, as evidenced bv anv recorded inspection, has commenced under
such permit.
Section 2. That Appendix A of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Blockina Riaht of Wav (all others): the
greater of $0.25 Der L.F. per day or $0.03
per S.F. Der dav
Discounted
Amount
(Effective %&
&?€M Oct. I
201 1 through -
Sept. 30,
284420 1 2)
Amount
(Effective
Oct. 1,
2844201 2)
Section
this Code
I
38-92(c)
Description
*****
283.00 (8)
(1 4)
- 125.00 Driveway construction permit, each
driveway *****
After-the-fact permit fee. For any work
described in (I) through (4412). (16) and
(17) herein, performed without proper
permits and inspections, quadruple the
akwe-fees. 25 W
ifweas8
-.
I I I covers: I I
SECTION 3. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is, for any
reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and
independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. CODIFICATION.
It is the intention of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, and it is hereby
ordained that the provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of the
City of Miami Beach, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered -.
to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or
other appropriate word.
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect on the 1'' day of October 201 1, which is at least ten (10) days
after adoption.
PASSED and ADOPTED on first reading this day of ,2011.
PASSED and ADOPTED on second reading this day of ,
201 1.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Letters or numbers that are are deletions from existing ordinance.
Letters or numbers that are underlined are additions to existing ordinance.
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 I\Building Development Process Fees\Public Works Ordinance Stri$t~f~#f&~cu~~~~
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 11 8
clarifying and amending the stay provisions applicable to matters on appeal to the Board of Adjustment.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Regulatory.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
-
ssue:
Should the City Commission amend the stay provisions applicable to matters on appeal to the Board of
Adjustment to allow an application to proceed, provided any approval does not vest until the appeal is
resolved, and the applicant holds the City harmless and agrees to indemnify the City from any liability or
loss resulting from such proceedings?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
First Reading
The administrative appeal provisions of the Code have the effect of putting all land use board hearings on
hold until the appeal can be ruled on by the Board of Adjustment. While the appeal provision is generally
used only in cases where serious concerns about a planning interpretation or other administrative
determinations are involved, there are also appeals filed on matters of administrative details, or matters
that can be resolved by the board to which application was made. These types of appeals do not justify
staying the proceedings before a development review Board. While the appeal procedure is important to
protect the rights of property owners and residents surrounding proposed developments, the stay provision
is not always the correct outcome pending resolution of an appeal. The proposed ordinance would permit
an application to proceed to a hearing before a land use board where the application is made provided that
the approval does not vest until the appeal is resolved and the application holds the City harmless from any
liability or loss resulting from such proceedings.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the proposed ordinance on first
reading; and set a second reading public hearing for the September 14, 201 1 meeting.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I At its May 24,201 1 meeting, the Planning Board, by a vote of 6-1 recommended that the City Commission I
u I OBPl
I I
Total I I
I adopt the proposed ordinance.
Financial Information:
~inancial Impact Summary:
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 cannot readily determine any potential measurable impact on the City's budget as I a result of the approval of the proposed ordinance.
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
I Mercy Lamazares or Richard Lorber
BEACH ,,,
Account Amount Source of
Funds: 1
2
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.miarnibea~hfl.~ov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
First Reading
SUBJECT: STAY OF WORK AND PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE ClTY CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 118,
"ADMINISTRATIVE AND REVIEW PROCEDURES," ARTICLE II,
"BOARDS," DIVISION 5, "BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT," SECTION 11 8-137,
"STAY OF WORK AND PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL," CLARIFYING AND
AMENDING THE STAY PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO MATTERS ON
APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT; 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 September 14,
201 1 meeting.
BACKGROUND
A discussion relative to the stay of proceedings of City Code Section 118-136 and
Section 118-137, resulting from appeals of administrative decisions to the Board of
Adjustment was referred to the Land Use and Development Committee and the Planning
Board by the City Commission on February 9, 201 1, at the request of Commissioners
Tobin, Libbin and Gongora.
The reason referenced for this referral was because multiple appeals from administrative
determinations have been made to the Board of Adjustment in the last few months
resulting in applications not proceeding to hearing before the Design Review Board and
Planning Board, pursuant to Section 1 18-1 37.
ANALYSIS
Section 11 8-136 gives the Board of Adjustment the power and duty to hear and decide
appeals when it is alleged that there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or
determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of the land
development regulations (with some exceptions). The Board may, upon hearing the
Cify Commission Memorandum
Sfay of work and proceedings on appeal
July 13, 2011 Page 2
appeal, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision, or
determination, and to that end shall have all the powers of the officer from whom the
appeal is taken. As with all matters before the BOA, it takes five votes (out of seven
members) to rule on an appeal. Section 118-137 states that an appeal to the BOA "stays
all work on the premises and all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from."
There is an exception for matters of life safety.
The administrative appeal provisions of the Code are an important part of providing citizen
oversight and protection. However, these provisions do also result in putting all land use
board hearings on hold until the appeal can be ruled on by the Board of Adjustment. While
the appeal provision is generally used only in cases where serious concerns about a
planning interpretation or other administrative determinations are involved, there are also
appeals filed on matters of administrative minutiae, or matters that can be resolved by the
board to which application was made. These types of appeals, while permitted, may not
have the importance or impact to affected parties that would justify staying the proceedings
before a development review Board. While the appeal procedure is important to protect the
rights of property owners and residents surrounding proposed developments, the stay
provision may not always be the best method of addressing these matters pending resolution
of an appeal.
The proposed ordinance before the Commission would permit an application to proceed to a
hearing before a land use board where the application is made provided that the approval
does not vest until the appeal is resolved and the application holds the City harmless from
any liability or loss resulting from such proceedings.
Note that there are two other proposals that are related to, but independent of this proposed
ordinance, which were separately discussed at the Land Use and Development Committee
and City Commission meetings, and were also referred to the Planning Board. One is a
proposal that would amend the jurisdiction and procedure of land use boards concerning
appeals. This proposal would clarify and amend the jurisdiction of each respective board
over appeals of administrative orders, requirements, decisions or determinations and the
procedures that would arise from an application made to those respective boards. The
second proposal would clarify and amend the definitions applicable to and procedures for
obtaining an administrative determination from the planning director, and require that these
determinations be published. These matters are scheduled to be heard by the Planning
Board at the next available public hearing.
PLANNING BOARD
At its May 24, 201 1 meeting, the Planning Board, by a vote of 6-1 recommended that the
City Commission adopt the proposed ordinance (Stolar opposed).
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 cannot readily determine
any potential measurable impact on the City's budget as a result of the approval of the
proposed ordinance.
City Commission Memorandum
Stay of work and proceedings on appeal
July 13, 201 I Page 3
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the proposed
ordinance on first reading; and set a second reading public hearing for the September
14, 201 1 meeting.
When a request to amend the land development regulations does not change the actual
list of permitted, conditional or prohibited uses in a zoning category, the proposed
ordinance may be read by title or in full on at least two separate days and shall, at least
ten days prior to adoption, be noticed once in a newspaper of general circulation in the
city. The notice shall state the date, time and place of the meeting; the title or titles of
proposed ordinances; and the place or places within the city where such proposed
ordinances may be inspected by the public. The notice shall also advise that interested
parties may appear at the meeting and be heard with respect to the proposed ordinance.
Immediately following the public hearing at the second reading, the City Commission
may adopt the ordinance. An affirmative vote of five-sevenths of all members of the City
Commission shall be necessary in order to enact any amendment to these land
development regulations.
T:\AGENDA\201 1\7-13-11\2011 - Stay of work and proceedings on appeal rnemo.docx
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE
ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE ClTY CODE BY AMENDING
CHAPTER I 18, "ADMINISTRATIVE AND REVIEW PROCEDURES,"
ARTICLE II, "BOARDS," DIVISION 5, "BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,"
SECTION 118-137, "STAY OF WORK AND PROCEEDINGS ON
APPEAL," CLARIFYING AND AMENDING THE STAY PROVISIONS
APPLICABLE TO MATTERS ON APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER; CODIFICATION;
SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the land development regulations provide for appeals to the Board
of Adjustment of administrative orders, requirements, decisions or determinations made
by an administrative official; and
WHEREAS, City Code section 118-137 provides for a stay of all work on the
premises and all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed, upon the filing of
such appeal; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that Development Review Board Hearing
applications can proceed to hearing before the board to which application was made as
long as the approval does not vest, meaning it cannot be used to obtain the issuance of
a building permit, until the appeal to the Board of Adjustment is resolved; and
WHEREAS, the amendments set forth below are necessary to accomplish the
above objectives.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY
COMMISSION OF THE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section I. Chapter 118, "Administrative And Review Procedures," Article II, "Boards,"
Division 5, "Board Of Adjustment," Section 1 18-1 37, "Stay Of Work And Proceedings On
Appeal," is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. I 18-1 37. - Stay of work and proceedings on appeal.
An appeal to the board of adjustment stays all work on the premises and all
proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless one of the exceptions in
subsection (2) applies.
Q) Exceptions:
The official from whom the appeal was taken shall certify to the board of
adjustment that, by reason of facts stated in the certificate, a stay would
cause imminent peril to life or property. In such a case, proceedings or
work shall not be stayed except by a restraining order, which may be
granted by the board of adjustment or by a court of eewd competent
jurisdiction, upon application, qxm with notice to the officer from whom
the appeal is taken and for due & cause shown.=
If the appeal arises from an application for Development Review Board
Hearing or other approval reauirina a hearing before a land use board,
the hearing before the board to which application was made mav
proceed, provided anv ap~roval does not vest, and a building permit, or
final order, or certificate of occupancv, or Business Tax Receipt shall not
be issued until the appeal is resolved, and the applicant holds the City
harmless and agrees to indemnifv the Citv from anv liabilitv or loss
resulting from such proceedings.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, an appeal to the board of adjustment or court, or
other challenge to an administrative official's decision, shall neither stay the issuance of
any building permit, full building permit or phased building permit nor stay the running of
the required time period set by board order or these land development regulations to
obtain a full building permit or phased building permit.
SECTION 3. Repealer.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances and all sections and parts of sections in conflict
herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. Codification.
It is the intention of the City Commission, 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 as
amended; that the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to
accomplish such intention, and that the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section" or
other appropriate word.
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. 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
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Verified by:
Richard G. Lorber, AlCP
Acting Planning Director
Underscore denotes new language.
T:\AGENDA\201 1\7-13-11\2011 - BOA stay ord rev 6-27-201 1 .doc
Afteraction February 9,201 1 City of Miami Beach
C2 - Competitive Bid Reports
C2A Request For Approval To lssue A Request For Proposals (RFP) For Investigative And Adjusting
Services For Selected Tort Liability Claims And Workers' Compensation Claims.
(Human Resources/Risk Management)
ACTION: Request authorized. Gus Lopez to issue the RFP. Ramiro lnguanzo to handle.
C2B Request For Approval To lssue A Request For Proposals (RFP) For Auctioneer Services Of City
Surplus Items, On An "As Needed" Basis.
(Procurement)
ACTION: Request authorized. Gus Lopez to issue the RFP and to handle.
C4 - Commission Committee Assiqnments
C4A Referral To The Finance And Citywide Projects Committee A Discussion Regarding Whether Or Not
To Exercise Renewal Options In The Management Agreement With Global Spectrum For The -:
Management Of The Miami Beach Convention Center, Colony Theater And Byron Carlyle Theater. '
(Tourism & Cultural Development)
ACTION: Referred. Patricia Walker to place on the committee agenda. Max Sklar to handle.
C4B Referral To The Finance And Citywide Projects Committee - Discussion Regarding Granting The
Miami Beach Garden Conservancy The Right To Receive Naming Gifts As Part Of The Garden
Renovation.
(Requested by Commissioner Jerry Libbin)
ACTION: Referred. Patricia Walker to place on the committee agenda. Anna Parekh to handle.
C4C Referral To The Land Use And Development Committee To Discuss Parking Requirements And How
We Can lncentivize For Good Hotel Development.
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
ACTION: Referred. Richard Lorber to place on the committee agenda. Richard Lorber to handle.
Referral To The Land Use And Development Committee Discussion Regarding Stay Of Proceedings
Of City Code Section 118-136 And Section 118-137, Resulting From Appeals Of Administrative
Decisions To The Board Of Adjustment.
(Requested by Commissioners Edward L. Tobin, Jerry Libbin & Vice-Mayor Michael Gongora)
ACTION: Amended via corrections: Item referred to the Land Use and Development
Committee and to the Planning Board at the request of Commissioner Tobin. Richard Lorber to
place on the committee agendas and to handle.
Prepared by the City Clerk's Office Page No. 7 of 31
M:\$CMB\C~TYCLER\AFTERACT\2011\Afteractions\20110209\aa02092011 .doc
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Jorge M. Gonxalez, City Manager
FROM: Ed Tobin, Commissioner A
DATE: January 31,201 1
SUBJECT: Agenda item for February 9th Commission Meeting - Refem1 of Item for Diiwssion
to Land Use and Development Committee
Please place on the February Q~, 201 1 City Commission meeting agenda a Memi to the Land
Use and Development Committee to discuss the effect of stay of proceedings resulting from
appeals of administrative decisions to the Board of Adjustment, under City Code Section 1 18-
137, relating to applications before ather land use boards.
Should you have any questions, please contad Yanette Bravo at ext. 6274.
We ate
i I Agenda Item CVD
pu6/ic~ond~bo8~live, mk, ondpkyinad,
t Dab 2-9-//
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION 201 I FEB - 1 PN I : MMORANDUM
, -. .. . . - ii i ;a ..... I:;:..';:; :; -:,',
TO: Jorge Gonzalez, City Manad&--
FROM: Jerry Libbin, Commissioner
DATE: February 2, 201 1
SUBJECT: Consent agenda item for the February 9,20 1 1 Commission meeting; a referral to
the Land Use and Development Committee to discuss the automatic shy provisions of City Code
Section 1 1 8-1 37.
Please place on the February 9, 201 1 Commission meeting a referral to the Land Use and
Development Committee to discuss the automatic stay provisions of City Code Section 1 1 81 37. - ."
"This section provides for a stay of all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from.
while an appeal to the Board of Adiustment of a related administrative decision is being
reviewed. The use of this stay provision has recently been brought to our attention that
justifies its being reviewed by the City Commission."
Please contact my office at ext. 7 106 if you have any questions.
La MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE Of THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Jorge Gonzalez, City Mana
FROM: Michael Gbngora, Vice Mayo
DATE: February 1,201 1
sum Referral Item for February 9" Commission Meeting
Pbase place on the February 9' Commission meeting consent agenda a referral
to the Land Use Committee for a discussion on automatic stays pursuant to ~dde
Section 1 18-136 and Section 1 18-1 37. If you have any questions please feel free
to contact my aide Diana Fontani at ext 6087.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
I An Ordinance amendina Chaoter 110 of the Citv Code, entitled "Utilities." bv amending Article I
IV, entitled "Fees, charges, kates and Billing brocedure," by amending Division 3,-entitled
"Billing Procedure," by amending Section 110-191, entitled "Payment of Bills," by amending 110-
191(b) by changing the due date for utility bills to 21 days from 15 days from the date of the bill ...
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Increase community satisfaction with City Government.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): 87% of residents rated Miami Beach as
an excellent or good place to live.
Issue: I Shall the Mayor and City Commission approve the Ordinance? I
Item Summary/Recommendation:
At the February 9, 201 1 City of Miami Beach Commission meeting, a discussion item regarding the
amount of time customers have to pay their utility bill was referred by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson to
the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (F&CWPC).
Presently, the Miami Beach City Code states that all water, sewer and stormwater utility bills (utility
bills) shall be paid within 15 days from the date of the bill.
On June 23, 2011, at a meeting of the F&CWPC, the Committee recommended changing the due
date for utility bills to 21 days, from the current 15 days, from the date of the bill.
This recommendation came after the Committee analyzed and compared due dates from other public
utility providers from neighboring communities, as well as, other utility bills from private providers who
operate in Miami Beach.
The Committee further recommended that the new 21 day due date become effective for fiscal year
201 112012.
The proposed adjustment to the due date for the payment of utility bills may have a "one-time"
approximate cash impact of $1,902,000, or $317,000 for each day the due date is extended, as the
City collects approximately $317,000 each business day. The City is expected to have sufficient
resources to provide for the projected economic impact of this change within its Enterprise Utility
funds.
Pursuant to the recommendation of the FCWPC, the Administration recommends that the City
Commission approve the ordinance on first reading and schedule a second reading public hearing.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee, on June 23, 2011, recommended the proposed
Ordinance be approved by the Commission.
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account I
3 1
OBPl Total I
Financial Impact Summary:
Funds:
l-----l
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
[ Patricia D. Walker
1
2
urn AGENDA IT
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 Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manage
FIRST READING
DATE: JULY 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OF THE ClTY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 110 OF THE ClTY
CODE, ENTITLED "UTILITIES," BY AMENDING ARTICLE IV, ENTITLED
"FEES, CHARGES, RATES AND BILLING PROCEDURE," BY AMENDING
DIVISION 3, ENTITLED "BILLING PROCEDURE," BY AMENDING SECTION
110-191, ENTITLED "PAYMENT OF BILLS," BY AMENDING 110-191(B) BY
CHANGING THE DUE DATE FOR UTILITY BILLS TO 21 DAYS FROM 15
DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER,
SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. ~
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the ordinance on first reading
and schedule a second reading public hearing.
BACKGROUND
At the February 9, 201 1 City of Miami Beach Commission meeting, a discussion item regarding the
amount of time customers have to pay their utility bill was referred by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (F&CWPC).
Presently, the Miami Beach City Code states that all water, sewer and stormwater utility bills (utility
bills) shall be paid within 15 days from the date of the bill.
ANALYSIS
On June 23, 201 1, at a meeting of the F&CWPC, the Committee recommended changing the due
date for utility bills to 21 days, from the current 15 days, from the date of the bill.
This recommendation came after the Committee analyzed and compared due dates from other
public utility providers from neighboring communities, as well as, other utility bills from private
providers who operate in Miami Beach (analysis listed for review).
UTB CH 100 Ordinance Revision
Page 2 of 2
21 I ti
TECO - Peoples Gas 21 I 6
City of Miami Beach - Utility Billing
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department
The Committee further recommended that the new 21 day due date become effective for fiscal year
201 11201 2.
The proposed adjustment to the due date for the payment of utility bills may have a "one-time"
approximate cash impact of $1,902,000, or $317,000 for each day the due date is extended, as the
City collects approximately $317,000 each business day. The City is expected to have sufficient .
resources to provide for the projected economic impact of this change within its Enterprise Utility #:,
funds.
30
90
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Broward County Commission - Public Works Department 30
Pursuant to the recommendation of the FCWPC, the Administration recommends that the City
Commission approve the ordinance on first reading and schedule a second reading public hearing.
15
21
T:WGENDA\2011\7-13-1 1\UTB CH 11 0 Ordinance Memo 1 st Reading
6
21 -. 6 -
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CIW COMMISSION OF THE
CIW OF MBAM% BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 1"11 OF
WE C1W CODE, ENTITLED "UTILITIES," BY AMENDING ARTICLE
BV, ENTITLED ""FEES, CHARGES, MTES AND BILLING
PROCEDURE," BY AMENDING DIVISION 3, ENTITLED "BILLING
PROCEDURE," BY AMENDING SECTION 11 0-1 91, ENTITLED
""PYMENT OF BILLS," BY AMENDING 110-191(B) BY CHANGlNG
THE DUE DATE FOR UTlLlW BILLS TO 21 DAYS FROM "f1 5DAS
FROM THE DATE OF THE BILL; PROVlDiNG FOR REPEALER,
SEVEMBlblW, CODIFICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on February 9, 201 1, the City of Miami Beach Commission referred
a discussion item regarding the amount of time customers have to pay their utility bill to
the Finance And Citywide Projects Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Miami Beach City Code presently states that all water, sewer
and stormwater utility bills shall be paid within 15 days from the date of the bill; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 201 1, at a meeting of the Finance and Citywide Projects
Committee, the Committee recommended changing the due date for utility bills to 21
days, from the current 15 days, from the date of the bill ; and
WHEREAS, this recommendation came after the Finance and Citywide Projects
Committee analyzed and compared due dates from other public utility providers from
neighboring communities, as well as, other utility bills from private providers who
operate in Miami Beach; and
WHEREAS, the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee recommended that
the new 21 day due date become effective for fiscal year 201 112012; and
NQW THEREFORE, BE IT QRDAlNED BY THE MAYOR AND CiW
COMMlSSIION OF THE CIW OF MlAMP BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CIW COMMlSSlON
OF THE CIW OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA as follows:
SECTION 1: That Chapter 110 of the City Code, Article %\I, Division 3, Section 110-
191 (b), of the Miami Beach City Code is hereby amended as follows:
See. 110-19l(b). - Payment sf bills.
(b) All water, sewer, and stormwater utility bills, . . . , shall be paid within 4-5 2 days from
the date of the bill.. . A ten percent penalty shall be added to all water, sewer, and
stormwater utility bills.. . , if not paid within 4-5 21 days from the date of bill.. .
SECTDON 2. 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 pat? 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 3. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILIW.
If any section, subsection, Sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is, for any
reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and
independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect on the day of , 201 1, which is 10
days after adoption.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,201 1.
Mayor
ATTEST:
BeHers or numbers that are sbicsken through are deletions from existing ordinance.
keaers or numbers that are underlined are additions to existing ordinance.
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & MNGUAGE
& FOR UECUT86dN
THIS PAGE lNTENTlONALLY LEFT BLANK
AM1 BEACH
Cie d Miami Bmch, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.rniarnibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor Matti Herrera Bower
Members of the City Commission
FIRST READING
CC: Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager
FROM: Jose Smith, City Attorney w.&-
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the City's Noise Ordinance.
At the June I, 2011 Commission meeting, the attached proposed Ordinance was
referred by the Mayor and City Commission to the NeighborhoodsICommunity Affairs (NACA)
Committee. The NACA Committee considered the proposed Ordinance at its meeting on July 7,
201 1 and, pending the outcome of that meeting, supplemental materials may be submitted for
this item.
The attached amendments adopt the County's noise standards in 921-28 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. City 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 9946-159(a)(6) and (h), and to remove language in 946-
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.
F:\ATTO\TURN\COMMMEMO\Referral to NCAC - Proposed Noise Ordinance Amendments 7-1 a-9n44 .lnp
Agenda Item 6E
Date 7/15 //
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CBW COMMlSSION OF THE
CIW OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER $6 OF THE
MIAMI BEACH ClW CODE ENTITLED ""EVIRONMENT," BY
AMENDlNG ARTICLE IV ENTITLED "NOISE" BY AMENDING
SECTlON 46-151 ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS" BY AMENDING THE
DEFINITION OF HABITUAL TO CONFORM TO THE HABITUAL
OFFENDER LANGUAGE SET FORTH IN SUBSECTlONS 46-1 59(a)(6)
and (h); BY AMENDING SECTION 46-152 ENTITLED "ADOPTION OF
COUNIWT CODE SECTlON BY REFERENCE; UNNECESSARY AND
EXCESSIVE NOISES PROHIBITED" TO ADOPT THE COUNN9S
NOISE STANDARDS IN SECTlON 46-152; BY AMENDING SECTlON
46-158 ENTITLED "ENFORCEMENT BY CODE INSPECTORS;
NOTICE OF VIOLATION; WARNINGS; RESPONSIBILIW 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 @)@)(a) AND (b)(2)(b) THAT
A VlOLATlON WILL BE ISSUED IF A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS
ISSUED WITHIN THE PRECEDING WUELVE MONTHS OR IF A
VIOLATOR HAS ALREADY RECEIVED A WRlmEN WARNING; BY
AMENDING SECTION 46-1 59 ENTITLED "FINES AND PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATIONS; APPEALS; ALTERNATE MEANS OF
ENFORCEMENT" TO AMEND AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FINES
AND PENALTIES FOR SIXTH AND GREATER OFFENSES, TO
CLARIFY THE PENALTIES FOR NOISE VIOLATORS ALSO
ENGAGED IN AN ILLEGAL COMMERCIAL OR NCPNPEWMI'FTED NON-
RESIDENTBAL USE, TO AMEND THE PERIOD OF TIME WITHIN
WHICH A SEPARATE NOTICE OF VIOLATION MAY BE ISSUED, AND
80 MAKE THE FAILURE 80 COMPLY WITH CERTAIN NOTICES OF
VIOLATION WITHIN A 24 HOUR PERlOD A MISDEMEANOR; AND
PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVEMBILITY, CODIFICATION, AND
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach has adopted Miami-Dade County standards for
noise violations as set forth in §21-28 of the Miami-Dade County Code; and
WHEREAS, the noise standards set forth in §21-28 of the Miami-Dade County Code
were held to be facially constitutional in DA Mortqaqe. Inc. v. Citv 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 Mortqage within its City Code; and
WHEREAS, other amendments and minor clarifications to the City's Noise Ordinance
contained in Article 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, to provide additional fines and penalties for sixth
and greater offenses consistent with the increasing schedule of fines and penalties for other
offenses, to clarify the penalties for noise violators also engaged in an illegal commercial or
nonpermitted nonresidential use, and to amend the period of time within which a separate notice
of violation may be issued, and to make the failure to comply with certain notices of violation
within a 24 hour period a misdemeanor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND GIW
COMMlSSlON OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORID4 AS FOLLOWS:
SECUON 1. That Section 46-151 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 5%. - 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:
Noises; unnecessaly and excessive prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue, or cause to be made or continued
anv unreasonablv loud, excessive, unnecessary or unusual noise. The followins acts, amonq
others, are declared to be unreasonablv loud, excessive, unnecessary or unusual noises in
violation of this section. but this enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive, namelv:
(a) Horns, siqnalinq devices, etc. The soundinq of anv horn or siqnaling device on anv
automobile, motorcvcle, bus or other vehicle on any street or public place of the Countv,
except as a danqer warninq; the creation by means of anv such siqnalinq device of any
unreasonablv loud or harsh sound; and the soundinq of any such device for anv
unnecessary and unreasonable period of time.
(b) Radios, televisions, phonoqraphs, etc. The usinq, operatinq, or permitting to be plaved,
used or operated anv radio receiving set, television set, musical instrument, phonograph,
or other machine or device for the producinq or reproducinq of sound in such manner as
to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of the neighboring inhabitants, or at anv time with
louder volume than is necessary 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 voluntary listeners thereto. The operation of anv such set, instrument,
phonoqraph, machine or device between the hours of 11:OO p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such
manner as to be plainlv audible at a distance of one hundred (100) feet from the
buildinq, structure or vehicle in which it is located shall be prima facie evidence of a
violation of this section.
Jc) Animals, birds, etc. The owning, harboring, possessing or keeping of any doq, animal or
bird which causes frequent, habitual or lonq continued noise which is plainlv audible at a
distance of one hundred (1 00) feet from the buildinq, structure or vard in which the doq,
animal or bird is located.
id) Whistles. The blowinq of anv locomotive whistle or whistle attached to any stationary
boiler except to qive 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.
le) Exhausts. The discharqe into the open air of the exhaust of anv steam enqine,
stationary internal combustion engine, or motor vehicle except throuqh a muffler or other
device which will effectivelv prevent unreasonablv loud or explosive noises therefrom.
If) Defect in vehicle or load. The use of anv automobile, motorcvcle, 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 unnecessary qrating, grinding, rattlinq or other
noise within a residential area.
Lq) Schools, courfs, hospitals. The creation of any excessive or unreasonablv loud noise on
any street adjacent 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 annovs the patients in the
hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such streets indicatinq that it is a
school, hospital or court street.
jh) Hawkers, peddlers. The shouting and cryinq 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 attractinq attention bv creation of anv unreasonablv loud or
unnecessary noise to any performance, show, sale. displav or advertisement of
merchandise.
li) Loudspeakers, etc. The use or operation on or upon the public streets, allevs and
thorouqhfares anwvhere in this Countv for anv purpose of any device known as a sound
truck, loud speaker or sound amplifier or radio or any other instrument of anv kind or
character which emits therefrom loud and raucous noises and is attached to and upon
anv vehicle operated or standing 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 foreqoing loudspeaker tvpe devices in
political campaiqns.
lk) Power tools and landscaping equipment. The operation of noise-producinq lawn
mowers. lawn edgers, weed trimmers, blowers, chippers, chain saws, power 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) Shouting. Anv unreasonably loud, boisterous or raucous shouting in any residential area.
SECTION 3. That Section 46-158 of Article IV of Chapter 46 of the Miami Beach City Code is
hereby amended as follows:
Sec. $16-158. - 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:
(1) Name of the violator.
(2) Date and time of violation.
(3) Nature of the violation.
(4) Amount of fine or other penalty for which the violator may be liable pursuant to
section 46-159 of this Code or as otherwise provided by law.
(5) Instructions and due date for paying the fine.
(6) 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.
(b) 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.
Miffen 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~s i~:
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:
a. !-&as already been issued a written warning as specified
in section 46-1 58 {b)(2]; or
b. In my the 12-month period precedinq the issuance of a notice of violation
has
received a violation as specified in section 46-1 58(a); or
c. Is also being cited for an illegal commercial or nonpermitted
nonresidential use in a residential zoning district.
(c) 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:
(1 If the offense is the first offense, $250.00 fine.
(2) 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.
(4) If the offense is the fourth offense within the preceding 12 months, one 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 $3,000.00 fine.
(5) If the offense is the fifth offense within the preceding 12 months, two 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 $5,000.00 fine.
(6) If the offense is the sixth or greater offense within the preceding 12 months, it
weekend (noon Friday throuuh noon Monday) business tax receipt
conditions andlor accessory use restrictions shall be imposed limitinq the abilitv
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 greater offense within
the precedinq 12 months shall be considered an habitual offender offense and
may also subiect the violator to the penalties and fines imposed pursuant to
subsection 46-1 59(h).
(7) 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.
(8) 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)+(6) above.
A person may receive a separate notice of violation once every W - 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 violationM
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. CODIF%CATlON.
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. SEVEMBILIW.
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 ,2011.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2011.
ATTEST:
MATT1 HERRERA BOWER
MAYOR
ROBERT PARCHER, CITY CLERK
Words added are underlined.
Words deleted have been
APPROVED AS TO
A-, FORM 8 LANGUAGE
THIS PAGE INTENnONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
I An Ordinance amending Chapter 90 of the City Code entitled "Solid Waste" to create a Citywide I Recycling Program for Multifamily Residences and Commercial Establishments.
Key Intended Outcome Suppo~ed: I Enhance the Environmental Sustainability of the Community.
Suppofiiing Data (Srsweys, Enwiroeamental Scan, etc.): The waste haulers operating in the City have
reported that approximately 1,558 multifamily and commercial establishments within the City of Miami
Beach are currently not participating in the County-required Recycling Program.
Issue:
I Shall the Mavor and Citv Commission defer the Ordinance? I
Item SummaaylRecommendatios~: 1 FIRST READING
The proposed Ordinance seeks to establish a comprehensive and aggressive Cityvvlde Recyling Program
for multifamily residences and commercial establishments. This proposed Program would require that
multifamily and commercial establishments not only have a recycling program in place like the County
currently requires, but would also mandate that recyclables be recycled. Multifamily and commercial
establishments will receive fines that range from $350 to $5,000 if recyclables are found comingled with
their solid waste or vice versa. The proposed Ordinance specifies that the City would establish a Public
Education Program to inform the public of the new requirements and provide guidance on proper recycling
procedures. The proposed Ordinance essentially has an 18-month "ramp up" period, including an
extensive twelve (12) month education and outreach period, followed by a six-month warning period before
penalties would be issued. In order to maximize the success of the Public Education Program during this
period, prior to commencing enforcement, it is recommended that a consultant be retained to assist with
developing an outreach campaign for the new Recycling Program to the community.
Enforcement of the proposed Ordinance would require recycling inspectors to inspect the contents of both
the solid waste and recycling containers in order to ascertain compliance. These enforcements efforts can
be driven by complaints from the general public or the waste haulers, through a proactive inspection
schedule, or through a combination approach. The Sustainability Committee recommended that a hybrid
approach be utilized to achieve the greatest level of compliance. In order to enforce the Ordinance, as
currently written, at a reasonable level, the initial fiscal analysis recommends an addition of eleven (1 1)
new Code Compliance Officers to perform both proactive and complaint driven inspections. However, at its
June 23, 201 1 meeting, the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee recommended that this staffing
level be reduced and that the proposed Ordinance be revenue-neutral and not rely on the General Fund.
To be revenue-neutral, the enforcement needs to be more complaint driven than pro-active inspection.
Therefore, the Ordinance as written must be modified.
THE ADMINISTMTLION RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE ORDiNANCE ON FIRST RWDINC AND A
REFERML BACK TO THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FOR ORDINANCE
MODIFICATlONS AND UTER TO THE FINANCE AND Ci IDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE FOR
CONSIDEMTION OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACT.
Financial information:
T:\AGENDA\~OI 1\7-13-1 I\Recycling Ordinance Surnrnary.doc u-
Source of
Funds:
OBPls
4
Total
Amount Account
City grof 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 City Commission
FROM Jorge M. Gonmalem, City Manage fl FBRST READING
DATE July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAY AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CIW OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 90 OF THE MiAMl BEACH C1W
CODE, ENTITLED ""SLBD WASTE," BY AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS IN
ARTlCLE I, ENTITLED ""I NGENEML," BY AMENDING SECmON 98-2,
ENTITLED "DEFIN%TIIONSW; BY AMENDING ARTBCLE 11, ENTITLED
"ADM!NISTMTiOI\I" BY AMENDING THE PENALTIES FOR SOLID WASTE
VIOLATIONS AND TO PROVaDE PROVBSlONS AND PENALTIES RELATIVE TO
RECYCLING FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCES AND COMMERCIAL
ESTABLISHMENTS; BY CREATING ARTICLE V, PO BE ENTBTLED "CI
RECYCLING PROGMM FOR MULTBIFAMBLY RESIDENCES AND COMMERCIAL
ESTABLISHMENTS," PO PROVIDE PROVBS1ONS FOR RECYCLING
REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT, A PUBLIC EDUCATION PWOGMM, A
WARNING PERIOD, AN ENFORCEMENT DATE, COLLECTOR LBABILIW, A
"RED TAG" NOTICING SYSTEM, PENALTIES, AND SPECIAL MASTER APPEAL
PROCEDURES; PROViDIRIG FOR REPEALER, SEVEMBILB"$&r, CODEFICATlON,
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. FIRST READING PUBLlC HEARING.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the Ordinance on First Reading.
BACKGROUND
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson worked with the CityAttorneyls OfFice and City Administration, as well
as members of the City's Sustainability Committee, on a proposed ordinance that would require
mandatory recycling for multifamily residences and commercial establishments in the City, via the
establishment of a City of Miami Beach Mandatory Recycling Enforcement Program.
Currently, Miami-Dade County Code (Sections 15-2.2 to 15-2.4) requires multifamily and commercial
establishments to have a recycling program. However, as a result of multiple issues, including fiscal
constraints at the County level, the County Code requirement to demonstrate a recycling program is
not adequately or comprehensively enforced. It is believed that approximately 1,558 multifamily
residential buildings and commercial establishments within the City of Miami Beach are currently not
participating in the County-required recycling program. This is approximately 30% of all known
commercial and multfamily accounts.
The proposed ordinance (Attachment A), which is an amendment to Chapter 90 of the City Code,
would establish more stringent requirements than the County and require multifamily residences and
commercial establishments in the City to recycle pursuant to the requirements of a City of Miami
Beach Recycling Program. This proposed program would require that multifamily and commercial
establishments not only have a recyling program in place, but it would also mandate that recyclables
City Commission Memo - Recycling Ordinance, First Reading
July 13, 201 I
Page 2 of 7
be recycled. Multifamily and commercial establishments would receive fines if recyclables were
found comingled with their solid waste or vice versa. The County Code (Section 15-2.5) gives the
City the authority to establish and enforce its own Ordinance, provided such Ordinance is equivalent
to or more stringent that the County's provisions.
Single-family homes and multifamily buildings with eight (8) units or less are already provided weekly
recycling services via Miami-Dade County's Curbside Recycling Program, which was done through
an Inter-Local Agreement (Agreement) entered into on June 14, 1990. The Agreement authorizes
the County to act on the City's behalf in the administration of the contract for this recycling service in
the areas of municipal jurisdiction. The current number of households served by Miami-Dade
County within the City of Miami Beach is 6,498 units. The contractor that currently provides the
service to Miami Beach throygh the Agreement is World Waste Services.
Commercial facilities and multifamily residences with nine (9) or more units are required by Miami-
Dade County to hire, by means of a contract, a private hauler for their regular trash pick-up,
recycling and bulk pick-up. Miami-Dade County Code Chapter 15 entitled "Solid Waste
Management", Sections 15-2.2 through Sections 15-2.5 requires the following:
OwnersIProperty owners of commercial establishments in Miami-Dade County must provide
a recycling program for their employees and tenants, using the services of an authorized
waste hauler or private recycling hauler.
The program must recycle three (3) items from the following list of ten (1 0): high-grade office
paper, mixed paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, aluminum, steel, other scrap production
metals, plastics, textiles, and wood.
Modified Recycling Programs - those that incorporate modifications, substitutions or
reductions to the requirements stated above - may be submitted to the Department of Solid
Waste Management for review and approval.
The City has approximately 85,536 residents, and 66,327 total households; of which approximately
6,498 households are on City solid waste and recycling service, which would be excluded from the
requirements of this Ordinance. The remaining 60,000 units are contained in approximately 1,500
multifamily residential buildings with eight (8) units or more, which would be subject to the
parameters of the multifamily residential component of the ordinance. The City has approximately
3,624 commercial units.
CURRENT ENFORCEMENT
On September 1, 2009, the Miami-Dade County Multifamily and Commercial Recycling
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) bebeen the City of Miami Beach and Miami-Dade County-
Department of Solid Waste Management (SWM) was approved. Under the MOU, the County
agrees to enforce recycling under County Code Chapter 15, Sections 15-2.2 through 15-2.5 within
the City of Miami Beach. When facilities are found to not have a recycling program, the County
issues the offending party a warning notice followed by a notice of violation that may include fines as
delineated in Miami-Dade Code Chapter 8CC - entitled "Code Enforcement". In 2007-08, the County
collected a total of $1 1,550 in fines Countywide for non-compliance with their recycling ordinance.
On March 29,201 0, the City provided Miami-Dade County Solid Waste Management (SWM) with a
list of 434 addresses from the waste haulers' multifamily and commercial accounts that were not
recycling. In August 201 0, the County initiated a proactive inspection approach to enforcement.
Since August 2010, the County has inspected a total of 203 multi-family residences and 27
commercial establishments. If facilities were found to not have a recycling program, the facilities
were issued a warning notice followed by a notice of violation that may include fines delineated in
City Commission Memo - Recycling Ordinance, First Reading
July 13, 2011
Page 3 of 7
Miami-Dade Code Chapter 8CC entitled "Code Enforcement". However, in October 2010 the
County returned to a compliant-driven approach with an emphasis on education. In January 201 1,
the City franchise waste haulers provided the Public Works, Sanitation Division, with an updated list
of Miami Beach commercial facilities and multifamily residences that do not have a recycling
program in place. The list included the 1,558 establishments previously noted, which represents
30% of known commercial and multifamily accounts that are estimated not to have a recycling
program. The percentage of non-compliant facilities that have received fines since January201 1 is
unknown. Based on SWM complaint-driven approach that focuses more on education than issuance
of fines, this number is anticipated to be low.
PROGRAM ANALYSIS
The proposed Ordinance seeks to establish a comprehensive and aggressive Citywide Recyling
Program for multifamily residences and commercial establishments. The proposed Ordinance, is
more stringent than the County's requirements because it expands the scope of required recylables.
The City would develop a process by which all multifamily residences with nine (9) units or more
would be required to use a single-stream recycling process that includes all five (5) of the following
recyclable materials: newspaper, glass, metal food and beverage containers, other metal containers,
and plastics. In addition, at least three (3) of the following recyclable materials must also be
recycled: corrugated cardboard, magazines and catalogs, telephone books, office paper or organic
material. Commercial establishments would be required to recycle at least three (3) materials from
the following: mixed paper, glass, metal food and beverage containers, other metal containers,
plastics, textiles, wood or organic materials.
The proposed Ordinance stipulates that it is a violation for multifamily residences or commercial
establishments to have recyclable materials in any place other than in a recycling container. In
addition, the existence of recyclable materials inside a recycling container for seven (7) consecutive
days constitutes evidence that a multifamily residence or commercial establishment is not providing
regular recycling service that would be required by the provisions of this ordinance. In addition, the
absence of recyclable materials in a recycling container for seven (7) consecutive days constitutes
evidence that a multifamily residence or commercial establishment is not separating recyclables
from their solid waste stream and is thus in violation of the provisions of the Ordinance.
Enforcement of the proposed Ordinance would require recycling inspectors to inspect the contents
of both the solid waste and recycling containers in order to ascertain compliance. These
enforcement efforts can be driven on a complaint basis, through a proactive inspection schedule, or
through a combination approach. The Sustainability Committee recommended that a hybrid
approach be utilized to achieve the greatest level of compliance.
The proposed Ordinance also includes a "red tag" noticing system. Waste contractors and recycling
contractors are required to notify their customers with a "red tag" identifying incorrect materials found
in the either the solid waste or recycling container. After issuing two (2) tags, the contractor may
refuse collection service and include on the subsequent tag a description of the action that must be
taken for the materials to be collected. If the recycling contractor continues to find incorrect materials
in a collection container, it is required to report the customer that has violated the separation
requirements to the City. The proposed Ordinance provides that the contractor would be subject to
fines and penalities if it collects such commingled materials and waste.
According to the parameters of the proposed recycling Ordinance, if commercial establishments,
multifamily residences, or waste haulers are found to be in non-compliance with the proposed
amendments, the following penalties would be prescibed:
a) For the first violation, a warning or a fine up to $350.00.
b) For the second violation, a fine of up to $500.00.
City Commission Memo - Recycling Ordinance, First Reading
July 13, 201 1
Page 4 of 7
c) For the third violation, a fine of up to $1,000.00.
d) For the fourth and subsequent violations, a fine of up to $5,000.00.
The proposed Ordinance does not include a fine accrual provision, which is found in many of the
City's similar fine structures. The Administration recommends that the Committee explore the
possibility of adding an accrual provision to encourage compliance.
The proposed Ordinance calls for one (1) year of Public Education Program followed by a six (6)
month warning period before penalties would be issued. During the education and outreach period,
the City would implement an aggressive public education campaign to inform the public of the new
requirements. This would entail comprehensive community outreach through the Chamber of
Commerce, local schools, bupiness associations, and homeowner and condominium associations.
In addition, the City would disseminate information about the new program through TV, website,
social media, and printed media. After the year of extensive education and outreach, the six (6)
month warning period (or pre-full implementation period) would take place, where only warning
notices without monetary fines would be issued.
In addition to the outreach and educational efforts associated with a program of this magnitude, the
proposed Ordinance also includes an educational "tag program." The City would require recycling
contractors to place informational tags andlor stickers on the recycling dumpster to further educate
the public regarding allowable recyclable materials and proper recycling procedures. Only after the
education and warning period are complete (1 8 months from commencement of the program) would
the City issue Notices of Violation with accompanying monetary fines to companies andlor
individuals that fail to adhere to the provisions of this Ordinance.
The proposed Ordinance has been reviewed, analyzed, and commented upon by the Sustainability
Committee (at its October 2010 and November 201 0 meetings). TWO (2) versions of the Ordinance
were presented for review and consideration by the Land Use and Development Commmittee
(LUDC): Option "A is the version developed by Administration and Option "B" is the version
developed by the Sustainability Committee.
The only significant differences that emerged between the Administration's version (Option "A") and
the Sustainability Committee's version (Option "B") were:
1. The dollar amount of the fines. The Sustainability Committee's recommendation for first and
second offenses did not include a warning and the dollar amounts were higher; and
2. The duration of the overall warning period. The Sustainability Committee recommended a
three (3) month warning period instead of a six (6) month warrning period during which only
warning citations and not actual monetary or other penalties would be issued.
On December 12,2010, the LUDC passed a motion recommending Option "A", the Administration's
version of the Ordinance, and moved it to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC)
for discussion.
On June 23, 201 I, the FCWPC passed a motion recommending that the City Commission pass
Option "A" with the stipulation that the program is revenue neutral, and is funded through the
commercial waste hauler contributions and/or Sanitation Reserves. The FCWPC also required that
no funding from the General Fund be used to support the Recycling Program. To be revenue-
neutral, the enforcement needs to be more complaint driven than pro-active inspection. Therefore,
the Ordinance as written must be modified.
PRBGMM COMPARISONS -.=-
Staff conducted research to identify and compare similar programs established in other
527
City Commission Memo - Recycling Ordinance, First Reading
July 13, 201 1
Page 5 of 7
municipalities across the US. Some of the cities contacted included the localities of Austin, Texas;
Gainsville, Florida; Miami-Dade County; Montgomery County, Maryland; San Diego, California; San
Fransisco, California; and Seattle, Washington.
Levels of community compliance and enforcement vary between municipalities. For example, when
Seattle began its mandatory recycling program, there was a high level of compliance from the
beginning; more than 90% of Seattle's 150,000 apartments and businesses complied with the
requirements of the new ordinance within weeks of implementation without the issuance of fines.
Similarly, San Francisco has seen an approximate 55% rate of compliance with its mandatory
composting and recycling ordinance. San Francisco publicized that it would be strictly enforcing
multifamily composting and recycling in order to increase the public dialogue; however, their focus is
still mainly on compliance through outreach rather than issuance of fines.
Jurisdictions such as Gainesville, Austin, San Diego and Montgomery County have focused efforts
on providing education and extensive technical assistance rather than issuing fines to achieve
compliance. Gainesville has concentrated its efforts on a comprehensive educational campaign that
includes onsite assessment and recycling guidance to its residents and businesses. However,
Gainesville is planning to begin attaching fines to facilities' electric bills in order to increase recycling
compliance.
Similarly, Austin's current ordinance includes a fine of $500 per day. To date, Austin has elected to
focus on education rather than to issue fines for non-compliance. However, Austin is in the process
of developing a more stringent ordinance with stricter enforcement and fines, which is scheduled to
come into effect in October 2012.
Montgomery County has been focusing their efforts on providing education and technical assistance
to multifamily residences and commercial facilities. These facilities are required to complete an
Annual Waste Reduction Report that estimates the amount of recyclable material generated
annually. This allows Montgomery County to conduct audit inspections to verify the Waste
Reduction Report and determine if the facility requires further technical assistance. If outreach is
found to be unsuccessful, Recycling Investigators respond with verbal warnings followed by
citations; however, further fines and enforcement is uncommon.
The research also showed that the program staffing levels at a number of the locations varied in
terms of the scope of work and goals. Programs varied from a staff of four (4) Waste Diversion
Planners in Austin, Texas to more complex programs such as Montgomery County, which has a
total of 18 employees ('I Section Chief, 2 Program Coordinators, 2 Compliance Managers, 1
Community Outreach Coordinator, 8 Educational Specialists, and 4 Recycling Investigators). San
Fransisco's recycling and cornposting program relies heavily on community volunteers to conduct
door-to-door neighborhood outreach. In addition, San Fransisco received funds from the Federal
Stimulus Package Jobs Now program that allowed it to employ 50 Environmental Outreach
Assistants, whose duties included various environmental initiatives including recycling outreach.
From the Jobs NOW program, 18 Outreach Assistants have remained as full-time employees and
now supplement the Zero Waste Division's 'I1 employees (3 Residential Recycling Coordinators, 3
City Governement Recycling Coordinators, 3 Commerical Recycling Coordinators, 1 Construction 8(
Demolition Recycling Coordinator, and 'I Division Program Manager).
Based on the requirements and parameters set forth in the proposed Ordinance, Code Compliance
Officers (CCO) would need to inspect and assess 3,624 commercial units and approximately 'I ,500
multifamily residential buildings with more than eight units in order to determine compliance.
Staff has had several discussions regarding the level of enforcement that would be required for this
proposed Ordinance and how to effectuate inspections to encourage compliance. In order to
achieve the level of compliance expected to be achieved with this Ordinance, the Administration
City Commission Memo - Recycling Ordinance, First Reading
July 13, 201 1
Page 6 of 7
would recommend quarterly pro-active inspections for the commercial establishments, and is
assuming a 50% compliance rate, which would require additional inspections for non-compliance.
For the multifamily residential buildings, the Administration would recommend two (2) proactive
inspections per year, again with a 50% compliance rate assumption, and additional inspections for
non-compliance. These assumptions do not include any inspections required as a result of
complaints or as notices provided by the haulers based on their observations and issuance of "red
tag" warnings. Variation from this implementation plan would impact the estimated staffing
requirements, operational costs and potential revenue from fines presented herein.
It should be noted that recycling Ordinance enforcement staffing would be done with additional
positions, not within the current staffing plan of the Code Compliance Divison of the Building
Department, as current staff does not have the capacity to implement this program with current
Code Compliance demands. An additional administrative support position would also be required in
order to implement this program.
Using the assumptions outlined above, a total of eleven (1 1) additional full-time staff would be
required in the Code Compliance Division to effectively address the parameters of the proposed
recycling Ordinance. This includes nine (9) CCOs, one (1) Recycling Manager, and one (1)
Administrative Aide I. The CCOs would be deployed by zones (South, Middle, and North), reporting
to a Recycling Administrator, who in turn would report to a Recycling Manager. Assignments would
be adjusted based on workloads. The Recycling Manager would be responsible for supervising the
program and coordinating continued community outreach and education efforts.
The ongoing annual operating costs are projected to be approximately $630,611. This includes
salaries and fringe benefits associated with full-time employment in the amount of approximately
$592,993 as well as minimal operating costs in the amount of $37,618. This estimate does not
include one-time costs such as the purchase of computers, vehicles, and office furniture, which are
estimated to be in the range of $1 23,600, for a total implementation cost of approximately $754,235.
Attachments B and C outline the projections for staffing and operating costs.
It should be noted that the staffing and operating costs associated with this program can be phased
in, as the educational program and initial warning period would be for a combined period of 18
months. Thus, the entirety of the costs would not need to be funded at the inception of the program.
POTENTIAL RECOVERY $)rF EXPENDITURES I ISSUANCE OF FINES
It is difficult to estimate the revenues generated from fines collected by implementing such a
program, as there is no experience with a strictly enforced recycling program. The Administration
projects a 50% compliance rate, based on data obtained from the County; the County reports a 47%
compliance rate on their ordinance. Assuming a 33% collection rate on the fines issued to the 50%
of the non-compliant commerical and multifamily units, the City would collect approximately
$550,000 with this program. The 33% is the averageltypical collection rate for code compliance
violations. Attachment C also outlines these projections.
If fine collection turns out to be higher than anticipated, the revenue stream would increase. Of
course, the reciprical is also true. Additionally, if compliance is greater than anticipated, which would
be the ultimate goal of the program, the revenues would be less than anticipated.
The proposed Ordinance specifies that the City would establish a Public Education Program that
informs the public of the new requirements and provides guidance on proper recycling procedures.
An exensive twelve (12) month education and outreach period will then be followed by a six (6)
month warning period before penalties would be issued. In order to maximize the success and
City Commission Memo - Recycling Ordinance, First Reading
July 13, 201 1
Page 7 of 7
exposure of the Public Education Program during this period, prior to commencing enforcement, it is
recommended that a consultant be retained to communicate the new Recycling Program to the
community. The consultant can assist the City with developing a marketing plan, designing effective
educational materials, and administering workshops and creating information packages for
commercial and multifamily facilities.
FUNDING
Recommend funding for FY2012 Public Education Program to be provided from the waste haulers
contributions or through Sanitation Reserves. A source of funding for the enforcement component
of the Recycling Program has yet to be identified, other than the revenues discussed herein
associated with the fines.
CONCLUSlON
The Administration recommends approving the Ordinance on first reading and a referral back to the
Land Use and Development Committee for Ordinance modifications and later to the Finance and
Citywide Projects Committee for consideration of the financial impact.
Attachments:
A. Proposed Recycling Ordinance
B. Staffing Requirement Analysis
C. Recycling Ordinance Fiscal Analysis
DRBIHMFIKTIRSNFHBIHDCI~~ILEBIESW
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 I\Recycling Ordinance Memo.doc
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CBW COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 90 OF THE MIAMI BEACH
CITY CODE, ENTITLED "SOLIID WASTE," BY AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS
IN ARTICLE 8, ENTITLED "!N GENEML," BY AMENDlNG SECTION 90-2,
ENTITLED ""DEFINITIONS"; BY AMENDING ARTlCLE I!, ENTITLED
"ADMINISTRATION" BY AMENDING THE PENALTIES FOR SOLID WASTE
VlOLATlONS AND TO PROVIDE PROVlSIONS AND PENALTIES RELATIVE
TO RECYCLING FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCES AND COMMERCIAL
ESTABLISHMENTS; BY CREATING ARTICLE V, TO BE ENTITLED
IDE RECYCLING PROGRAM FOR MULTBFAMlLY RESIDENCES AND
COMMERClAL ESTABLISHMENTS," TO PROVIDE PROVlSlONS FOR
RECYCLING REQUIREMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT, A PUBLlC
EDUCATION PROGRAM, A WARNING PERIOD, AN ENFORCEMENT DATE,
COLLECTOR LIABILITY, A "RED TAG" NOTICING SYSTEM, PENALTIES,
AND SPECIAL MASTER APPEAL PROCEDURES; PROVIDING FOR
REPEALER, SEVERABILITY, COQIFICATBON, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, nearly everything we produce, use or consume leaves behind some kind of
waste and the treatment and disposal of waste can be a source of water, land, and air pollution;
and
WHEREAS, by managing solid waste and conserving material resources through
reduction, reuse, and recycling, the City will help minimize impacts to the quality and safety of
the local environment, reduce costs of waste disposal and decrease the carbon foot print
associated with the production and the use and disposal of materials; and
WHEREAS, the recycling of recyclable materials is in the best interest of the
environment, the residents, and the environmental footprint of the City of Miami Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to establish a Citywide Recycling Program for multifamily
residences and commercial establishments that provides standards that are equivalent to or
exceed the minimum recycling requirements of Miami-Dade County; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 15-2.5 and 15-2.7 of the Miami-Dade County Code,
the City and Miami-Dade County have agreed that the following Citywide Recycling Program
meets the minimum standards set forth in section 15-2.6 of the Miami-Dade County Code and
have accordingly entered into a Memorandum of Understanding so that the City may implement
said Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE !-DULY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND ClTY
COMMlSSION OF THE CI;$M OF M%AMi BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That Article I, entitled "In General," of Chapter 90 of the Miami Beach City Code,
entitled "Solid Waste," is hereby amended as follows:
SOLID WASTE
Sec. 90-2. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning: * * *
Commercial establishment means an establishment dealing in an exchange of goods or
services for money or barter. For purposes of this chapter, the term shall include churches,
synagogues and schools.
Multifamily residence means a building occupied or intended to be occupied by two (2)
or more families living separately, with separate kitchens in each unit.
Offense means a notice of violation that has not been appealed timelv or a finding of a
violation bv a special master following the ap~eal of a violation.
Premises means real property and includes anv buildinns or structures thereon.
* * *
Recyclable materials means those materials capable of being recycled and which would
otherwise be processed or disposed of as solid waste. Any recyclable material mixed with solid
waste shall be considered to be solid waste.
Recycling means any process by which recyclable materials are collected, separated, or
processed to be reused or returned to use in the form of raw materials or products.
Recycling container means a container approved by the city manager for collection of
recyclable material by a recycling contractor.
Recycling contractor means a private contractor licensed bv the citv who collects
recyclable materials and transports same to a state or county-licensed recycling facility for
processing. Recvclina contractors must provide their customers with a separate recvclinq
container for recvclable materials.
I Sinale-stream recvclina means a process bv which certain recvclable materials are
mixed together instead of being sorted into separate recycling containers in the collection
process.
SECTION 2. That Article II, entitled "Administration," of Chapter 90 of the Miami Beach City
Code entitled "Solid Waste," is hereby amended as follows:
CHAPTER 90
SOLID WASTE
ARTICLE !I. ADM1NISTMTION
See. 90-36. Enforcement of chapter; notice of violation.
(a) The city manager is hereby authorized and directed to enforce all the provisions of
this chapter regulating and governing the accumulation, collection, and disposal of solid waste.
The city manager shall have the power to delegate duties to employees working under his I authority lincluding, without limitation, the citv's public works director) in the enforcement of the
provisions of this chapter.
(b) Upon presentation of proper credentials, an inspector designated by the city
manager may enter any building, structure, lot or other premises for the purpose of inspection,
or to prevent violations of this chapter.
(c) The existence of solid waste shall be prima facie evidence that the same was
created or placed there by the occupant of the dwelling or commercial establishment; or the
owner; or the operator or manager. The existence of the same garbage inside the same
garbage containers for four (4) consecutive days upon premises serviced by a private waste
contractor shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this chapter by the contractor. For
purposes of this section premises serviced by a private waste contractor shall not include
accounts that have been discontinued by the contractor when notice of discontinued service has
been mailed to the owner, occupant; or operator or manager, as well as to the city, prior to the
accumulation of the garbage.
(d) Whenever a designated city inspector observes a violation (or violations) of this
chapter re~ardina solid waste or an accumulation of solid waste that creates a health hazard,
environmental hazard, or nuisance, the inspector shall order the violation(s) to be corrected
within a specified period of time by serving a written notice of violation(s) upon the person
causing, or responsible for, such violation andlor health hazard, environmental hazard, or
nuisance. Such person shall immediately cease or abate the violation(s).
(e) A The notice of violation shall be served personally or by certified mail upon the
propertv owner or upon the person0 in lawful possession of the premises, andlor upon the
I waste contractor servicing the premises. If the person addressed with such notice
cannot be found by the city after making reasonable good faith effort, such notice shall be sent
by certified mail to the last known address of such person, and a copy of the notice shall be
posted in a conspicuous place on the premises. Such notice shall be deemed the equivalent of
personal service.
(f) The notice shall specify any fine(s) that may be due in connection with the
violation(s), the time specified by the inspector to correct the violations, and the procedure for
timely payment or appeal of the fine(s).
(g) If the inspector determines that the conditions constitute an immediate threat to the
health, safety or welfare of the public, helshe may order the immediate correction of the
violation(s) at the expense of the occupant; owner; or operator or manager and the city shall
have the right to recover such expenses as provided in section 90- 4-36 37.
{h) The enforcement of the recycling requirements for the citwvide recvcling program for
multifamilv residences and commercial establishments provided for in Article V of this chapter,
and the penalties for violations of Article V, are provided in sections 90-345 and 90-347 through
90-348 of this chapter.
Sec. 90-37. Removal of waste by city; penalties for violations.
If the person served with a notice of violation pursuant to section 90-36 does not correct
the violation within the specified time, the city manager may do the following:
(1) For violations involving failure to remove solid waste, the city manager may
cause the waste to be removed from the premises and charge the actual costs to
the owner; occupant; or operator or manager, on a force account basis. Any fine
due pursuant to section 90-39 or 90-40 shall also be charged to the owner;
occupant; or operator or manager. Failure to pay such costs and fines or to
appeal pursuant to section 90-38 within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the notice
shall result in the imposition of a lien upon the property, in the amount of such
costs and fines. Such liens shall be treated as special assessment liens against
the subject real property and, until fully paid and discharged, shall remain liens
equal in rank and dignity with the lien of ad valorem taxes, and shall be superior
in rank and dignity to all other liens, encumbrances, titles and claims in, to or
against the real property involved. Such liens shall be enforced by any of the
methods provided in Ch. 86, Florida Statutes; or, in the alternative, foreclosure
proceedings may be instituted and prosecuted under the provisions of Ch. 173;
Florida Statutes; or the collection and enforcement or payment thereof may be
accomplished by any other method authorized by law. The owner; occupant; or
operator or manager shall pay all costs of collection, including reasonable
attorneys fees incurred in the collection of fines, and other charges, penalties,
and liens imposed by virtue of this chapter.
(2) For violations of this chapter for which no fine is specified in sections 90-39
and 90-40, the city attorney may prosecute the violators pursuant to section 1-14.
Fines for such offenses shall be as follows:
a. First offense, $350.00.
b. Second offense, $500.00.
c. Third offense, $1,000.00.
d. Fourth or subsequent offense, $5,000.00.
(3) For violations which present a serious threat to the health, safety or welfare
of the public and/or violations that constitute a fourth or
subsequent offense by the same violator, the city aa%wq may seek injunctive
relief andlor, in the case of commercial establishments, revoke the business tax
receipt and/or certificate of use of the establishment and/or premises.
Sec. 96-38. Appeal to special master.
(a) Any person receiving a notice of violation pursuant to section 90-36 and/or gnotice
of fine pursuant to sections 90-39 and/or 90-40 may request, within fifteen (15) days of receipt
of the notice, an administrative hearing before a special master, appointed as provided in article
I1 of chapter 30, to appeal the decision of the city inspector resulting in the issuance of the
notice. Procedures and application fee for the scheduling and conduct of the hearing shall be as
provided in sections 102-384 and 102-385. Failure to appeal within the prescribed time period
shall constitute a waiver of the violator's right to an administrative hearing. A waiver of the right
to an administrative hearing shall be treated as an admission of the violation, as noticed, and
fines and penalties may be assessed accordingly.
(b) Timely filing of a notice of appeal pursuant to this section shall toll the imposition of
a lien pursuant to section 90-37 or 90-136, or enforcement procedures pursuant to section 90-
36, until thirty (30) days after the issuance of a written determination by the special master. Any
amounts of money due the city pursuant to such determination must be received by the city
within thirty (30) days after the issuance of the determination, or a lien shall be imposed upon
the property in question, and any other enforcement or collection procedures commenced, as
provided by this chapter or under state law.
SECTION 3. That Article V, to be entitled "Citywide Recycling Program for Multifamily
Residences and Commercial Establishments," of Chapter 90 of the Miami Beach City Code,
entitled "Solid Waste," is hereby created as follows:
CHAPTER 90
SOblD WASTE
recycling process to recycle recyclable materials and every multifamily residence shall be
serviced by a citv and state licensed recycling contractor.
At a minimum, multifamily residences must recycle at least five (5) of the
recyclable materials listed below:
I 11 Newspa~er- used or discarded newsprint, including any glossy inserts;
21 Glass- glass jars, bottles, and containers of clear, green or amber
(brown) color of anv size or shape used to store and/or packaae food and
beverage products for human or animal consumption, and/or used to
package other products, which must be emptv and rinsed clean of
residue. This term excludes ceramics, window or automobile glass,
mirrors, and light bulbs;
Metal food and beveraqe containers- all ferrous and nonferrous (i.e.
including, but not limited to, steel, tin-plated steel, aluminum and bimetal)
food and beverage containers (i.e. including, but not limited to, cans,
plates, and travs) of any size or shape used to store and/or package food
and beverage products suitable for human or animal consumption, which
must be emptv and rinsed clean of residue;
3 Other metal containers- all other ferrous and non ferrous containers used
to package household products including, but not limited to, paint cans
and aerosol cans, which must be empty and rinsed clean of residue;
Plastics- all high densitv polvethvlene (HDPE) and/or polvethvlene
terephthalate (PET) bottles, iugs, iars, cartons, tubs, and/or other
containers, and lids, of anv size or shape used to packaae food,
beverages, and/or other household products, or crankcase oil, which must
be emptv and rinsed clean of residue. This term excludes all plastic film,
plastic bags, vinvl, rigid plastic (i.e. toys), and plastic foam materials; and
At least three (3) of the followina recvclable materials:
3 Cardboard - clean, unwaxed corrugated cardboard boxboard and/or
similar corrugated and kraft paper materials; food, beveraae, and/or other
household cardboard boxes, cartons and/or other containers (i.e. cereal
boxes, paper egg cartons, rolls, and baas, milk, iuice and other beverage
cartons and/or boxes, spiral-wound containers such as oranqe iuice,
dough and potato chip containers, tissue boxes, and toilet tissue and
paper towel rolls); and anv other corrugated and/or non-corrugated
materials made from cardboard, all of which must be emptv and cleaned
of excessive amounts of contaminant such as adhesives, metals and
plastics;
21 Magazines and cataloques;
3 Telephone books andlor directories,
3 Office paper -used or discarded high-grade white paper and Manila
paper including, but not limited to, paper used for file folders, tab cards,
writing, tvpinq, printing, computer printing, and photocopving (i.e. writing
paper, stationarv, letterhead, notebook paper, copier paper, typing paper,
tablet sheets, computer print- out paper, and all paper of similar aualitv);
regular mail and junk mail; envelopes without wax liners or adhesive
labels; and paper gift wrap and cards. This term shall not include carbon
paper, self carbonizing paper, coated or glossv paper, and envelopes
with windows or adhesive labels.
Organic Materials - A multifamilv residence that recvcles organic materials in a separate
bin that is serviced by a citv licensed recvcling contractor shall be deemed to satisfv one of the
three(3) recvclable materials options in this subsection (b). The following items shall be
deemed to be organic materials for purposes of this section: All food materials, including but
not limited to fresh, frozen, dried, cooked and prepared foods and leftovers: fruit and vegetable
scraps; pasta, bread, and cereal; meat and fish products; egg shells; coffee grinds and filters;
and tea bags.
Sec. 90-34d. Recycling required for commercial establishments.
DATE OF ORDINANGE1, everv commercial establishment shall be required to recvcle
recvclable materials and shall be serviced bv a citv and state licensed recvcling contractor, or
the citv. At a minimum, commercial establishments must recvcle at least three (3) recvclable
materials from the list below:
I
Newspaper; Cardboard; Magazines and cataloques; Telephone books and/or
directories; and Ofice paper - (with said terms having the same definitions, and
including the same tvpe(s) of recvclable materials as provided in Sections 90-
340(a) and (b) hereof);
Glass - (with said term having the same definition and including the same tvpe(s1
of recvclable materials as provided in Section 90-340(a) hereof);
Metal food and beverage containers - (with said term having the same definition
and including the same type(s) of recvclable materials as provided in Section 90-
340(a) hereof);
Other metal containers - (with said term having the same definition and including
the same tvpe(s) of recvclable materials as provided in Section 90-340(a) hereof,
but also, for purposes of this subsection(4), including scrap metal, which shall
mean used or discarded items suitable for recvcling, consisting predominantlv of
ferrous metals, aluminum, brass, copper, lead, chromium, tin, nickel or allovs
thereof including, but not limited to, bulk metals such as large metal fixtures and
appliances (including white goods such as washing machines, refrigerators, etc.),
but excluding metal containers utilized to store flammable or volatile chemicals,
such as fuel tanks.;
Plastics - (with said term having the same definition and including the same
tvpe(s) of recvclable materials as provided in section 90-340(a) hereof);
Textiles;
Wood - clean wood waste and/or pieces generated as bvproducts from
manufacturing of wood products and wood demolition waste he. lumber,
plywood, etc.) thrown awav in the course of remodelinq or construction. It
excludes clean vard waste and clean waste (i.e. natural vegetation and minerals
such as stumps, brush, blackberrv vines, tree branches, and associated dirt,
sand, tree bark, sand and rocks), treated lumber, wood pieces, or particles
containinq chemical preservatives, composition roofing, roofing paper, insulation,
sheetrock, and glass,
Organic Materials - A commercial establishment that recvcles organic materials (as
defined in Section 90-340 hereof) in a separate bin that is serviced bv a citv licensed recvcling
contractor shall be deemed to satisfv one of the three(3) recvclable materials options in this
subsection.
I Onlv those recvcling contractors that have been authorized by the citv and the state to
collect designated recvclables in the citv shall be authorized to collect recvclable materials
under this article.
Zd LD BE 10 DAYS AFTER
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES, the citv shall engage in public education efforts and
the citv shall not prosecute individuals who unknowinglv fail to separate recvclable
I materials from all other solid waste materials required to be separated bv this article
until as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section.
I
b) All recvcling contractors must appropriatelv desiqnate the recvclina collection
containers thev provide to customers. The containers must contain the appropriate
sianage and information, as shall be established and approved by the citv pursuant
to subsection (c) below, that allows users to clearly and easilv identify the container
for recvcling.
Mc) The citv shall establish an educational tag program wherebv appropriate
information, in the form of tags, stickers, or other signage approved by the citv
manager, shall be required to be placed on all recvclinq containers, informing the
public of proper recvclable materials and procedures. The citv shall also provide
information on its website regarding what materials are acceptable as recvclables
under this article.
!a
OTE: DATE SHOULD
18 MONTHS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCEI, in which warning tickets
shall be issued to persons who fail to separate recvclable materials from solid waste,
regardless of knowledqe or intent.
and penalties shall be applied and imposed for violations of this article.
la) All recvcling contractors shall complv with all applicable state and citv laws and
regulations. Anv rec~cling contractor who reasonably believes that a person from whom
helshelit collects has violated the se~aration requirements of article V of this chapter, shall not I collect the same, and shall notify the director of public works to report the violation. If the
contractor collects such waste, the fines and penalties set forth in sec. 90-347 shall be issued I and imposed against himlherlit. Additionallv, contractors shall assist and notifv the director of
public works in identifving persons that unlawfullv mixed solid waste with recvclable materials,
which were later delivered to a resources recoverv facilitv, transfer station, landfill, or other solid I waste facility.
I fb) "Red Tag" Noticing Svstem.
I) If a recycling contractor finds materials that are not the correct tvpe as
designated for that container (such as recvclables in a sold waste
container, or solid waste in a recycling container), the contractor shall then
leave a tag on the container identifying the incorrect materials.
2) If the contractor continues to find incorrect materials in a collection
container after the contractor has left a previous tag for that customer and
that tvpe of container, the contractor must leave another tag on the
container identifvina the incorrect materials and send a written notice to (i)
the person and/or entitv who subscribes for that collection service, and (ii)
the director of public works.
3) If the contractor continues to find incorrect materials in a collection
container after the contractor has alreadv left two (2) or more tags for that
customer and that tvpe of container, the contractor mav refuse to emptv
the container. If the container is not emptied, the contractor must leave a
tag and send a written notice to (i) the person and/or entitv who
subscribes for the collection service, identifying the incorrect materials and
describing what action must be taken for the materials to be collected, and
lii) to the director of public works; provided, however, that a contractor
mav not refuse on this basis to emptv containers from multifamilv or
commercial establishment properties with multiple tenants and ioint
account collection services.
4) The contractor shall, provide to the director of public works a list of the
names and addresses of those persons and/or entities who have received
tans or notices, or whose containers have not been emptied due to non-
compliance with this article, or copies of the tags or notices issued bv the
contractor. The contractor shall also provide to the director, upon request,
a list of the names, addresses, and service levels of the contractor's
customers and anv additional information reauired bv the director.
Sec. 90-345. Enforcement.
la) The citv manager is herebv authorized and directed to enforce all the provisions of
this article regulating and governing the accumulation, collection, recvcling, and disposal of
recvclable materials. The city manager shall have the power to delegate duties to emplovees
working under his authoritv in the enforcement of the provisions of this article.
Jb) Upon presentation of proper credentials, an inspector designated bv the city
manager mav enter anv building, structure, lot, or other premises for the purpose of inspection,
or to prevent violations of this article.
lc) The existence of recvclable materials in any place other than in a recvclinq
container, shall be prima facie evidence that the same was created or placed there bv the
occupant of the multifamilv residence or commercial establishment, or the owner, operator, or
manager of the premises. The existence of recyclable materials inside a recvcling container for
seven (7) consecutive days or more shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this article by
the recvcling contractor. The absence of recvclable materials in a recvclinq container for seven
(7) consecutive days or more upon the premises shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of
this article by the multifamilv residence or commercial establishment. For purposes of this
section, premises serviced by a recycling contractor shall not include accounts that have been
discontinued by the recvcling contractor when notice of discontinued service has been mailed to
the owner, occupant, operator, or manager of the premises, as well as to the citv, prior to the
accumulation of the recvclable materials.
d) The director of the department of public works shall develop warning notices and I noticeslof violation forms with which to impose penalties on violators that are in violation of this
I article. The citv shall issue warning notices and notices of violations notices to propertv owners,
b person(s) in lawful possession of the premises, or to the recvcling contractor servicina the I premises. In addition, contractors may issue warnings at the request of the director of the
department of public works.
le) Whenever a designated city inspector observes a violation (or violations) of this
article, or an accumulation of recvclable materials that creates a health hazard, environmental
hazard, or nuisance, the inspector shall order the violation(s) to be corrected within a specified
period of time bv serving a written notice of violation(s) upon the person causing, or responsible
for, such violation and/or health hazard, environmental hazard, or nuisance. Such person shall
immediatelv cease or abate the violation(s).
If) A notice of violation shall be served personallv or bv certified mail upon the property
owner or the person(s) in lawful possession of the premises, or upon the recvcling contractor
servicing the premises. If the person addressed with such notice cannot be found bv the citv
after making a reasonable good faith effort, such notice shall be sent bv certified mail to the last
known address of such person, and a copv of the notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place
on the premises. Such notice shall be deemed the equivalent of personal service.
Lq) The notice shall specify any fine or penaltv that may be due in connection with the
violation(s), the time specified bv the inspector to correct the violation(s), and the procedure for I timelv pavment or appeal of the fine or penaltv.
{h) If the inspector determines that the conditions constitute an immediate threat to the
health, safety or welfare of the public, the inspector mav order the immediate correction of the
violation(s) at the expense of the property owner, occupant, operator, manager, or other I person(s1 in lawful possession of the premises, and the citv shall have the right to recover such
expenses as provided in section 90-37.
I
A propertv owner mav seek a waiver from the director of public works of all or portions of
this article, if the applicant submits documentation, using a form specified bv the citv that
includes a signed affidavit under penaltv of periurv, that shows that the propertv does not have
adequate storage space for containers for recvclables or solid waste or other hardship. In
cases where, after on-site verification, space or other limitations are determined to exist, the
director shall evaluate the feasibility of sharing containers for rec~clables or solid waste with
contiguous properties, and, where feasible, may reauire container sharing in lieu of providing a
waiver, or such other suitable solutions as deemed appropriate by the director.
I JI) For violations involving failure to remove recvclable materials from a recvcling
container bv a recvcling contractor, the citv manager mav cause the recvclable materials to be
removed from the premises and charge the actual costs of removal to the owner, occupant, I operator, manager, or other person(s) in lawful possession of the premises.
I 12) Penalties for violations of this article shall be as follows:
a. For the first violation, a warnina or a fine up to $350.00.
b. For the second violation, a fine of up to $500.00.
c. For the third violation, a fine of up to $1,000.00.
d. For the fourth and subsequent violations, a fine of up to $5,000.00.
I I (3) Any penalty due pursuant to this article shall also be charged to the owner,
occupant, operator, manager, or other person(s) in lawful possession of the premises. Failure
to pay such costs and penalties, or to appeal pursuant to section 90-348 within fifteen (15) days
of receipt of the notice of violation shall result in the imposition of a lien upon the premises, in
the amount of such costs and penalties. Such liens shall be treated as special assessment
liens against the subiect real property and, until fully paid and discharged, shall remain liens
equal in rank and dignity with the lien of ad valorem taxes, and shall be superior in rank and
dignity to all other liens, encumbrances, titles and claims in, to or against the real property
involved. Such liens shall be enforced by any of the methods provided in Ch. 86, Florida
Statutes; or, in the alternative, foreclosure proceedings may be instituted and prosecuted under
the provisions of Ch. 173; Florida Statutes; or the collection and enforcement or payment
thereof may be accomplished by any other method authorized by law. The owner, occupant,
operator, or manager of the premises shall pay all costs of collection, including reasonable
attorneys fees incurred in the collection of fines, and other charges, penalties, and liens
imposed by virtue of this chapter.
I
/4) For violations which present a serious threat to the health, safety or welfare of the
public, andlor violations that constitute a fourth or subsequent offense by the same violator, the
city may seek iniunctive relief andlor, in the case of commercial establishments, revoke the
business tax receipt andlor certificate of use of the establishment andlor premises.
I la) Any person receiving a notice of violation pursuant to this chapter may request,
within fifteen (15) davs of receipt of the notice, an administrative hearing before a special
master, appointed as provided in article II of chapter 30, to appeal the decision of the citv
inspector resulting in the issuance of the notice. The procedures and application fee for the
scheduling and conduct of the hearing shall be as provided in sections 102-384 and 102-385.
Failure to appeal within the prescribed time period shall constitute a waiver of the violator's right
to an administrative hearing. A waiver of the right to an administrative hearing shall be treated
as an admission of the violation, as noticed, and fines and penalties may be assessed
accordingly.
lb) Timely filing of a notice of appeal pursuant to this section shall toll the imposition of
a lien or enforcement procedures pursuant to section 90-347, until thirty (30) davs after the
issuance of a written determination by the special master. Any costs or penalty amounts due
the citv pursuant to such determination must be received by fie'city within 'thirty'(30) davs after
the issuance of the determination, or a lien shall be imposed upon the premises, and any other
enforcement or collection procedures may be commenced, as provided by this chapter or under
aa. state law. B -a-
SECTION 4. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 5. SEVEWABILEm.
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 6. CBBIFICATBON.
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.
SECTsON 7. EFFECTIVE DAEE.
This Ordinance shall take effect the day of ,2011.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2011.
ATTEST:
MAYOR MATTI HERRERA BOWER
ROBERT PARCHER, CITY CLERK
I Underline denotes additions and denotes deletions.
F:WTTOWGUR\RESOS-ORD\Recycling Program Ordinance - Option A Administration Version (7-1-ll).doc
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Authorizing The City Manager, Or His Designee To Select, Negotiate, Award And Reject All
Bids, Contracts, Agreements, Purchase Orders, Change Orders And Grant Applications; Renew Existing
Contracts Which May Expire, And Terminate Existing Contracts As Needed From The Last City Commission
Meeting On July 13,201 1, Until The First Regularly Scheduled City Commission Meeting On September
14, 201 1, Subject To Ratification By The City Commission At Its First Regularly Scheduled Meeting On
September 14,201 1.
Key intended Outcome Suppo&ed:
August Recess Authorization Supports All City Key Intended Outcomes.
Supposging Data (Surveys, Environmental Scaas, etc.): NIA
Issue:
Whether to Adopt the Resolution? 1
Item SummarylRecommendation:
I I
Between the last meeting on July 13, 201 1, and the first regularly scheduled meeting on September 14,
201 1, the City Commission will not be in session. During this period there may be bids or contracts in
excess of the $25,000, which may need to be rejected, awarded or terminated.
Based on the above, it is requested, that the City Manager, or his designee, be authorized to sign all
contracts, agreements, purchase orders, change orders, and grant applications; renew any existing
contracts, for an appropriate period of time; terminate existing contracts, as needed, from the last
Commission meeting on July 13, 2011, until the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting on
September 14,201 1, subject to ratification bythe Crty Commission at its first regularlyscheduled meeting
on September 14,201 1.
I ADOPT THE RESOLUTION. I
Adwisow Board Recommendation:
Financial information:
I I I , . I
T:\AGENDA\~~I~~UI~ 14\Consent\August Recess Surnrnary.doc
Source sf
Fuapds:
I I
OBPl
- 3
T~t~ftral
FBasanciael impact Summaw:
1 Aooorsnt
1
2
hound
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 (Y-75'
DATE: July 13,201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTsON OF THE MAYOR v ND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAM) BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR
HIS DESIGNEE, TO SELECT, NEGOTIATE, AWARD AND REJECT ALL
BIDS, CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, PURCHASE ORDERS, CHANGE
ORDERS AND GRANT APPLICATIONS; RENEW EXISTING CONTRACTS
WHICH MAY EXPIRE; AND TERMINATE EXlSTIlNG CONTRACTS, AS
NEEDED, FROM THE LAST COMMISS%ON MEETING ON JULY 13,2811,
UNTIL THE FIRST REGULARLY SCHEDULED COMMlSSlON MEETING
ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2011, SUBJECT TO MTIFICABION BY THE CITY
COMMlSSlON AT ITS FIRST REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON
SEPTEMBER 14,201 I.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
BACKGROUND
Between the last meeting on July 13, 201 1, and the first regularly scheduled meeting on
September 14, 201 1, the City Commission will not be in session. During this period there
may be bids or contracts in excess of the $25,000, which may need to be rejected, awarded
or terminated.
Based on the above, it is requested, that the City Manager, or his designee, be authorized to
sign all contracts, agreements, purchase orders, change orders, and grant applications;
renew any existing contracts, for an appropriate period of time; terminate existing contracts,
as needed, from the last Commission meeting on July 13, 201 1, until the first regularly
scheduled Commission meeting on September 14, 201 1, subject to ratification by the City
Commission at its first regularly scheduled meeting on September 14, 201 1.
Since this authorization is necessary to ensure that essential services and projects continue
during the period bebeen the last Commission meeting on July 13, 2011, until the first
regularly scheduled Commission meeting on September 14, 201 1, it is recommended that
the City Commission adopt this Resolution.
RESOLUTiON NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMlSSlON OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORlDA, AUTHORIZING THE ClTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO
SELECT, NEGOTIATE, AWARD AND REJECT ALL BIDS, CONTRACTS,
AGREEMENTS, PURCHASE ORDERS, CHANGE ORDERS AND GRANT
APPLICATIONS; RENEW EXISTING CONTRACTS WHICH MAY EXPIRE; AND
TERMINATE EXISTING CONTRACTS, AS NEEDED, FROM THE LAST COMMlSSlON
MEETING ON JULY 13,2011, UNTIL THE FIRST REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING
ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2011, SUBJECT TO RATlFlCATlON BY THE CITY COMMlSSlON
AT ITS FIRST REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 14,2011.
WHEREAS, between the last meeting on July 13, 2011, and the first regularly scheduled
meeting on September 14, 201 1, the City Commission will not be in session; and
WHEREAS, during this period, there may be bids or contracts in excess of the $25,000,
which may need to be rejected, awarded or terminated; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has historically, during its August recess, assigned the
City Manager with the authority to select, negotiate, award and/or renew contracts, as needed,
subject to ratification by the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, it is therefore requested that the City Manager, or his designee, be authorized
to sign all contracts, agreements, purchase orders, change orders, and grant applications;
renew any existing contracts, which may expire, for an appropriate period of time; terminate
existing contracts, as needed, from the last Commission meeting on July 13, 201 1, until the first
regularly scheduled Commission meeting on September 14, 201 1, subject to ratification by the
City Commission at its first regularly scheduled meeting on September 14, 201 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby
authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to select, negotiate, award and reject all bids,
contracts, agreements, purchase orders, change orders, and grant applications; renew existing
contracts which may expire; and terminate existing contracts, as needed, from the last City
Commission meeting on July 13, 201 1, until the first regularly scheduled meeting on September
14, 201 1, subject to ratiication by the City Commission at its first regularly scheduled meeting
on September 14,201 1.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,201 1
ATTEST:
City Clerk
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-11\AugustRecessReso.doc
--
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A resolution approving, following a dully noticed public meeting, as required pursuant to Section 82-504 of the
City Code, accepting the recommendation of the NeighborhoodsICommunity 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.
Key intended Outcome Supported: I 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 expectations.
Issue: I Shall the Mayor and City Commission adopt the resolution?
Item SummarylRecommendation:
A request from the communitv to honor Luis Hernandez with a commemorative plaque in Collins Park was
referred to the Neighborhoodsl~ommunity~ffairs Committee at the July 14,201 0'~ommission meeting. The
Committee approved and referred it to the Arts in Public Places Committee at their August 31,2010 meeting.
The issue was discussed at the AiPP Committee meetings on March l!jth and April 12, 201 1. Following
requested revisions the plaque location was agreed upon and the request was unanimously approved by the
AiPP committee. A follow-up discussion was held at the NeighborhoodslCommunity 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 the Mayor and City Commission called for a public hearing
regarding the placement of the memorial at their June 1,201 1, meeting. The public hearing was set for July
13,201 1. The City Clerk subsequently published the appropriate Public Notice on June 23,201 1, meeting the
requirement that the notice be sent 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 pariies will be heard. At the close
of the public hearing the City Commission may approve the proposed memorial.
Advisory Board Recommendation: I Arts in Public Places Committee 311 511 1 & 411 211 1 ; NCAC 8/31/10 & 51511 1
u 1 3 1
OBPl Total I
Financial Impact Summay: All expenses to be paid for with private funds. There are no funds identified for this
Financial Information:
plaque or additional plaques and memorials should they be requested.
Source of
Funds:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking: I Kevin Smith, Parks & Recreation Director
J
T:MGENDA\2011\7-13-1 I\Public Hearing - Approval - Luis Hernadez Plaque - Summary 7-1 3-1 1 .doc
1
AGENDA ITEM 'I77 5
Amount
expense to
the City
Account
Mr. Argote has stated his committee will assume all costs for
this project.
Ci#y 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
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MNOR AND ClW COMMISSION OF THE CIW OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING, FOLLOWING A DULY NOTICED PUBLIC
HEARING, as REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SSETION 82-504 OF THE CITY CODE,
TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOODSICOMMUNIW
AFFAIRS COMMInEE AND APPROVING THE PLACEMENnF A
COMMEMOFaaTlVE PLAQUE HONORING LUIS HERNANDEZ, "8 BE INSTALLED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE JOSE MART! MONUMENT LOCATED IN COLLINS
PARK (ATTACHED TQ THE MONUMENT'S FOUNDATION).
ADMlNiSTRATlON RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution
KEY lNTENDED 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 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, 201 0, 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
and the City Commission to the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee at the July 14,
201 0 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
Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee meeting held the August 31, 201 0.
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
July 13, 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.
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:
e First Line: 48 Points
e Second Line: 60 Points BOLD
e 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 Mr. Leyva so the AiPP Committee
members could review and comment on it prior to April 12th 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 Marii 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 NeighborhoodsICommunity Affairs Committee meeting
on May 5, 201 I, 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 called for a public hearing
regarding the placement of the memorial at their June 1, 201 1 meeting. The public hearing was
set for July 13, 201 1. The City Clerk subsequently published the appropriate Public Notice on
June 23, 201 1, meeting the requirement that the notice be sent 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. At the close of the public hearing the City
Commission may approve the proposed memorial.
Conclusion
The Administration recommends that the public hearing be held, and if there is no opposition,
the placement of the Luis Hernandez commemorative plaque be approved.
JMGI HMFIKS
T:\AGENDAE011\7-13-1 I\Public Hearing - Final Approval - Luis Hernandez Plaque - Comm. Memo 7-13-1 1 .doc
RESOLUTlON NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClW COMMISSION OF THE
CiW OF MlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVlNG AND ACCEPTING,
FOLLOWING A DULY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING, AS REQUIRED
PURSUANT TO SEC"%ON 82-584 OF THE C1W CODE, THE
RECOMMENDATlQN OF THE NEIGHBQRHOODICQMMUNIa78
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A
COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUE HONORING LUIS HERNANDEZ, TO BE
INSTALLED ON THE NORTH SlDE OF THE JOSE MARTI MONUMENT
LOCATED BN COLLINS BARK (ATTACHED TO THE MONUMENT'S
FOUNDATION).
WHEREAS, in a correspondence, sent to the attention of the City Commission,
dated April 30, 2011, 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, at the July 14, 2010 City Commission Meeting, the proposal was
referred to the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee; and
WHEREAS, the placement of the plaque honoring Mr. Hernandez was
discussed at the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee and approved on
August 31,2010; the Committee recommended approval of the request; and
WHEREAS, the proposal was thereafter referred to the Art in Public Places
(AiPP) Committee; at its April 12, 2011 meeting, the AiPP Committee recommended
that a plaque commemorating Mr. Hernandez be installed on the north side of the Jose
Marti monument located in Collins Park, attached to the foundation of the monument,
centered on the base and 2" from the south and north edges of the base; and
WHEREAS, a follow-up discussion was held at the Neighborhoods/Community
Affairs Committee meeting on May 5, 2011, and the Committee gave its unanimous
recommendation for the request to proceed to the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, at its June 1, 2011 Meeting, the City Commission approved
Resolution No. 201 1-27669, calling for a public hearing, as required pursuant to Section
82-504 of the City Code, to consider the proposal: and
WHEREAS, such duly noticed public hearing was held at the City Commission
Meeting of July 13, 201 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED THAT "BE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CBW OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission, following a duly noticed public hearing, as required pursuant to Section
82-504 of the City Code, hereby approve and accept the recommendation of the
Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee for 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).
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of July, 201 1.
ATTEST:
MATI WERRERA BOWER,
MAYOR
ROBERT PARCWER, CITY CLERK
T:\AGENDA\2011\7-13-1 I\Public Hearing - Final Approval - Luis Hernandez Plaque - Resolution - 7-13-1 1 .doc
Commission Memorandum
July 13, 201 1
Setting of Public Hearing for Luis Hernandez Commemorative Plaque
Page 3 of 5
I- - - -- Committee - fwPu6lic @cognition to Mf: Luii Xmnda. - - ----. -
1613 S. W- 10$>ven& i MhZ; FL 331 65
786 280.8956
Cod for
Public Recognition
toIMr.L& .
Hmdez:
Jose M. Argote,
Chairman of the
J~ybnik,lReal
Estate Business
Person,
' Beach.
1 Miami Beach,Apri130Lb,'2010.
City of Miami Beach Commission.
Gentlemen:
The undersigned, Jose M. Argote, in behalf ofthe Committee for Public Recognition I D Mr. Luis Hemmdez, hmby petition the City of M'ii Beach Commission to place
a plaque with a commemorati~e inscription recognizing Mr. Luis Hernandez for his I 80hbii date, which will be on July ,Oh, 2010,'and his retiranant a President ofthe
I Miami Beach Latin Chmk of Commerce, fbunded by him. Mr. Hernandez was
appointed President Emeritus by said institution.
Julia Davila Sqen,
Cowunity
Mimi Beach.
Beach.
1 On my other alternative that the C'i corisider appropriate.
Any expense related to said plaque will be paid by this committee 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
. Mr. Hernandez's merits as a precursor and community activist for the past years
are described in the mve &ached to this petition.
The City has seveml choices to place said plaque, that basically could be a
reproducing or very similar to tha Certificate of Appreciation recently issued to Mr.
Hernwda,
Said plaque could be affixed to a public building, or placed in a small pedestal in any
public padc, such as Collins Park, near other busts located at the comer of Jose Marti
Straet (21st Street) at Collins Avenue. The plaque could be signed by tha Committee
for Public Recognition to Mr. Luis Hernandez
Another choke could be Q reproduce by color photocopy the @e&ieate of
Recoption recently issued by thewofMlamiBeach to Mr. qernandezand
PORCE It Then the plaque could be on&eEastsidedeheped&l
already installed on Collins Park, supporting the bust to Cuban Patriot Jme Wad.
Said pedestal and bapt bee South, and were placed by Kitive and paid by Rlr.
Hernandez. and bi fam~ly.
I Your attention to this mat&r will be greatly appreciated.
Commission Memorandum
July 13, 201 1
Setting of Public Hearing for Luis Hernandez Commemorative Plaque
Page --- 4 of 5
Commission Memorandum
July 13, 201 1
Setting of Public Hearing for Luis Hernandez Commemorative Plaque
Page 5 of 5
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.
---- - - - .- - --- - - -. . - -- - - N E THURSDAY, JUNE 23,2011 1 13NI - - - - - . - -- - - - - - -- - - -- .
q- s , = ..- - - '7 i7 --< \ --. "*_ . 7. I . -
i.
To Accept The '
represented by an'&ient w 30-
+~4~ Commission c/o the City
Robert Em Parcher, City Clerk
City of Miami Beach
Pursuant to Section 286.91 05, Fb Statutes, the City hereby advises the public,
that: if a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Commission
fith respect to any matter considered at its meeting or its hearing, such person
must ensure that a verbatim record'of the proceedings is made, which record
includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This
notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission
of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges
or appeals not othemise allowed by law.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, persons needing
special accsmmodation to participate in this proceeding, or to request information
on access for persons with disabilities, or to request this publication in accessible
format, or to request sign language interprete~s, 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 City Clerk's office via the Florida Relay Service numbers,
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
14 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ClTY COMMISSION OFTHE ClTY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA SETING 1) I
THE PROPOSED OPERATING MILLAGE RATE; 2) THE REQUIRED DEBT SERVICE MILLAGE RATE; 3) THE
CALCULATED "ROLLED-BACK RATE; AND, 4) THE DATE, TIME, AND PLACE OF THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER THE MILLAGE RATESAND BUDGETS FOR FISCALYEAR (FY) 201 1112; FURTHER AUTHORIZING
THE ClTY MANAGER TO TRANSMIT THIS INFORMATION TO THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PROPERTY
4PPRAISER IN THE FORM REQUIRED BY SECTION 200.065, FLORIDA STATUTES
Key intended Outcome Suppo&ed:
Ensure expenditure trends are sustainable over the long term; Control costs of payroll including salary and fringes;
Minimize taxes; Improve the City's overall financial health and maintain overall bond rating
SuppoPting Data (Susveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
P ln-the 2009survey, 65% ofresidents and 55% of businesses rated the value of city services for tax dollars paid as
excellent or good, and higher (73.5% excellent or good) among those residents understanding that only a portion of
their property tax bill goes to fund city services. Resident ratings improved 19% when compared to 2007 and 15%
when compared to 2005. Business ratings remain steady when compared to 2007, but improved by 14% when
compared to 2005.
9 Over the last several years, the City of Miami Beach has adopted budgets that provided tax and fee relief while at
the same time providing improved services that address needs and priorities identified by the community and
providing structural changes that enhanced capital funding and reserves. However, these objectives became
increasingly more challenging in the last five years: first through property tax reform where tax rates were
dramatically reduced; and subsequently with the decline in property as well as increasing pension costs. In the last
four years, the General Fund has absorbed more than $41 million in reductions (and almost $47 million and 260
positions across all funds) in a General Fund budget that is $237.5 million in FY 2010111, almost 20 percent.
Further, a total of approximately $15 million in employee "give-backs" were achieved between FY 200911 0 and FY
201 011 1. Along with almost $47 million in efficiencies and reductions, this represents more than $62 million in
combined "c*webacksJJ and reductions over 4 vears.
P Between FY 1999100 and FY 200911 0, total combined City of Miami Beach property tax rates declined approximately
2.8 mills. In FY 2007108 alone, the property tax rate declined by approximately 1.8 mills, with annual savings to the
average homesteaded property of over $400. In addition, in FY 2005106 and FY 2006107, the City funded $200 and
$300 homeowner dividends paid to homesteaded property owners in the City.
a The July 1, 201 1 Certification of Taxable Value from the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser reflects a 0.6
percent decline in Citywide property tax values from the July 1,201 0 tax roll certification. Given that the City Center
RDA had a 0.5 percent increase, the decline outside the City Center RDA, which impacts the City's General Fund
revenues, was greater, at 0.8 percent.
Issue:
Shall the Mayor and City Commission adopt the resolution? I
Item SummaaylWecornrnendatio~p:
The total proposed operating millage is 6.2155 mills, including a general operating millage rate of 6.1072 and a
General Fund Capital Renewal and Replacement millage of 0.1 083. The proposed voted debt service millage rate is
adjusted from 0.2870 to 0.2884.
Adwisov Board Recommendation:
I
Financial Information:
source of Funds: Amount Account I
Financial Impact Sulrmmzav: Despite a modest adjustment in the tax rate in FY 2010111, City of Miami Beach
combined millage rates remain approximately 2.2 mills lower than in FY 1999100, and approximately 1.2 mills lower
than FY 2006107 when property values were above today's values.
1
OBPll
1
Total
t
City of Miami Beech, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.rniarnibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CIW COMMISSION OF THE C1W OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA SETTING 1) THE PROPOSED OPEMTBNG MILLAGE
WT E; 2) THE REQUIRED DEBTSERVIICE MILWGE MTE; 3) THE CALCUMTED
"ROLLED-BACK" WBTE; AND, 4) THE DATE, TIME, AND BMCE OF THE FIRST
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE MILWGE MTES AND BUDGETS FOR
FISCAL YEAR (FY) 281 1/12; FURTHER AldTHORBZlNG THE C1TV MANAGER TO
TMNSMIT THlS INFORMATION TO THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTV BROPERTV
APPRAISER %M THE FORM REQUIRED BY SECTION 280.065, FLORIDA
STATUTES.
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission adopt the attached
resolution which authorizes the City Manager to transmit the following information to the Miami-
Dade County Property Appraiser:
1) Proposed Millage Rates for FY 201 1/12:
General Operating 6.1 072 mills
Capital Renewal & Replacement 0.1 083 mills
Sub-Total Operating Millage 6.21 55 mills (6.21 55 last year, 0.0 increase)
Voted Debt Service 0.2884 mills (0.2870 last year, 0.0014 increase)
Total 6.5039 mills (6.5025 last year, 0.0014 increase)
2) "Rolled-Back" Rate (Truth in Millage) 5.9029 mills
3) The first public hearing to consider the proposed millage rates and tentative budgets for FY
201 11/12 shall be Wednesday September 14, 201 1 at 501 p.m., in the City Commission
Chambers, City Wall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida
The "Rolled-Back" millage rate for FY 201 1/12 is the millage rate required to produce the same
level of property tax revenues in the General Fund in FY 201 1/12 as budgeted in FY 201 011 1. It
is important to note, that the January 1, 201 0 tax roll Citywide declined by almost $1.4. billion
between the July 1, 2010 valuation and the July 1,201 1 valuation due to appeals, adjustments,
etc,, which resulted in the FY 201 1/12 "roll-back rate" being less than the FY 201011 1 current
millage rate. The area outside of City Center RDA declined by almost $1 billion.
FY 201 111 2 Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 2
SUMMARY
The Administration is recommending a total combined millage rate for the City of Miami Beach
of 6.5039. The total proposed operating millage remains at 6.2155 mills, including a general
operating millage rate of 6.1072 and a General Fund Capital Renewal and Replacement millage
of 0.1 083. The proposed voted debt service millage rate is adjusted from 0.2870 to 0.2884, an
increase of 0.0014 mills.
It is important to remember that in prior years, the City of Miami Beach significantly reduced tax
rates as property values increased. Between FV 1999100 and FY 200911 0, total combined City
of Miami Beach property tax rates declined approximately 2.8 mills. In FY 2007108 alone, the
millage rate declined by approximately 1.8 mills, with annual savings to the average
homesteaded property of over $400. Further, despite a modest adjustment in the tax rate in FY
201 011 1, City of Miami Beach combined millage rates remain approximately 2.2 mills lower than
in FY I999100 (25 percent), and approximately 1.2 mills lower than 2006107 when property
values were above today's values.
The budget development process is still underway, and the City's Proposed Work Plan and
Budget will be released later this summer. However, at this point in time, it is anticipated that an
estimated $5.4 million gap will need to be addressed primarily due to previously bargained salary
increases and pension and health increases, offset by increased revenues.
Potential Senrice Enhancemen&
The July 28, 201 1 Finance and Citywide Projects Committee is scheduled for the review of
proposed service enhancements as well as potential efficiencies andlor reorganization
reductions and revenue enhancements. While the operating millage is recommended to remain
at the FY 201 011 1 level, it is anticipated that, overall, reductions or revenue enhancements
recommended by the Committee may be used to provide service enhancements, many of which
have been previously discussed by the City Commission, rather than reduce the millage.
Living Wage Impact
It is also important to point out that, subject to Commission approval in September, the Current
Service Level (CSL) budget will need to be increased by approximately $200,000 to incorporate
the impact of adjustments to the living wage that will be presented to the Commission at that
time.
EWicieneSss, Reductions, and Revenue Enhancemenb versus Sewice Enhancemew&
As with the preparation of budgets for the last four years, departments are continuing to analyze
and present their budget from two perspectives: 1) a review for potential efficiencies,
reorganizations to reduce cost, etc. without impacting services; and 2) performing a modified
zero-based analysis of each department budget, identifying potential service reduction
alternatives versus core functions. For each of the potential service reductions, departments
provided the type of impact and the magnitude of the impact. Core functions were defined as
those functions which, if cut, render it impossible for the department to provide basic service at a
reasonable level.
FY 201 111 2 Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 3
However, given the significant reductions in the General Fund in the last 4 years, it is anticipated
that most of the reductions that will be identified will be more focused on Enterprise Funds.
While these do not impact the General Fund millage and property taxes paid by Miami Beach
property owners, reductions in these funds in prior years has enabled us to keep utility user fees
flat longer than previously anticipated.
Increased use of Resoe% Tax Funds to QFfsef Expenses Currently in the General Fund
Based on an outside consultant study conducted in 2010 using FY 2007108 actual costs, it is
estimated that there are approximately $50.5 million in eligible resort tax expenditures in the
General Fund.
These include expenses associated with police officers serving entertainment areas; a portion of
fire rescue services from Fire Stations 1 &2; ocean rescue services; enhanced code compliance
provided to respond to evening entertainment area violations and staffing of special events;
other code compliance activities in tourism and visitor related facilitieslareas; Tourism and
Culture Department and the Cultural Arts Council; museums and theaters (Garden Center, Bass
Museum, Colony and Byron Carlyle Theaters); golf courses (net of revenues); Memorial Day
and other special event costs; homeless services; ~uly 4th; Visitor Center funding; holiday lights;
Festival of the Arts; Jewish Museum; Miami Design Preservation League (MDPL) Orange Bowl;
Monuments; etc. However, $8.8 million of these costs are addressed by dedicated funding for
the South Pointe area pursuant to the Miami-Dade County Convention Development Tax
interlocal agreement, thereby resulting in approximately $41.7 million in eligible Resort Tax
expenses in the General Fund.
Based on FY 201 011 1 resort tax collections to date, it is estimated that there will be an additional
$4 million available in resort tax collections to provide additional funding for these General Fund
activities in FY 201 11111 2.
Potential Decrease in lBNR (Claims Incurred but Not Repo~ed) Funding in the Risk
Management Fund
In the FY 201011 1 Adopted Budget, funding for transfers to the Risk Management Fund for
Claims Incurred but Not Reported (IBNR) was increased by $1.675 million due to increased
actuarial estimates for these claims. As of September 30, 2009, the deficit in the Risk
Management Fund was $9 million, including $14 million in IBNR claims. However, the Risk
Management Fund reflected a surplus of FY 200911 0 revenues over expenditures as a result of
revised actuarial liability estimates, thereby helping to reduce the prior year deficit in the fund. As
of September 30, 2010, the deficit in the Risk Management Fund was $6.8 million, including
$13.3 million in IBNR claims.
The City's adopted financial policy for the Risk Management Fund states that the City shall have
a goal of maintaining a reserve of 100% of pending claims in the Risk Management Fund, and
shall strive to fund 213 of the estimated value of IBNR claims. Based on the estimates above,
1100 percent of the pending claims in the Risk Management Fund were fully funded as of
September 30,201 0, and $6.5 million of IBNR Claims were funded ($13.3 million in IBNR claims
versus the $6.8 million deficit), resulting in 49 percent of IBNR claims funded. If FY 201011 1
actuarial estimates are similar to FY 200911 0, the additional $1.675 million in FY 201 011 1
funding for IBNR claims will further increase this percentage to 61 percent. There is, therefore,
potential for the IBNR funding to be at least partially reduced.
FY 201 1/12 Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 4
Increase in Transfers and Intedund Revenues
Part of finalizing the General Fund Budget includes a review of administrative fees charged to
Enterprise Fund Departments, the Resort Tax Fund, and the Redevelopment Agency for support
provided by the administrative departments in the City, all of which are fully contained within the
General Fund. The finalization of the Enterprise Fund Departments, the Resort Tax Fund, and
the Redevelopment Agency budgets are still ongoing. Once these are final, the administrative
fees can be determined based on the overhead rate for each entity that was updated by an
independent consultant in 201 0. These will be reflected in the Proposed Work Plan and Budget
which will be finalized after the July 28,201 1 Finance and Citywide Projects Committee meeting.
In addition, as presented at the May 19, 2011 Finance and Citywide Projects Committee
meeting, the amount of funding that the General Fund is having to contribute in support of
Building Department operations has been increasing as costs have increased while revenues
collections remain essentially at FY 2007/08 levels. Projected Building Department revenues,
including the use of $1.5 million in Building reserves, for FY 2010/11 are $9 million, while
expenses, including the overhead for administrative functions as described above, are projected
at $1 1.5 million, resulting in the use of $2.5 in other General Fund revenues in support of the
activities, an increase from $1.4 million in FY 2009/10. Projected Building Department revenues
for FY 201 111 2 are $8.7 million while expenses are projected at $1 1.8 million, resulting in the
use of $3.1 million in other General Fund revenues in support of the activities.
As of September 30,201 0, Building Department operating reserves were $4.6 million, with $1.5
million budgeted to be used to support FY 201 011 I operations, leaving an anticipated balance of
$3.1 million as of September 30, 201 1. There is, therefore, the potential for increased use of
Building reserves, in the short-term.
BACKGROUND
Over the last several years, the City of Miami Beach has adopted budgets that provided tax and
fee relief while at the same time providing improved services that address needs and priorities
identified by the community (primarily in public safety, cleanliness, landscaping and
beautification, recreation and cultural arts programming, renewal and replacement funding for
our facilities, and building/development functions); and providing structural changes that
enhance capital funding and reserves.
However, these objectives became increasingly more challenging in the last five years: first
through property tax reform where tax rates were dramatically reduced to offset increases in
property values; and subsequently with the decline in property values without revisions to the
property tax rate, as well as increasing pension costs. In the last four years, the General Fund
has absorbed more than $41 million in reductions (almost 20 percent of the $237 million FY
2010/1 I General Fund budget) and reductions of approximately $47 million and 260 positions
across all funds.
FY 201 111 2 Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 5
Further, a total of approximately $1 5 million in employee "give-backs" were achieved between
FY 200911 0 and FY 201011 1 through a combination of freezing cost of living adjustments for all
employees for two and one-half years, elimination of merit increases for all employee except
members of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and International Association of Firefighters)
IAFF, increased contribution to pension for all employees except members of FOP and IAFF,
pension plan changes for the Miami Beach Employees Retirement Plan, increased contributions
for take-home vehicles by FOP members for 18 months, reduced holiday pay for IAFF members,
and increased contributions to health insurance by members of the FOP and IAFF for 18
* FY 201 011 1 Budget included reductions for contracting outlconverting positions to part-time mid-year, resulting in
$221,901 in department savings offset by increased operating contingency in the General Fund. These were not
implemented and the FY 201011 1 reductions shown above exclude these "Plan B" reductions
** The City Center RDA also includes the reduction of 1 full time position as part of minimal serwice impact
efficiencies (4 full time positions as part of "Plan B" were not implemented)
General Fund
Public Safety
Operations
Administrative Support
Although the economy has steadily improved, the impact of the recent recession has impacted
both property tax revenues as well as pension costs for FY 201 011 1 and FY 201 1112 and likely
further into the future. Therefore, the City's strategy continues to consider the long term financial
sustainability of the City. Beginning with the development of the FY 2009110 budget, a strategy
was developed to address short-term, mid-term and long-term financial needs.
Strategies to address short-term financial needs included ongoing efficiencies and wage
concessions by employees.
e Mid-term financial sustainability was addressed by pension concessions from current
employees in the Miami Beach Employees Retirement Plan
e Longer term financial sustainability is enhanced by the pension plan restructures that
have been put in place for new employees in the Miami Beach Employee Retirement
GRAND TOTAL REDUCTIONS AND GIVEBACKS / I -
$ (62,371,343) 1 (246.0) / (14.0) 1
Total 4-Year Reductions*
$ Impacts
$ (7,282,340)
(5,716,536)
(2,797,510)
FT
(69.0)
(59.5)
(31.9)
PT
1 .O
(23.0)
FY 201 1/12 Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 6
Plan. For example, for General Employees, the plan restructure proposed for new
employees is projected by the City's actuary to reduce the City's annual required
contribution by almost $1 million in FY 2012113, with additional reductions annually as
the number of employees in the Miami Beach Employees Retirement Plan hired after
October 1,201 0 continues to increase. Further, additional pension plan reform is under
review by the City's Budget Advisory Committee.
All of the givebacks achieved, except the 18 month increased contribution to health by FOP and
IAFF and the increased contributions for take-home vehicles by FOP members for 18 months,
represent ongoing, recurring savings to the City and the employee give-backs contribute
significantly towards the City's strategic goal (key intended outcome) to control payroll costs.
INIRAL BUDGET GAP
On the revenue side, based on the July 1, 201 1 Certification of Taxable Value from the Miami-
Dade County Property Appraiser, values of existing properties declined by 1.2 percent from the
July I, 201 0 tax roll certification. This decline was somewhat mitigated by $99 million in new
construction and renovations for an overall 0.6 percent decline in Citywide property tax values.
However, because property values in the City Center Redevelopment Area increased by 0.5
percent, the decline outside the City Center RDA, which impacts the City's General Fund
revenues, was greater, at 0.8 percent.
This decrease compares to changes in taxable value of at least an 8 percent increase per year
from July 1, 2001 through July 1, 2007. However, it is significantly less than the overall 10.5
percent decrease last year and other revenues such as sales taxes (Intergovernmental
Revenues), licenses and permits, and rents and leases have started to rebound. In addition,
sidewalk cafe revenues reflected under Licenses and Permits incorporate the previously
approved $2.50 per sq. fi. per year increase effective October 1 and Business Tax Receipt
revenues reflect a previously approved 5 percent increase. Corporate Sponsorships
(Miscellaneous) are projected to increase by $400,000 due to an anticipated beverage
sponsorship program already under negotiation, however, uniform sponsorships which were
included in the FY 2010111 budget have been delayed resulting in a slightly lower overall
increase. Further, the budget reflects decreased revenues previously anticipated from the red
light cameras (under Fines and Forfeits), and the Commercial Pole Banner Program
(Miscellaneous).
Other new initiatives reflected in the FY 201 111 2 CSL budget include a new Florida Power and
Light (FPL) franchise agreement anticipated to generate approximately $1 million (offsetting
declining revenues in the current fiscal year), $140,000 in additional bus shelter advertising
revenues from a new agreement currently under negotiation, and $370,000 in ground lease
revenues and administrative fees associated with the New RDA Pennsylvania garage.
Further, similar to the FY 201 011 1 budget, FY 201 1/12 CSL revenues reflect the use of $3.55
million in prior year surplus specifically set aside for this purpose along with $7.2 million in prior
year Parking Fund operating surplus as planned last year during the development of the FY
201 011 1 budget. The total CSL revenue estimate at this time is $241.8 million, an increase of
$4.3 million from the FY 201 011 1 budget.
This reflects a increase of approximately $1 million from the estimate presented at the
Commission retreat in June 1,201 1 estimate provided via Letter to the Commission #136-2011
to reflect the impact of the July 1,201 1 certification of values and refinements in estimates for
FY 201 111 2 Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 7
sidewalk cafe revenues, additional bus shelter advertising revenues from the new agreement
described previously, and the in ground lease revenues and administrative fees associated with
the New RDA Pennsylvania garage.
On the expenditure side, CSL expenditures (i.e. the cost of providing the same level of service
as in the prior fiscal year - CSL expenditures) typically have increased between 6% and 8%
annually due to salary and benefit increases and other normal cost of living adjustments. In FY
201 1112, increases are estimated to result in an approximately $9.7 million (4%) increase in
expenditures, the majority of which is due to the following:
A $1.9 million increase to reflect a previously bargained salary adjustments for employees,
including a 3 percent Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for bargaining employees as of
April, 2012; the impact of step increases for employees in the FOP and IAFF bargaining
units; a maximum of 2 percent performance-based merit increase for employees in the
Government Supervisor's Association (GSA) bargaining unit; and a maximum of 2 percent
performance-based merit increase for employees in the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees bargaining unit (AFSCME) as of May, 2012. In addition,
the 3 percent COLA and 2 percent performance-based merit increase has been included for
unclassified and other employees consistent with past practice of treating all employees
equally.
A $0.3 million increase in overtime cost primarily due to increases in Police court overtime.
A $4.2 million increase in the General Fund portion of the City's annual required
contributions to the Fire and Police ($2.2 million) and General Employees ($2 million)
pension plans, primarily due to the continued recognition of investment losses from FY
2007108 and FY 2008109, updated mortality and revised investment rate of return
assumptions in the Miami Beach Employees Retirement (MBERP) plan, and revised
investment rate of return assumptions in the Fire and Police Pension Plan.
A $2.8 million increase in health insurance costs based on an estimated 10 percent increase
over the current Fiscal Year, as well as the expiration of the FOP and IAFF additional 5
percent contribution to City health insurance costs which was for an 18 month period, and
which will expire in February, 2012 and January, 2012, respectively.
e A $1.1 million Increase in Internal Service Fund charge-backs to Departments primarily due
to similar increases in salary and pension costs as described above that are then charged
back to the general fund, as well as equivalent increases in health insurance costs for
retirees, and increases in fuel prices. It is important to note that fuel prices in FY 201 1112
are budgeted at current prices. Should prices increase further, the General Fund will need
to fund these increases.
It is important to note that operating costs are approximately $0.7 million less than the FY
201 011 1 budget, reflecting the continuation of various cost savings initiatives by the City such as
re-bidding contracts, and careful review of department line item expenditures.
In addition, this reflects a decrease of in expenditures approximately $1 million from the estimate
presented at the Commission retreat in May 201 1 primarily due to refinements in estimates for
the Miami Beach Employees Retirement Plan annual contribution requirements, police overtime,
and internal service fund charges.
The resulting gap between General Fund CSL expenditures and CSL revenues as of the July 1,
201 1 Certified values is approximately $5.4 million, and improved from the June 1 estimate by
approximately $1.85 million. Attachment 1 summarizes the revenues and expenditures.
FY 201 1/11 2 Proposed Millage Rate
July 1 3, 201 1
Page 8
DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
The budget development process has included participation from within and from outside City
Hall. In 2009, the City of Miami Beach conducted its third set of statistically-valid community
surveys. The Community Survey was designed to provide resident input on quality of life, city
services, and taxes; and to identify key drivers for improvement. Impressively, 31 of the
residential tracking questions from 2007 experienced increases in each of the areas measured
by an overall average of approximately 7%; and 28 of 32 business tracking questions
experienced increases measured by an overall average of approximately 8.8% with decreases in
only 4 of 32 questions and an average decrease of only 0.63%. Further the 2009 Community
Survey, sought input from residents as to which services were most important to retain, which
areas were most importapt to improving public safety, and which services were key drivers of
overall satisfaction.
Residents selected the following services as those the city should strive not to reduce:
Cleanliness (64.1 %)
Code enforcement (28.7%)
Arts and Culture (24.2%)
Both residents and businesses reported the following areas for the City to address in an
effort to improve public safety:
Preventing crime (Residents: 44.9%, Business: 43.9%)
Increasing police visibility (Residents: 32.4%, Business: 33.1 %)
Other areas that were "negative driversJ' of overall perception which the City is working to
address included:
Code enforcement for residents and businesses
Consistency of inspections for businesses
Availability of parking for businesses
Development of the FY 201 111 2 budget began early with a discussion at a two-day Commission
retreat in May, 201 1 that included a review of priorities, economic projections and their impacts,
taxable values and millage rates. Major economic revenue and expenditure drivers were
discussed and alternatives for long-term solutions were debated.
Additional budget briefings will be held with the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee
(FCWPC) over the summer. These began in June, 201 1 with a discussion of capital project
priorities. The next meeting is scheduled for July 28, 201 1 to review various department
budgets, potential revenue enhancements and impacts of potential service level alternatives.
It is anticipated that the Proposed Work Plan and Budget that will be published later this summer
will continue our focus on providing "value of services for tax dollars paid".
STATUTORY REBUlREMEMTS
FS 200.065, entitled "Method of Fixing Millage" establishes specific guidelines that must be used
by all local government entities in setting millage (property tax) rates. Under the statute, the City
is required, within 35 days of receipt of the "Certification of Taxable Value" (received July 1 ,
201 I), to advise the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser of the proposed general operating
FY 201 1/12 Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 9
millage rate, the calculated "rolled-back" rate and the date, time, and place of the first public
hearing to consider the proposed millage rates and tentative budgets for FY 201 11/12. The
required Debt Service millage rate must also be set at the same time as the general operating
millage.
ARer seeing the proposed operating millage rate, the Commission may, at any time prior
to the Rnal adoption, lower the rates by adjusting prioritiies. Howeve& increasing the
millage rate may only be accomplished by an expensive mailing and advedising pwcess
to evew property owner on Miami Beach.
ANALYSIS OF PROPERW VALUES lN MIAMI BEACH
On July 1, 201 1, the City received the "201 1 Certification of Taxable Value" from the Propee
Appraiser's Office stating that the taxable value for the City of Miami Beach is $21,978,289,928
including $98,792,544 in new construction. The preliminary 201 1 value represents a decrease
of $0.1265 billion or 0.6 percent less than the July 1, 2010 Certification of Taxable Value of
$22.1 billion, and a decline of 1.2 percent excluding new construction.
The comparative assessed values for the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency City Center
redevelopment district increased from $3,404,963,718 to $3,423,353,944, an increase of
$0.0184, billion or a 0.5 percent increase in values over 2010 certified values. In addition,
assessed values within the geographic area formerly known as the South Pointe redevelopment
district increased from $3,324,165,654 to $3,446,036,913, an increase of $0.121 9 billion, or a
3.7 percent increase in values over 2010 certified values. As a result, taxable values in the
areas outside the City Center RDAtSouth Pointe area decreased by 1.7 percent, from $1 5.3756
billion to $1 5.1 089 billion, a decrease of $0.2667 billion.
COMPARATIVE ASSESSED VALUES [in billions)
South Pointe
Total Citywide 1-
Jan. 1 201 0 Value (in billions)
As ot July l I Kev~sed I
201 0 Value (For
(For FY FY Change in
2010/11 2010/11 2010
Budget) I Projection) I Values
$ 3.40501 $ 2.97801 $ (0.42701
Jan. I LU I I
% Change
from Prior
Year
Revised
Budaetl I fin billions) I % I Value
DETERMINiNG THE OPERATING RIIBLLAGE LEW. --
The first building block in developing a municipal budget is the establishment of the value of one
mill of taxation, wherein the mill is defined as $1.00 of ad valorem tax for each $1,000 of
property value. For the City of Miami Beach, this value for each mill is determined by the 201 1
FY 201 111 2 Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 10
Certification of Taxable Value and has been set at $21,978,290. Florida Statutes permit a
discount of up to five percent for early payment discounts, delinquencies, etc. Therefore, the 95
percent value of the mill is $20,879,376.
Impacb of Decline in Propem Values
In FY 201 011 1, the operating millage rate for general City operations was adopted at 6.21 55.
Based on the July 1, 2011 Certification of Taxable Value, 6.2155 mills would generate
approximately $129,775,762 in tax revenues, a decrease of $746,668 over FY 2010/11
budgeted property tax revenues Citywide (General Fund, City Center RDAand the South Pointe
area). The General Fund property tax revenues will decrease by $0.85 million, if the FY 201 011 1
millage rate is maintained.
Further, the January, 1 2010 tax roll Citywide declined by almost $1.4. billion between the July
1, 2010 valuation and the July 1, 2011 valuation due to appeals, adjustments, etc., which
resulted in the FY 201 1/12 "roll-back rate" being less than the FY 201 011 1 current millage rate.
The area outside of City Center RDA declined by almost $1 billion.
Further, pursuant to recently enacted State legislation, the City may elect to approve millage
rates above the roll-back rate up to the constitutional cap of 10 mills subject to the following
votes by the Commission or referendum:
Option I: A majority of the approval of the Commission Millage is required to approve a
millage up to 8.1 906 (equivalent to 100.55% of prior year maximum ad valorem proceeds
allowed by a majority vote, net of the impact of the Tax Increment Districts). The adjustment
of 100.55% reflects the statewide per capita personal income increase for the prior year
Option II: A two-thirds approval (5 of 7 votes) of the Commission is required to approve a
millage up to 9.0097 (equivalent to a 10% increase in the ad valorem revenues above
Option I).
B) Option Ill: A unanimous approval of the Commission or referendum is required to approve a
millage above 9.0097 up to the 10 mill cap
DETERMINING WE VOTED DEBT SERVICE MILLAGE BEW
The general obligation debt service payment for FY 201 1/12 is approximately $6.02 million.
Based on the July 1, 201 1 Certified Taxable Value from the Property Appraiser, these bonds
would require the levy of a voted debt service millage of 0.2884 mills. This represents an
increase of 0.001 4 mills.
COMBINING THE OPEMTING AND VOTED DEBT SERVICE MILLAGE LEVIES
Illustrated below is a comparison of the combined millage rates and ad valorem revenues to the
City of Miami Beach for FY 2010/11 (final) and FY 201 1/12 (preliminary) including RDA. It is
recommended that in the General Fund, 0.1083 mills of the total operating millage continue to
be dedicated to renewal and replacement, resulting in approximately $1.76 million in renewal
and replacement funding.
FY 201 1 I1 2 Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 11
If these recommended millage rates are tentatively adopted, then the City of Miami Beach's total
operating millage will remain unchanged from the current year, and the voted debt service
millage will increase by 0.0014 mills.
City of Miami Beach Millage Rates M 06/07
Operating 7.1920
Capital Renewal & Replacement 0.1820
Sub-total Operating Millage 7.3740
Debt Serbice 0.2990
Total 7.6930
MILLAGE LEW IMPACT ON PRBPERW OWNERS
Homesteaded Propedies
F '101'1 FY '111'12 Incl(Dec)
6.1072 6.1072 0.0000
0.1083 0.1083 0.0000
6.21% 6.2155' 0.0000
0.2870 0.2884 0.0014
6.5025 6.5039 0.0014
Amendment 10 to the State Constitution took effect on January 1, 1995 and limited the increase
in assessed value of homesteaded property to the percentage increase in the consumer price
index (CPI) or three percent (3%), whichever is less. For 201 0, the CPI has been determined to
% Incl(kc)
From From PI
WlOli1 06/07
0.0% -16%
0.0% -15%
be 1.5 percent and therefore, the increase is capped at 1.5% for increased values as of January
1,2011.
Overall, based on an analysis of the homesteaded properties in the 2010 tax roll (the latest
available from the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser at this time), the median value of
homesteaded property in Miami Beach for 201 1 (as of August 2010) was $1 19,000, and the
average $271,000. Applying the decline to the market value of all existing homesteaded
properties from the 201 0 tax roll, and the 1.5 percent CPI adjustment, the impact of the millage
rate adjustment to homesteaded properties would be as shown in the following table.
FY 201 1112 Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 12
Non-Homesteaded Propeflies
It is anticipated that the increased millage rate for commercial properties would, on average, be
offset by the decline in property values, although individual properties could vary significantly.
Historical Perspective
It is important to remember that in prior years, the City of Miami Beach significantly reduced tax
rates as property values increased. Between FY 1999100 and FY 200911 0, property tax rates
declined approximately 2.8 mills. In FY 2007108 alone, the property tax rate declined by
approximately 1.8 mills, with annual savings to the average homesteaded property of over $400.
In addition, in FY 2005106 and FY 2006107, the City funded $200 and $300 homeowner
dividends paid to homesteaded property owners in the City.
Total Csmbiaed Millage
c3
d
@I
08
A
@
$ aA - -
% -@
m
N
4
0
98 99 '00 'Of '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 'lo fl 12
Fiscal Years
The combined millage rate overall remains approximately 2.2 mills lower than it was in FY
1999100. In addition, the millage rate is almost 1.2 mills lower than it was in FY 2006107, when
property values were above the July 1,201 1 certified values. As a result, the proposed property
tax levy is lower in FY 201 1112 than it was in FY 2006107.
'07 '08 '09 '10 '1 1 '12
-Tax bevy including Debt
FY 201 1/12 Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 13
Further, Miami Beach continues to provide more tangible value for tax dollars paid than many
other taxing jurisdictions. For example, in FY 2009/10, it is estimated that the homesteaded
property owner of an average value homesteaded property would have paid approximately
$1,700 in property taxes to the City as compared to over $4,000 to the County, the school board
and other local taxing jurisdictions, approximately $2,400 in sales taxes to the state, and
approximately $7,000 in income taxes to the Federal government.
FBlRST PkBBLiC HEARING
The first public hearing on the proposed millage rates and tentative budgets for FY 201 1/12
must be held no later than 80 days (September 18th) or earlier than 65 days (September 3rd)
from the start of the TRIM ("Truth In Millage") calendar (July I st). Other guidelines are: 1) the
public hearing cannot be scheduled on a Sunday or on those days utilized by Miami-Dade
County or the Miami-Dade County School Board for their public hearings; and 2) if on a day
other than Saturday, the public hearing must be after 5:00 P.M.
Based on these guidelines, the first hearing must be held between September 3rd and
September 18th. These dates are unavailable for the following reasons:
September 4,l 1 and 18 Sundays
September 8 and 22 Proposed dates for Miami-Dade County Public
Hearings
September 7 Miami-Dade County School Board Public Hearing
FY 201 111 2 Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 14
Of the remaining days, it is recommended that the first public hearing be set for Wednesday,
September 14, 2011 at 501 P.M., in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 1700
Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida.
Attachment 1
FY 2011/12 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
AS QF JULY 2011
GENERAL FUND REVENUES CHANGES AS OF MAY RETREAT
Intergovernmental (sales taxes, etc.) 4%
FPL Franchise Fees $ l,OOO,OOO
Utility Franchise/'Tax Trends $ (1,000,000)
BTR Receipts/CU/etc. $ 320,000
Sidewalk Cafe Fees $ 501,660
Golf Course Revenues $ 200,000
Red light cameras $ (695,000)
Lease Revenues $ 370,000
Commercial Banners $ (300,000)
Sponsorships $ 400,000
I~et Revenues Less Expenditures I $ 0 1 $ (11,916,658) 1 $ (7,202,362) 1 $ (5,354,828) 1 $ (5,354,828) 1 NIA I
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
COLA: 3.0% Apr-12
MERITISTEP: 2% Max for General Merit except CWA - Police and Fire Steps
PENSION COSTS $5 million preliminary estimate from pension plans Citywide
HEALTH €4 LIFE INS
Salaries
Overtime/Other Wages
Benefits
Pension - F&P
Pension - MBERP
Other Pension Costs
Health and Life
Other Benefits
Total Benefits
Total Salary and Benefits
Operating
Internal Service Funds
Capital & Debt
Total
2011 Budget
$99,515,410
$12,347,060
$33,429,345
$8,940,594
$5,848,934
$6,355,606
$3,965,449
$ 58,539,928
$ 170,402,398
$27,778,666
35,216,360
$4,120,690
237,518,114
2012 Proj as of
May 1
$101,447,870
$12,820,426
$35,611,651
$11,340,310
$5,802,867
$9,155,788
$4,041,231
$ 65,951,847
$ 180,220,143
$27,018,750
36,816,360
$4,117,173
248,172,426
2012 Proj as of
June 1
$101,447,870
$12,820,426
$35,611,651
$11,340,310
$5,802,867
$9,155,788
$4,041,231
$ 65,951,847
$ 180,220,143
$27,018,750
36,816,360
$4,117,173
248,172,426
10%
2012 Proj. as of
Jul 1
$101,447,870
$ 12,642,593
$35,602,142
$10,965,525
$5,802,867
$9,155,788
$4,041,231
$ 65,567,553
$ 179,658,016
27,083,719
36,288,270
4,184,534
247,214,539
$Change
$1,932,460
$295,533
$2,172,797
$2,024,931
($46,0671
$2,800,182
$75,782
$ 7,027,625
$ 9,255,618
($694,947)
$1,071,910
$63,844
9,696,425
% Chng.
2%
2%
6%
23%
-1%
44%
2%
12%
5%
-3%
3%
2%
4%
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND C1m COMMISSION
OF THE CI= OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, SETTING THE
PROPOSED MILLAGE WATES FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY)
201 11/W2, THE CALCUUTED ""ROLLED-BACK" WATE, AND
THE BATE, TIME, AND PLACE OF THE FIRST PUBLIC
HEARING; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CIN MANAGER
TO TRANSMIT THIS INFORMATION TO THE MIAMI-DADE
COUNW PROPER= APPMISEW IN THE FORM
REQUIRED BY SECTION 280.065, FLORIDA STATUTES
WHEREAS, Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, has specified the method by which
municipalities may fix the millage rate and adopt an annual budget; and
WHEREAS, development of the FY 201 1112 budget began early with a discussion at
a two day Commission retreat in May that included a review of priorities, economic
projections and their impacts on the budget, preliminary projected revenues and
expenditures; and
WHEREAS, over the last several years, the City of Miami Beach has adopted
budgets that provided tax and fee relief while at the same time providing improved services
that address needs and priorities identified by the community and providing structural
changes that enhanced capital funding and reserve; and
WHEREAS, maintaining and enhancing the City's priorities have become
increasingly more challenging in the last five years: first through property tax reform where
tax rates were dramatically reduced; and subsequently with the decline in property as well
as increasing pension costs; and
WHEREAS, the July 1, 201 1 Certification of Taxable Value from the Miami-Dade
County Property Appraiser reflects a 0.6 percent decline in Citywide property tax values
from the July 1, 2010 tax roll certification, a 0.5 percent increase in the City Center
Redevelopment area (RDA), and a 0.8 percent decline in values outside the City Center
RDA, which impacts the City's General Fund revenues; and
WHEREAS, in the last four years, the General Fund has absorbed more than $41
million in reductions (and almost $47 million and 260 positions across all funds) in a
General Fund budget that is $237.5 million in FY 201 011 1, an almost 20 percent reduction;
and
WHEREAS, a total of approximately $15 million in employee "give-backs" were
achieved bebeen FY 2009110 and FY 201 011 1, which, along with almost $47 million in
efficiencies and reductions, represents more than $62 million in combined "givebacks" and
reductions over 4 years; and
WHEREAS, between FY 1999100 and FY 200911 0, the total combined City of Miami
Beach property tax rates declined approximately 2.8 mills and in FY 2007108 alone, the
property tax rate declined by approximately 1.8 mills, with annual savings to the average
homesteaded property of over $400, in addition to City funded $200 and $300 homeowner
dividends paid to homesteaded property owners in the City in FY 2005106 and FY 2006107;
and
WHEREAS, at the May 2011 Commission retreat and at the June 2gth, 201 1
Finance and Citywide Projects (FCWPC) meeting, the Administration was directed to
generally preserve recently enacted City initiatives in support of community priorities; and
WHEREAS, at the May 2011 Commission retreat and at the June 2gth, 201 1
FCWPC meeting, the consensus was to set the proposed operating millage in July at the
rate of the current millage rate of 6.21 55 despite the 0.8 percent decline in property values
outside the City Center Redevelopment area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach is required to advise the Miami-Dade County
Property Appraiser of the Proposed Millage Rates, the "Rolled-Back" Rate, and the date,
time, and place of the first public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the January 1,2010 tax roll declined by almost $1.4 billion beheen the
July 1, 2010 valuation and the July 1, 201 1 valuation due to appeals, adjustments, etc. ,
which resulted in the FY 201 1112 "roll-back rate" being less than the FY 201011 1 current
millage rate; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE C1W
COMMISSION OF THE 61W OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the following
recommendations of the Administration be and are hereby ratified for transmittal to the
Miami- Dade County Property Appraiser, as specified in Section 200.065, Florida Statutes:
1) Proposed Millage Rates for FY 201 1112
General Operating 6.1072 mills
Capital Renewal & Replacement 0.1083 mills
Total Operating Millage 6.2155 mills
Debt Sewice 0.2884 mills
Total Combined Millage 6.5039 mills
2) "Wolied-Back" Rate 5.9029 mills
3) The first public hearing on the proposed millage rate and the tentative budget for FY
201 1/12 shall be held on Wednesday, September 14,201 1 at 5:01 P.M., in the City
Commission Chambers, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach,
Florida.
PASSED and ADOPTED, this 13th day of m, 201 1
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
APPROVED AS 40
FORM & UNGUAGE
2% Foe DEGUTlQN
WHIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Condensed Title:
[ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NORMANDY SHORES LOCAL GOVERNMENT
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SETTING 1) THE PROPOSED GENERAL OPERATING MILLAGE
RATE FOR THE NORMANDY SHORES NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; 2) THE CALCULATED
ROLLED-BACK RATE; AND, 3) THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER
THE OPERATING MILLAGE RATE AND BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 201 1/12; FURTHER AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO TRANSMIT THIS INFORMATION TO THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PROPERTY
APPRAISER IN THE FORM REQUIRED BY SECTION 200.065, FLORIDA STATUTES
Key Intended Outcome Suppoded: I Increase visibility of police; Maintain crime rates at or below national trends
Supporti~ Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
In the 2009 Community Survey, both residents and businesses reported the following areas for the City
to address in an effort to improve public safety:
B Preventing crime (Residents: 44.9%, Business: 43.9%)
Increasing police visibility (Residents: 32.4%, Business: 33.1 %)
issue:
Shall the Mayor and City Commission, acting in its capacity as the Board of Directors for the Normandy
Shores Local Government Neighborhood Improvement District, adopt the attached resolution which sets
the Proposed General Operating Millage Rate; the Calculated Rolled-Back Rate; and sets the date, time
and place for the first public hearing?
item SummarylRecornmendation:
The proposed ad valorem millage recommended by the Administration is 1.0935 mills to provide the
current level of security required by this district. The rolled-back rate is the millage rate required to
produce the same level of property tax revenue on FY 201 111 2 as collected in FY 201 011 1. The rolled-
back rate is calculated as 0.9946 or 0.0429 mills less than the millage rate of 1.0375 adopted for FY
201011 1. The FY 201 1112 proposed millage rate includes 0.0568 mills to fund the $5,639 shortfall in the
FY 201011 1 budget that was funded by Normandy Shores stash site dollars as a one-time action by
Commission. The FY 201 1112 proposed millage rate is above the maximum millage rate of 1.0001
allowed to be adopted by a majority vote, and will therefore require a 517 vote.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I
Financial Information:
Financial impact Summay:
The increase of 0.056 mills from the prior year millage represents an annual increase of $15.17 to the
City average 201 0 homesteaded property of $271,000 taxable value (estimate based on Ad Valorem
Assessment Roll as of August, 201 O), for a total of approximately $296 per year ($25 per month). This
tax levy will generate proceeds of $108,469. The total operating expenditures to provide the current
service level to this district is $166,875 for FY 201 1112. The City of Miami Beach General Fund is
required to provide 35% of the total operating expenditures ($58,406), and the City has funded the 35%
for each of the eighteen years since the District was established. The amount provided by the General
Fund for this purpose in FY 201 011 1 was $57,161. The $1 66,875 in FY 201 111 2 represents a $3,558
increase (2.2%) from the FY 201 011 1 budget of $1 63,317, due to the estimated impact of the living wage
ordinance on the security contract expenses.
City Clerk's Ofdice Legislative Tracking:
/ source of
Funds:
D
OBPl
1
Total
Amount
Sign-Ofis:
Account I
City Manager I Department Director Assistant City Manager
City 004 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 City Commission
/
FROM Jorge 1\11. Gonzalez, City Manage
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DlRECTORS OF THE NORMANDY SHORES
LOCAL GOVERNMENT NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SETING 1)
THE PROPOSED GENERAL OPERATING MILLAGE RATE FORTHE NORMANDY
SHORES NElGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; 2) THE CALCUMTED
ROLLED-BACK MTE; AND, 3) THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF THE FIRST
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE OPERATING MlLeAGE MTE AND
BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 201 1112; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO TRANSMIT THIS INFORMATION TO THE MIAMI-BABE COUNTY
PROPERW APPMISER IN THE FORM REQUIRED BY SECTION 200.065,
FLORIDA STATUTES
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission, acting in its capacity as
the Board of Directors for the Normandy Shores Local Government Neighborhood
lmprovement District, adopt the attached resolution which authorizes the City Manager to
transmit the following information to the Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser:
1) Proposed Operating Millage Rate of the Normandy Shores Neighborhood
lmprovement District for FY 201 111 2:
General Operating 1.0935 mills (1.0375) last year
2) "Rolled-Backn Rate (Truth In Millage) 0.9946 mills
3) The first public hearing to consider the proposed Normandy Shores
Neighborhood lmprovement District operating millage rate and tentative
budget for FY 201 1/12 shall be held on Wednesday, September 14,201 1 at
5:02 P.M., in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 1700 Convention
Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida.
FY 201 111 2 Normandy Shores Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 2 of 4
BACKGROUND
The Normandy Shores Local Government Neighborhood lmprovement District, a dependent
taxing district of its principal, the City of Miami Beach, was established in 1994 to provide
continual 24-hour security to this gated community; FY 201 1112 represents its eighteenth year of
operation.
It was established by Ordinance 93-2881, and has the authority "to levy an ad-valorem tax on
real and personal property of up to two mills, provided that no parcel of property will be
assessed more than $500 annually for such improvements". During FY 1998199 the amount of
annual funding to be provided by the City and the dependent status of the District were issues
discussed by the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee. A determination was reached that
the City would fund 35% of the annual cost of the operation of the community gate guard. This
cost will eventually be funded from the golf course operation of the Normandy Shores Golf
Course. It was further agreed that the City would continue to supplement the District at current
levels until both issues were resolved. On August 29, 2002, the Administration met with the
Normandy Shores Local Government Neighborhood lmprovement District representatives and
agreed to eliminate the $500 cap on the highest valued home in the District. The enabling
legislation was adopted by the Commission on September 25,2002. This ensures that the City's
contribution from the General Fund remains at 35% of the operating budget of the District.
Stzatuto y Requirement
FS 200.065, entitled "Method of Fixing Millage" establishes specific guidelines that must be used
by all local government entities, including dependent taxing districts like Normandy Shores in
setting its millage (property tax) rates. Not unlike its principal taxing authority (City of Miami
Beach), Normandy Shores is also required to transmit within 35 days from receipt of the
Certification of Taxable Value (received July 1, 201 I), to the Miami-Dade County Property
Appraiser, a proposed operating millage rate, the calculated rolled-back rate and the date, time,
and place of the first public hearing to consider the proposed operating millage rate and
tentative budget for FY 201 1112.
After setting the proposed operating millage rate for Normandy Shores, the City Commission
may, at any time prior to the final adoption, lower the millage rate; however any increase above
the proposed millage rate of 1.0935, if adopted, would require an expensive mailing and
advertising process to each property owner of Normandy Shores. Therefore, this proposed
millage rate is viewed as the ceiling.
The rolled-back rate is the millage rate required to produce the same level of property tax
revenue on FY 201 111 2 as collected in FY 201011 1. The rate is calculated as 0.9946, or 0.0429
mills less than the millage rate adopted for FY 201011 1.
Further, pursuant to State Statute, the City may elect to approve millage rates above the roll-
back rate up to the constitutional cap of 10 mills subject to the following votes by the
Commission or referendum:
Option I: A majority of the approval of the Commission Millage is required to approve a
millage up to 1.0001 (equivalent to a 0.55% increase in Property Tax revenues). The 0.55%
increase is the state per capita personal income gain for the prior calendar year.
FY 201 1/12 Normandy Shores Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 3 of 4
Option II: A two-thirds approval (5 of 7 votes) of the Commission is required to approve a
millage up to 1.1001 (equivalent to a 10% increase in Property Tax revenues above Option
1).
e Option Ill: A unanimous approval of the Commission or referendum is required to approve a
millage above 1.1001 mills
The proposed rate of 1.0935 requires therefore a two-thirds approval (5 of 7 votes) of the
Commission.
ANALYSIS
On July 1, 201 1, the City received the 2010 Certification of Taxable Value from the Property
Appraiser's Office stating that the taxable value for Normandy Shores is $104,411,853, which
includes $370,264 due to new construction, renovation, etc. The preliminary value represents
an increase of $2,428,718 from the July 1,201 0 Certification of taxable Value of $1 01,983,135
(2.4 percent) and an increase of 4.7 percent over 201 0's final value of $99,739,506.
Operating Millage and Budget
The proposed ad valorem millage recommended by the Administration is 1.0935 mills to provide
the current level of security required by this district. This tax levy will generate proceeds of
$108,469. The increase of 0.0560 mills from the prior year millage represents an annual
increase of $1 5.17 to the City average 201 0 homesteaded property of $271,000 taxable value
(estimate based on Ad Valorem Assessment Roll received from the Miami Dade County
Property Appraiser on August 17,201 O), a total of approximately $296 per year ($25 per month).
The total operating expenditures to provide the current service level to this district is $166,875
for FY 201 1/12. The City of Miami Beach General Fund is required to provide 35% of the total
operating expenditures ($58,406), and the City has funded the 35% for each of the eighteen
years since the District was established. The amount provided by the General Fund for this
purpose in FY 201 011 1 was $57,161. The $1 66,875 in FY 201 111 2 represents a $3,558
increase (2.2%) from the FY 2010/11 budget of $163,317, primarily due to the estimated impact
of the living wage ordinance on the security contract expenses.
It must be noted that in FY 2010/11, the adopted millage rate of 1.0375 resulted in a budget
shortfall of $8,674. In order to close this gap, the Commission voted to waive the City's policy of
not utilizing one-time, non-recurring revenue to subsidize recurring personnel, operating and
maintenance costs and allowed the use of $5,639 Normandy Shores stash site dollars which
resulted from the sale of the stash site in 1993, matched by an additional $3,035 in City dollars.
Since this was a one-time action, the FY 201 111 2 proposed millage rate includes 0.0568 mills to
fund this amount.
For the Normandy Shores taxing District, the value for each mill ($1 .OO of ad valorem tax for
each $1,000 of property value) is determined by the 201 1 Certification of Taxable Value and has
been set at $1 04,412. Florida Statutes permit a discount of up to five percent for early payment
discounts, delinquencies, etc. Therefore, the 95 percent value of the mill is $99,191.
Accordingly, 1.0935 mills are required to generate $1 08,469 in property tax revenues by the
district.
FY 201 1/12 Normandy Shores Proposed Millage Rate
July 13, 201 1
Page 4 of 4
First Public Hearinq
The first public hearing on the proposed operating millage rate and tentative budget for FY
201 111 2must be held no later than 80 days (September 18th) or earlier than 65 days (September
3rd) from the start of the TRIM calendar (July 1st). Other guidelines are: 1) The public hearing
cannot be scheduled on a Sunday or on those days utilized by Miami-Dade County or the Miami-
Dade County School Board for their public hearing; 2) If on a day other than Saturday, it must be
held after 5:00 P.M.; and 3) must be held immediately following discussion of the tentative
millage and budget of its principal taxing authority (City of Miami Beach).
Based on these guidelines, the first hearing must be held between September 3rd and
September 18th. These dates are unavailable for the following reasons:
September 4,11 and 18 Sundays
September 8 and 22 Proposed dates for Miami-Dade County Public Hearing
September 7 Miami-Dade County School Board Public Hearing
Of the remaining days, it is recommended that the first public hearing be set for Wednesday,
September 14, 2011 at 5:02 P.M., in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 1700
Convention Center Drive, immediately following the City of Miami Beach's public hearing.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
WE NORMANDY SHORES LOCAL GOVERNMENT
NEIGHBORHOOD BMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SETTING 1)
THE PROPOSED GENEML OPEMTBMG MILLAGE
MTE FOR THE NORMANDY SHORES NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT; 2) THE CALCULATED
ROLLED-BACK MTE; AND, 3) THE DATE, TIME AND
PWCE OF THE FIRSWUBLlC HEARING TO CONSIDER
THE OPEMTING MILLAGE RATE AND BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR (Fv 2011112; FURTHER AUTHORIZING
THE CIW MANAGER TO TMNSMIIT "%IS INFORMATION
TO THE MIAMI-DADE COkJN'B\b PROPERW APBMBSER
IN THE FORM REQUIRED BY SECTION 280.065,
FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, Section 200.065, Florida Statutes, has specified the method
by which municipalities may fix the operating millage rate and adopt an annual budget
for dependent taxing districts; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach,
acting as the Board of Directors of the Normandy Shores Local Government
Neighborhood Improvement District propose that the District's General Operating
Millage Rate be set at 1.0935 mills and that the Rolled-Back Rate be set at 0.9946 mills;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach is required to advise the Miami-
Dade County Property Appraiser of the Proposed Normandy Shores Neighborhood
Improvement District Operating Millage Rate, the Rolled-Back Rate, and the date, time,
and place of the first public hearing.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE NORMANDY SHORES LOCAL GOVERNMENT
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, that the following recommendations of
the Administration be and are hereby ratified for transmittal to the Miami-Dade County
Property Appraiser, as specified in Section 200.065, Florida Statutes:
1) Proposed Normandy Shores Local Government Neighborhood lmprovement
District Operating Millage Rate for FY 201 111 2
General Operating 1.0935 mills
2 > "Rolled-Back Rate" 0.9946 mills
3) The first public hearing on the proposed Normandy Shores Local Government
Neighborhood lmprovement District operating millage rate and tentative budget
for FY 201 1/12 shall be held on Wednesday, September 14, 201 1 at 5:02 p.m., in
the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami
Beach, Florida.
PASSED and ADOPEED this '3th day of
ATTEST:
MAYOR
CIW CLERK
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & UNGUAGE
& FOH UECUTIOM
THlS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
R7 - Resolutions
R7E A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager, Pursuant To
Request For Proposals (RFP) No. 33-1011 I, For Consulting Services Relative To The
Expansion And Enhancement Of The Miami Beach Convention Center (MBCC)
CampuslDistrict; Authorizing The Administration To Enter Into Negotiations With The
Top-Ranked Firm, ; And Should The Administration Not Be
Able To Successfully Negotiate An Agreement With The Top-Ranked Firm, Authorizing
The Administration To Negotiate With The Second-Ranked Firm, I
And Further Authorizihg The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute An Agreement Upon
Conclusion Of Successful Negotiations By The Administration. (Page)
(City Manager's OfficelProcurement)
(Memorandum & Resolution to be Submitted in Supplemental)
Agenda Item t?7 E
Date 7-13-11
THIS PAGE BINTENTIOMALLY 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:
I Increase satisfaction with family friendly recreational activities. I
Suppo~tin~~ata (!&weys, Environmental Scan, efc.): 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: I Shall the City Commission approve an amendment to the Management Agreement Between the City and ADMSP? 1
Item SummaPy/Recommendation:
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 passite Recreational Activities Program in Altos el Mar Park, lbcated 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. On April 14, 2010, 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 lmprovements by May 13, 201 1, as currently stipulated in the Agreement, and requested an
extension of certain contractually required deadlines. 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 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 that ADMSP provide the City with proof that they have obtained sufficient funds to pay for theNE services by the
September Commission meeting. This item was presented to the Mayor and City Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting on
June 1,201 1. The Administration was directed to bring this item back to the July 13,201 1, City Commission meeting with the following
amendments: 1) A general release by ADMSP waiving any defenses or claims against the City; 2) Further defining the "necessary
funding" for the NE services required by ADMSP to design and develop the Proposed Improvements as requiring a minimum amount
of $120,000 (see Section 9.7.8.1 of the Amendment); 3) Add language that ADMSP's evidence of funding for the Proposed
Improvement must be verified by the City's Chief Financial Officer, and further defining the type of evidence required; and 4) Include (in
the Recitals) as acknowledgement by ADMSP that, failing to obtain the City's consent to ADMSP's request for extension of time to
obtain its final Full Building Permit, as contained in and subject to the terms of the proposed Amendment, ADMSP will be in Default
under the Agreement. Based on the aforestated direction, the City Attorney's Office has drafted the attached Amendment No. 2 to the
Management Agreement for your review and consideration. A draft has been provided to ADMSP.
Advisorry Board Recommendation:
1 The Neighborhoods and Community Affairs Committee reviewed this request at their May 5,201 1 meeting and unanimously recommended I I in favor of the requested amendment.
Financial Information:
I 1
I Financial Impact Summary: '
I
Source of Funds: Approved
1
Amount Accouni
AM1 BEACH
CiP/ 08 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: July 13, 201 I a
SUBJECT: A RESOLUT~ON OF THE MAYOW AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE em OF MIAM!
BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BEWEEN
THE CITY OF MlAMl 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
CONSTRUCYlON OF THE SCULPTURE PARK PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FROM
MAY 13, 2011, TO MARCH 31, 2012; AND FURTHER REQUIRIING ADMSP TO PROVIDE
PROOF "B 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, 201 9.
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. 2010-27371. The Amendment defined the "Possession Date," and further
provided that ADMSP's obligations under the Agreement with respect to maintenance and general
liability coverage would not commence until such Possession Date.
Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park
July 13, 201 I
Page 2 of 3
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 lmprovements 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 $120,000 to pay for the A/E
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 A/E 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 A/E services.
This item was presented to the Mayor and City Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting on June
1, 201 1. The Administration was directed to bring this item back to the July 13, 201 1, City Commission
meeting with the following amendments:
1. A general release by ADMSP waiving any defenses or claims against the City;
2. Further defining the "necessary funding" for the A/E services required by ADMSP to design and
develop the Proposed lmprovements as requiring a minimum amount of $120,000 (see Section
9.7.8.1 of the Amendment);
3. Add language that ADMSP's evidence of funding for the Proposed Improvement must be verified by
the City's Chief Financial Officer, and further defining the type of evidence required; and
4. Include (in the Recitals) as acknowledgement by ADMSP that, failing to obtain the City's consent to
ADMSP's request for extension of time to obtain its final Full Building Permit, as contained in and
subject to the terms of the proposed Amendment, ADMSP will be in Default under the Agreement.
Please refer to Attachment A ("Amendment No. 2 to the Management Agreement Between the City of
Miami Beach and Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park, Inc. for the Operation of a Sculpture Park in Altos del
Mar Park pursuant to Request for Proposals No. 02/07-08).
ADMSP CORRESPONDENCE
Staff contacted ADMSP to discuss the direction given to staff at the June 1, 201 1 Commission Meeting,
and provided a draft of the proposed Amendment. On June 30, 201 1, the City received correspondence
from Peter Saile, Board Member of ADMSP, Inc., who provided ADMSP's comments to the attached
Amendment No. 2 to the Management Agreement between the City and ADMSP (Attachment B). In
summary, ADMSP:
Does not want to include language acknowledging that ADMSP would be in default of the
Management Agreement if we did not agree to the extension.
Does not want to be required to provide a sworn statement certifying that, under penalty of
perjury, they have obtained the necessary funding for the required A/E services.
Does not want to be required to have funds raised for A/E to be deposited in a separate account
be used solely and exclusively for the deposit andlor withdrawal of funds for the payment of the
required NE services.
Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park
July 13, 201 1
Page 3 of 3
Wants to delete the City's right to review bank statements, financial statements and/or other
records of ADMSP at any time and is, instead, proposing language that gives the City the right to
request a statement from ADMSP's accountant.
Staff contacted Mr. Saile on July lSt and again on July 6th to discuss their comments. ADMSP
conceptually agrees to providing proof they have obtained the necessary funds for the A/E services, but
does not agree to providing the City with sworn affidavits. They believe they are being treated unfairly by
the City.
Based the June 1, 201 1 direction from the City Commission, the City Attorney's Office drafted the
attached Amendment No. 2 to the Management Agreement for your review and consideration. However,
as noted, at this time ADMSP has not agreed to all of the proposed changes. They will be attending the
Commission meeting to speak on their concerns.
Pursuant to the direction of the Neighborhoods and Community Affairs Committee on May 5, 201 1, and
to subsequent direction from the Mayor and Commission at the June 1, 201 1 Commission meeting, the
City Attorney's Office has worked with staff to develop the attached, proposed Amendment to the
Management Agreement between the City and Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park, Inc. This proposed
Amendment incorporates the requirements of ADMSP in response to their request for an extension of the
deadline for ADMSP to obtain the full building permits, including a September 14, 2011 deadline for
ADMSP to provide proof of funding for A/E services. As ADMSP has indicated that they are not in
agreement with the language in the proposed Amendment, direction from the City Commission is
requested.
Attachments
T:MGEMDA\2011\7-13-1 ?MDMSP Mgmt Agmnt Amendment 2 Memo.doc.RTF
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BEWEEN THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH AND ALTOS DEL MAR SGULPWRE PARK INC. FOR THE OPEMTION OF
A SCULPTURE PARK IN ALTOS DEL MAR PARK PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS NO. 02-07/08
This Amendment No. 2, is made and executed as of this day of , 201 1
(Effective Date), by and between the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a municipal corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida (the "City"), and ALTOS DEL MAR
SCULPTURE PARK, INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, whose principal office is located
at 7701 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33141 (the "ADMSP").
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, 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); and
WHEREAS, 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); and
WHEREAS, 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 for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of a cultural arts themed
program, to be known as the "Altos del Mar Sculpture Park" (the Agreement); and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2010, the City Commission approved Amendment No. 1 to the
Management Agreement, via Resolution No. 201 0-27371, which defined the "Possession Date,"
and further provided that ADMSP's obligations under the Agreement with respect to
maintenance and general liability coverage would not commence until such Possession Date;
and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 201 1, ADMSP requested that the City grant it an extension of
time to obtain a Full Building Permit for the Proposed Improvements (as said term is defined in
the Agreement), from May, 13, 201 1, to February 13, 2012, because it had not been able to
secure the necessary architectural and engineering (NE) services for design of such
improvements on a pro-bono basis, and would therefore have to raise funds to pay for such
services; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 201 1, ADMSP submitted a letter to the City explaining in more
detail the reason for its extension request, and amended its original request (for time to obtain a
Full Building Permit) to March 31, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Neighborhoods and Community Affairs Committee reviewed ADMSP's
request at its May 5, 201 1 meeting, recommended in favor of granting the extension to March
31, 2012, and further recommended that ADMSP provide the City with proof that it had obtained
sufficient funds to pay for the required A/E services by no later than September 14, 201 1; and
WHEREAS, ADMSP hereby acknowledges that, but for the City Commission's consent
to ADMSP's request for the aforestated extension of time to obtain its final Full Building Permit
for the Proposed Improvements, its inability to have obtained such Permit within the original
prescribed time (i.e. May 13, 201 1) would constitute a default by ADMSP under the Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the City's consent to ADMSP's request for the aforestated
extension of time, ADMSP hereby acknowledges and agrees that the Premises upon which the
Sculpture Park is to be situated constitute valuable public park property; therefore, it is
imperative that ADMSP develop the Sculpture Park (and design and construct the Proposed
Improvements) in a timely, diligent, and expeditious manner, so as not to "tie-up1' said property,
nor potentially impair or infringe the public's unfettered right to use same in the future (should I the development of the Sculpture Park be unduly delayed, or should it not proceed at all); and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the City and ADMSP have negotiated the following
Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement, which grants ADMSP an extension of time within which to
obtain its final Full Building Permit, subject to the additional conditions below, which conditions
the parties deem to be in the best interest of the City, and of the public, in order to continue to
ensure the timely, continuous development of the proposed Sculpture Park project.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises, covenants and
agreements herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, in receipt and
adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound, the City and
Concessionaire hereby amend the Agreement as follows:
1. The above Recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Section 9.7.8.1, of the Agreement, entitled "Construction
CommencementlADMSP's Right to Terminate", is amended as follows:
Possession Date.
9.7.8.1 As %conditions precedent to ADMSP's commencement of construction of
the Proposed Improvements, ADMSP shall,
provide evidence, reasonablv satisfactory to the Citv Commission, that it has
secured the necessarv funding (which funding must be readily accessible and
available to ADMSP on or before September 14, 2011) for the required
architecturallengineering services (the A/E services) for design and development . . of the Proposed Improvements. nk+ling .CinaicrFCllllrllnS; fe: the
#Failure to do so shall constitute a default under this
Agreement.
For purposes of compliance with the aforestated condition, the term "necessarv
funding" shall mean unencumbered funds, in the minimum amount of $120,000
lwhich is the estimated amount, as of the Effective Date, that ADMSP has
represented to City that the required A/E services will cost). Further, for
purposes of compliance with this requirement, "evidence reasonablv satisfactory
to the Citv Commission," shall, at a minimum, require that ADMSP provide the
following proof to the Citv Commission, which proof shall be submitted to the City
Wlananer on or before September 14, 201 1: (a) A sworn statement, signed by
ADMSP, certifving that, under penaltv of periurv, ADMSP has obtained ,and has
in-hand and available, the necessarv funding for the required A/E services; and
{b) evidence that ADMSP has deposited the necessary funding in a separate
account in a federally insured banking or lending institution, which account is to
be used solely and exclusively for the deposit and/or withdrawal of funds for the
payment of the required NE services; and (c) a copy of a fully executed contract
between ADMSP and an NE firm (licensed and certified to practice in Florida),
for the required NE services. In order to verify ADMSP's compliance with the
aforestated conditions, the City shall have the right at any time to have its
accountants and/or designees review bank statements, financial statements,
and/or other records of ADMSP.
As a further condition precedent to commencement of construction, ADMSP shall
obtain a final Full Building Permit for the Proposal lmprovements by March 311,
20112. Failure to do so shall constitute a default under this Agreement. No later
than thirty (30) days afier ADMSP receives its final Full Building Permit for
construction of the Proposed Improvements, ADMSP shall provide evidence,
reasonably satisfactory to the City Manager or his designee (who may be the
City's Chief Financial Officer), regarding ADMSP's sourceis) of funding for
construction ef th2 c- of the Proposed lmprovements (as approved and
permitted by City, and in such amount(s) equal to the anticipated final cost of
completion, estimated as of the date of issuance of the Building Permit). Failure
to do so shall constitute a default under this Agreement. Such evidence shall
include, at a minimum, an itemized statement detailing the source and/or sources
{with corresponding amounts) of funds for construction; with such statement to
be sworn to, certified to, and signed by ADMSP, under penalty of periury. As in
the preceding paragraph, the City Manager shall have the right to have hidher
accountants and/or other authorized designees review bank statements, financial
statements, and/or other documents of ADMSP in order to verify ADMSP's
compliance with this condition.
I In addition to the above, ADMSP shall not commence construction of the
Proposed Improvements unless and until (a) ADMSP shall have obtained and
delivered to City copies of all final permits and approvals required to commence
construction; (b) ADMSP shall have delivered to City original certificates of the
policies of insurance required to be carried by ADMSP's contractor(s) (in
accordance with the requirements set forth in Exhibit ""J' , attached hereto); and
(c) ADMSP shall have obtained and furnished to City a payment and
performance bond from ADMSP's general contractor (the Payment and
Performance Bond), in a form reasonably acceptable to City, issued by a surety
listed in the most recent U.S. Dept. of Treasury listing of approved sureties,
guaranteeing the performance by the general contractor for construction of the
Proposed Improvements. The City of Miami Beach, Florida, shall be named as a
dual obligee under the Payment and Performance Bond.
The City (acting solely in its proprietary and not in its regulatory capacity) shall
reasonably cooperate with ADMSP in obtaining the permits and approvals
required to construct the Proposed Improvements; shall sign any application
reasonably made by ADMSP that is required in order to obtain such permits and
approvals; and shall provide ADMSP with any information and/or documentation
not otherwise reasonably available to ADMSP (if available to City) that is
necessary to procure such permits and approvals. Any such accommodation by
City shall be without prejudice to, and shall not constitute a waiver of, City's rights
to exercise its discretion in connection with its regulatory functions.
Possession Date. Upon ADMSP1s satisfaction of all conditions precedent to
commencement of construction (as set forth in this Section 9.7.8.1), within the
required time periods (as also set forth in this Section 9.7.8.1), ADMSP shall
provide written notice of same to the City Manager, by hand delivery or certified
mail, return receipt requested. No later than sixty (60) business days after receipt
I of ADMSP1s notice, and, provided that the City Manager determines and is
reasonably satisfied that ADMSP has complied with all conditions precedent to
commencement of construction, the City Manager shall provide ADMSP with
written notice of same (the City's Notice) and shall, as of the date set forth in the
City's Notice (which date shall be referred to as the "Possession Date"), permit
ADMSP to enter upon and utilize the Premises in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Agreement (including, without limitatione, the objectives and
approved uses set forth in the Agreement).
I
3. General Release. By execution hereof, ADMSP for itself and its officers,
directors, shareholders and principals, and Peter Saile and Marlene Saile, each individually (all
of the foregoing "Releasorsl'), hereby fully and unconditionally release the City of Miami Beach
and its commissioners, employees, administrative executives, staff, and attorneys, and their
respective successors and assigns ("Releasees") from any and all manner of actions, causes of
action, contracts, agreements, covenants, controversies, claims, and demands whatsoever,
whether legal or equitable, known or unknown, fixed or contingent, relating to the Agreement
(including any and all amendments thereto) and/or the Premises, from the beginning of the
world until the Effective Date of this Amendment No. 2. The provisions of this Section 2 shall
survive any termination or expiration of the Agreement
4. No Further Modifications. Except as provided in this Amendment No. 2, the
Agreement remains unmodified and in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been duly executed by the parties
hereto as of the day and year first above written.
ATTEST: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
City Clerk Mayor
day of , 2011.
ALTOS DEL MAR SCULPTURE PARK, INC.
ATTEST:
President
Secretary
Print Name
day of ,2011.
APPROVED AS TO
F:\INFO\$ALLWax\TCDWltos Del Mar Sculpture ParkWDMSP Amendment No 2.doc
FORM & MNGUAGE
PETER SAILE
Chairman of the Board of Directors
ALTOS DEL SCULPT %$Am, INC.
a Florida not-for-profit Public Charity
East of Collins Ave. between 76& and 77& Streets, Miami Beach
Phone 786-290-7109
peter@altosdelmarscu1pturepark.com
www.altosdelmarsculpturepark.com
www.admsp.com
ADMSP. 7701 Collins Avenue. Miami Beach. FL 33141
City Manager of Miami Beach
Mr. Jorge M. Gonzalez
City Hall
1700 Convention Center
Miami Beach, FL 331 39
March 05, 201 1
Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park - management agreement
Dear City Manager,
Reference is made to the management agreement between the City of Miami Beach and
Altos del Mar Sculpture Park ('ADMSP') dated June 18, 2009. We are pleased that
ADMSP has obserwed all benchmarks in a timely manner to date. However, we are now
forced to request a first extension of time (from May 13, 201 1 to February 13, 2012) to
meet the upcoming building-permit benchmark. We are expecting a construction period
of nine months, so we would expect that, even with this revised schedule, we should be
able to open the Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park to the public on December 9, 2012.
Reasons for the Extension
ADMSP has not yet applied for our building permit because the engineering has not
been completed and parts of the architectural planning needs to be finalized. ADMSP
has been faced with delays by previously-committed and, therefore, expected pro bono
planning services which, due to the economic slow-down, are no longer available. Our
architect and coordinator of all technical planning jobs, Les Beilinson, has informed us
that an amount of $115,779.52 needs to be made available, so that the engineering
plans for the building-permit application can be completed (see attached e-mail from Les
Beilinson). Therefore, ADMSP needs the additional time to now raise this amount, since
the engineers cannot do the serwice pro bono at this time. ADMSP expects to come up
with this previously-unexpected capital requirement latest by May 15, 201 1. The raising
of this capital is being handled by the professional public ch,arity developer, Ms. Karen
Kintner. Once the capital is in place, it will take a maximum of three months to finalize
the building-permit application and approximately another six months to obtain the
permits. We trust that our engineers may be a little faster than three months to finalize
the othewise-well-advanced plans.
Construction Funding
In the past month, ADMSP has explored the possibility of obtaining the unexpected
required funding for the engineering from our expected donors for the construction
funding. However, the facilitators for the construction funding of $5 million, Lennox
Securities, Inc., and American Trust (Switzerland), Inc., have advised us not to request
engineering costs from our potential construction funding sponsors, since this would
mean changing our ongoing application process for construction funding, which calls for
construction funding within four weeks from the date of obtaining the building permit.
Among our intended corporate sponsors for construction funding are companies such as
Verizon, Coca Cola, Adidas, Arttrust Invest, Wilmington Trust, CMI, BMW and
Mercedes.
We would appreciate your decision in favor of this first request by ADMSP for an
extension of time .Should you have any question, I am always available to you. I thank
you for your cooperation, and can assure you that we will realize ADMSP as planned.
I am sorry that our development is currently slower than expected, but we, as many
others, were not immune to the economic slow-down and the taxation benefit changes in
regards to donations, both of which we have experienced since we signed the
management agreement.
We are well on our way and are excited to develop ADMSP as planned.
Best regards,
Peter Saile
From: Les Beilinson [mailto:Idb@beilinsonarchitedspa.com]
&n%: Monday, January 17, 2011 2:49 PM
To: 'Peter Saile'; 'Peter Saile'
Subje RE: Necessary Costs to do the building eprmit application
Peter:
In response to your email below. The minimum fee in order to proceed would be:
Professional fee earned to
date: $76,500.00
Unpaid reimbursable expenses invoiced to date:
579,52
Retainers for structural, mechanical, civil, electrical, plumbing engineers, lighting designer,
coastal engineer: $38,700.00
Total: $815,779.52
Please let me know your schedule.
LEI D BBILIMBOPJ &A
lEEa PiPD
PETER SAlLE
Chairman of the Board of Directors
ALTOS DEL MAR SCULPTURE PARK, 1W6.
a Florida not-for-profit Public Charity
7701 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, FL 33141
Phone 786-290-71 09
peter@altosdelmarsculpturepark.com
.altosdelmarsculpturepark.com
.admsp.com
g
City of Miami Beach
Members:
Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Alternate:
Commissioner Michael Gongora
Liaison:
Barbara Hawayek
City Hall
1700 Convention Center
Miami Beach, FL 331 39
May 04,201 1
Altos Del Mar Sculpturn Park ("AQUSP')
Request for extension of our building vml% benchmark of May q3,204 4
Dear Commissioners Libbin, Tobin, WeRhorn and Gongora,
Dear Ms. Hawayek,
Due to my absence from Miami Beach, I apologize that I am not able to join you at your
for ADMSP important commit&ee meeting on May 05,2010. I very much regret this, but I
was unable to change the dates of two related meetings on May 06, 209 1 in London and
May 07, 201 1 in Berlin.
ABMSP will be represented by its CEO, Marlene Saile, Esq. and its General Counsel,
]Isaac Jaroslawicm, Esq.
Requested exbmsion ame
We are requesting an extension for the building permit benchmark from the City of Miami
Beach from May 13,201 '1 to February 13,201 2.
It is important to know that this is our first extension request. That far, we have obsetved
all benchmarks in a timely manner. The extension to February 13, 2012 will still enable
us to open the Altos Del Mar Sculpture Park to the public on December 9, 2012, which
would be one year before the contractually agreed upon latest opening date.
Reasons for $Cse Extension
ADMSP has not yet applied for the building permit due to the fact that the engineering
has not been completed and parts of the archiiectural planning needs to be finalized,
which will take approximately two months from the time of pre-paying these serwices.
Because of this, we cannot come up with the, building permit by May '1 3, 201 1.
ADMSP expected committed pro bono engineering planning services, which, due to the
economic slow-down are no longer available on a pro bono base to us. We now have to
replace the expected pro-bono services with pre paid services for which we are currently
raising US$ 420,000. ADMSP was not prepared for the replacement of pro bono
services with fully paid services. That far, we have been fully concentrated on the
funding negotiations for the construction costs and the following operations capital costs.
Since we have presented to our potential sponsorship sources that we need their funds
exclusively for constmction costs and that we will need them not before we have
received the building permit from the City of Miami Beach, we decided not to approach
them with the request to finance the additional engineering costs too. We followed an
advice of our main brokerdfacilitators for the construction funding of $5 million, Lennox
Securities, Inc., and American Trust (CH) Inc. They advised us not to request
engineering costs from our potential construction funding sponsors, since this would
mean changing our ongoing application process for construction funding, which calls for
construction funding within four weeks from the date of obtaining the building permit..
We believe that a change in our already ongoing construction funding negotiations would
have worked against us regarding the solicitation of the large construction capital
sponsorship for $5 million.
Therefore, ADMSP had to look for other sources to secure the additional engineering
costs and is currently in the process of raising the not expected cash for the engineering
and funds for other sponsorship projects from Verimon, which we newly approached
without limitation on construction funding in April of 201 1. ADMSP is in good hopes that
Verizon may come up with a donation for the engineering planning costs in the second
half of May, 201 1. The Veriion proposal is being managed and presented to Verizon by
our director, Stevie Jackman, who, after thirty years of executive service at the Verizon
headquarters in New York, is now working as a facilitator of art sponsorship programs.
Stevie Jackman knows the ins and outs at Verizon's headquarters. The ADMSP
sponsorship proposal is currently for consideration on the desk of Verizon's CEO, Ivan
Seidenberg, 140 West Street 29 Flr., New York, NY 10007
All corporate departments involved in the decision making process have been addressed
as follows:
Community Relations
140 West Street
New York, NY 10007
The Verizon Foundation
140 West Street 16 Flr
New York, NIY 10007
Ann: Ms. Thalia Green
The Presidents Help Line
140 West Street 23 Flr
New York, NY 10007
ln\testor Relations
I Verizon Way
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1025
Lowell McAdam
1 Verizon Way
Basking Ridge, N4 07920-1025
Additionally, we are now also soliciting individual donors. The raising ~f this capital is
*
being handled by our director of development, Julie Miro, in conjunction with the
professional public charity developer, Ms. Karen Kintner.
FinalizaS~n of engineering plans
Once the capital for the engineering costs is in place, we trust that our engineers may be
able to finalize the plans in two to three months.
Funding in General
immediately after signing the management agreement in June of 2009, the donation
capital market started to weaken and individual donors started to carefully weigh how
much and to whom to provide donations. Health related public charities, water
sponsoring programs, crime prevention programs and pure social serwice programs
became the main beneficiaries of the majorly reduced amount of available yearly
donations. Additionally, the new federal US administration cut several benefits for donors
of public charities which, additionally to the lesser available donation capital, made it
much less unattractive to donate money.
The market changed so muck that seasoned donation developers requested a larger
pad of their income as fixed costs and a smaller part as success dependent
commissions. Prior to the change of the market it was the other way around, the major
income came from wmmissions. E.g., Mhur Hernandez, a man who has been in the
forefront of major sponsorship successes in Greater Miami, among other projects, he
was a pad of the Adrienne Arsht staff, would have only been able to solicit individual
donors for us if ADMSP would have carried a substantial part of his operational costs,
since the period of closing a sponsor had become substantially longer than in previously
better times. Since this all happened afier the signing of our agreement with the City, we
did not have the financial means yet to finance such substantial costs.
Construction Funding
ADMSP realized in the last quarter of 2009 that it would be better to work with large
institutional and corporate sponsors, which have different reasons than individual donors
to sponsor public charities such as:
Q Socia! impact on Miami Beach's Horn Beach
Q R'sghb to use the ADMSP logs and ma&s in local adve&islng and
marketing programs
4- Naming righb to &e di@emn% project pa*
4- Oacial pafiner saws of ADMSP
+ Comprehensive Markegng Campaigns u~~izipag ADMSP media, park
Ltsmndilsg opgo~uwities, promo~oraal assek and kaospl@llQ.
We started our new institutional solicitation with the Knights of Malta, got early on a
conditional commitment for the full funding of construction costs and operations costs
due to our expected major social impact on Miami Beach's North Beach. Unfortunately,
the representative for this program, Konstantine Skandalis, experienced internal
problems and retired from the MOA and unfortunately, with the retirement of the KOA
official, the entire funding program for ADMSP ended in June of 20110
After this experience, ADMSP represented by me teamed up with professional
investment bankers specialized in large funding projects and through them we got well
developing contacts to imporiant companies in different business areas. We feel
confident that we will get the funding for the construction, operations and the planned
endowment from one of the following sponsors.
Among our intended corporate sponsors for the $ 5 million construction funding are
companies such as Verkon, Coca Cola, Adidas, Arttrust Invest, Mlilmington Trust, CWII,
BW and Mercedes.
Our public image
ADMSP has developed into a respected and well organized community project with
many volunteers, with thousands of members from Florida, other US States and from
other countries at and people who provided and provide pro bono
sewices. This team, our board of directors and I appreciate your decision in favor of this
first request by ADMSP for an extension of time.
The extension is needed
The exlension request to February 13 is tightly c.alcurlated by our experts and represents
the minimum extra time we need. In my extension request to the City Manager I
observed the new schedule calculated by our planning experts.
Howsr, I wuld app~cieh i$ If you would consider to provide ADMSP with an
extension Gme for the building pernit benchmark to March 311, 2092, Sf you deem
*is to be accephble.
I am asking this due to the new information I have receiwed since I sent my request to
the City manager that the State building permit application period may take substantially
longer than the City building permit application. I want to make sure that ADMSP does
not become part of the group of other Miami Beach projects which have gotten multiple
extensions in the past. That's why a little bit more time will help.
Outlook
Should you have any question, I am always available to you upon my return from Europe
on May 12, 201 1 and any time through my internationally working voice mail system at
305-468-6168 or under my EU direct phone line at 01 1-49-174-275-2389.
I thank you for your understanding and cooperation. I assure you that my team and 1 will
do our absolutely best to develop and open ADMSP as planned.
At the end I want to express that I am sorry that our development at ADMSP is currently
slower than expected, but w, as many others, were not immune to the economic slow-
down and the taxation benefit changes in regards to donations, both of which we have
experienced since we signed the management agreement.
We are well on our way and are excited to open ADMSP almost one year earlier than
the agreed upon latest opening date in 2013.
Thank you for your attention and cooperation.
Chairman of ADMSP
ADMSP Revised Draft
6/30/11
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BEWEEN THE CIW OF
MIAMI BEACH AND ALTOS DEL MAR SCULPTURE PARK INC. FOR THE OPERATION OF
A SCULPTURE PARK IN ALTOS DEL MAW PARK PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS NO. 02-07/08
This Amendment No. 2, is made and executed as of this day of , 2011
(Effective Date), by and between the C1n OF MIAMI BEACH, a municipal corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida (the "City"), and ALTOS DEL MAW
SCULPTURE PARK, INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, whose principal office is located
at 7701 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida 33141 (the "ADMSP").
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, 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); and
WHEREAS, 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); and
WHEREAS, 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 for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of a cultural arts themed
program, to be known as the "Altos del Mar Sculpture Park" (the Agreement); and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2010, the City Commission approved Amendment No. 1 to the
Management Agreement, via Resolution No. 201 0-27371, which defined the "Possession Date,"
and further provided that ADMSP's obligations under the Agreement with respect to
maintenance and general liability coverage would not commence until such Possession Date;
and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2011, ADMSP requested that the City grant it an extension of
time to obtain a Full Building Permit for the Proposed Improvements (as said term is defined in
the Agreement), from May, 13, 201 1, to February 13, 2012, because it had not been able to
secure the necessary architectural and engineering (NE) services for design of such
improvements on a pro-bono basis, and would therefore have to raise funds to pay for such
services; and
WHEREAS, on May 4, 201 1, ADMSP submitted a letter to the City explaining in more
detail the reason for its extension request, and amended its original request (for time to obtain a
Full Building Permit) to March 31, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Neighborhoods and Community Affairs Committee reviewed ADMSP's
request at its May 5, 201 1 meeting, recommended in favor of granting the extension to March
31, 2012, and further recommended that ADMSP provide the City with proof that it had obtained
sufficient funds to pay for the required NE services by no later than September 14, 201 1; and
ADMSP Revised Draft
6/30/11
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the City's consent to ADMSP's request for the aforestated
extension of time, ADMSP hereby acknowledges and agrees that the Premises upon which the
Sculpture Park is to be situated constitute valuable public park property; therefore, it is
imperative that ADMSP develop the Sculpture Park (and design and construct the Proposed
Improvements) in a timely, diligent, and expeditious manner, so as not to "tie-up" said property,
nor potentially impair or infringe the public's unfettered right to use same in the future (should
the development of the Sculpture Park be unduly delayed, or should it not proceed at all); and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the City and ADMSP have negotiated the following
Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement, which grants ADMSP an extension of time within which to
obtain its final Full Building Permit, subject to the additional conditions below, which conditions
the parties deem to be in the best interest of the City, and of the public, in order to continue to
ensure the timely, continuous development of the proposed Sculpture Park project.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises, covenants and
agreements herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, in receipt and
adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged and intending to be legally bound, the City and
Concessionaire hereby amend the Agreement as follows:
1. The above Recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
2. Section 9.7.8.1, of the Agreement, entitled "Construction
CommencementlADMSP's Right to Terminate", is amended as follows:
9.7.8
Possession Bate.
9.7.8.1 As a condition precedent to ADMSP's commencement of construction of
the Proposed Improvements, ADMSP shall, on or before September 14, 2811,
provide evidence, reasonably satisfactory to the City Commission, that it has
secured the necessary funding (which funding must be readily accessible and
available to ADMSP on or before September 14, 2011) for the required
architecturallengineering services (the NE services) for design and development
Agreement.
For purposes of compliance with the aforestated condition, the term "necessary
funding" shall mean unencumbered funds, in the minimum amount of $120,000
(which is the estimated amount, as of the Effective Date, that ADMSP has
represented to City that the required NE services will cost). Further, for
purposes of compliance with this requirement, "evidence reasonably satisfactory
to the City Commission," shall, at a minimum, require that ADMSP provide the
following proof to the City Commission, which proof shall be submitted to the City
(gb) evidence that ADMSP has deposited the necessary funding in a separate
ADMSP Revised Draft
6/30/11
account in a federally insured banking or lending institution,
(licensed and certified to practice in Florida), for the required NE services. In
order to verify ADMSP's compliance with the aforestated conditions, the City
As a further condition precedent to commencement of construction, ADMSP shall
obtain a final Full Building Permit for the Proposal lmprovements by March 31,
I 2812. Should ADMSP be responsible for a fFailure to do so, this shall constitute
a default under this Agreement. No later than thirty (30) days after ADMSP
receives its final Full Building Permit for construction of the Proposed
Improvements, ADMSP shall provide evidence, reasonably satisfactory to the
City Manager or his designee (who may be the City's Chief Financial Officer),
regarding ADMSP's source(s) of funding for construction of the Proposed
lmprovements (as approved and permitted by City, and in such amount(s) equal
to the anticipated final cost of completion, estimated as of the date of issuance of
the Building Permit). Failure to do so shall constitute a default under this
Agreement. Such evidence shall include, at a minimum, an itemized statement
detailing the source andlor sources (with corresponding amounts) of funds for
documentation.
In addition to the above, ADMSP shall not commence construction of the
Proposed lmprovements unless and until (a) ADMSP shall have obtained and
delivered to City copies of all final permits and approvals required to commence
construction; (b) ADMSP shall have delivered to City original certificates of the
policies of insurance required to be carried by ADMSP's contractor(s) (in
accordance with the requirements set forth in Exhibit ""J" attached hereto); and
(c) ADMSP shall have obtained and furnished to City a payment and
performance bond from ADMSP's general contractor (the Payment and
Performance Bond), in a form reasonably acceptable to City, issued by a surety
listed in the most recent U.S. Dept. of Treasury listing of approved sureties,
guaranteeing the performance by the general contractor for construction of the
Proposed Improvements. The City of Miami Beach, Florida, shall be named as a
dual obligee under the Payment and Performance Bond.
The City (acting solely in its proprietary and not in its regulatory capacity) shall
reasonably cooperate with ADMSP in obtaining the permits and approvals
required to construct the Proposed Improvements; shall sign any application
reasonably made by ADMSP that is required in order to obtain such permits and
approvals; and shall provide ADMSP with any information andlor documentation
not otherwise reasonably available to ADMSP (if available to City) that is
ADMSP Revised Draft
6/30/11
necessary to procure such permits and approvals. Any such accommodation by
City shall be without prejudice to, and shall not constitute a waiver of, City's rights
to exercise its discretion in connection with its regulatory functions.
Possession Date. Upon ADMSP's satisfaction of all conditions precedent to
commencement of construction (as set forth in this Section 9.7.8.1), within the
required time periods (as also set forth in this Section 9.7.8.1), ADMSP shall
provide written notice of same to the City Manager, by hand delivery or certified
mail, return receipt requested. No later than sixty (60) business days after receipt
of ADMSP's notice and, provided that the City Manager determines and is
reasonably satisfied that ADMSP has complied with all conditions precedent to
commencement of construction, the City Manager shall provide ADMSP with
written notice of same (the City's Notice) and shall, as of the date set forth in the
City's Notice (which date shall be referred to as the "Possession Date"), permit
ADMSP to enter upon and utilize the Premises in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Agreement (including, without limitation, the objectives and
approved uses set forth in the Agreement).
3. General Release. By execution hereof, ADMSP for itself and its officers,
directors, shareholders and principals, and Peter Saile and Marlene Saile, each individually (all
of the foregoing "Releasors"), hereby fully and unconditionally release the City of Miami Beach
and its commissioners, employees, administrative executives, staff, and attorneys, and their
respective successors and assigns ("Releasees") from any and all manner of actions, causes of
action, contracts, agreements, covenants, controversies, claims, and demands whatsoever,
whether legal or equitable, known or unknown, fixed or contingent, relating to the Agreement
(including any and all amendments thereto) andlor the Premises, from the beginning of the
world until the Effective Date of this Amendment No. 2. The provisions of this Section 2 shall
survive any termination or expiration of the Agreement
4. No Further Modifications. Except as provided in this Amendment No. 2, the
Agreement remains unmodified and in full force and effect.
IN WITMESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been duly executed by the parties
hereto as of the day and year first above written.
ATTEST: CIW OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
City Clerk Mayor
day of ,2011.
ALTOS DEL MAR SCULPTURE PARK, INC.
ATTEST:
President
Secretary Marlene Saile, Ess.
Dr. Anthonv M. Weaver
Print Name
ADMSP Revised Draft
6/3Q/11
day of ,201 1
F:\INFO\$ALLWlax\TCD\Altos Del Mar Sculpture ParkWDMSP Amendment No 2.doc
RESOLUTIONS TO BE SUBMITTED
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Ciw @f Miami Beech, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, ymw.miarnibeuchfl.oov
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, Robert Parcher, City Clerk
Tel: (305) 673-741 1, Fax: (305) 673-7254
COMMISSION MEMOBANDUM
To: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
From: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
Date: July 13, 201 1
Subiect: BOARD AND COMMITEES
ADMINBSTMTION 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.
VACANCIES
BOARD OW COMMITTEE: TOTAL MBRS. APPOINTED BY: TOTAL VAC PAGE
Affordable Housing Advisory 11 City Commission
Committee
9 Page I
Capital Improvements Projects 9 City Commission
Oversight Committee
Community Development Advisory 14 Commissioner Deede Weithorn 1 Page 11
Committee Commissioner Jonah M. Wolfson 1
Commissioner Michael Gongora 1
Community Relations Board 17 Commissioner Jerry Libbin 1 Page 12
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager 1
Debarment Committee 7 Mayor Matti Herrera Bower 1 Page 15
Agenda Item R9
We are committed to providing excellent public service and safe?. to all who live, work and play ir Date 7-13-I1
61 5
VACANCIES
BOARD OW COMMITTEE: TOTAL MBRS. APPOINTED BY: TOTAL VAC PAGE
Design Review Board 7 City Commission 1 Page 16
Fine Arts Board 14 Commissioner Ed Tobin 1 Page 18
Hispanic Affairs Committee 7 Mayor Matti Herrera Bower 1 page 23
Miami Beach Commission For 21 Commissioner Deede Weithorn 1 Page 28
Women Commissioner Jerry Libbin 1
Commissioner Jonah M. Wolfson 1
Commissioner Jorge Exposito 1
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
Visitor and Convention Authority 7 City Commission 1 page 45
Youth Center Advisory Board 10 Commissioner Ed Tobin 1 page 47
Attached is breakdown by Commissioner or City Commission:
City Commission Committees
Finance & Citywide Projects Committee
Chairperson Commissioner Deede Weithorn Mayor Bower
Vice-Chair Commissioner Jorge Exposito Mayor Bower
Member Commissioner Jonah Wolfson Mayor Bower
Alternate Commissioner Edward L. Tobin Mayor Bower
Liaison Patricia Walker, Chief Financial Off.
band Use & Development Committee
Chairperson Commissioner Jonah Wolfson Mayor Bower
Vice-Chair Commissioner Michael Gongora Mayor Bower
Member Commissioner Jorge Exposito Mayor Bower
Alternate Commissioner Jerry Libbin Mayor Bower
Liaison Richard Lorber, Acting Planning Dir
NeighborhoodslCommuni~ Affairs Committee
Chairperson Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Vice-Chair Commissioner Jerry Libbin
Member Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Alternate Commissioner Michael Gongora
Liaison Barbara Hawayek, Building Depart
Mayor Bower
Mayor Bower
Mayor Bower
Mayor Bower
Monday, June 20,201 1 Page 1 of 1
NON-CITY COMMlSSlON COMMITTEES
Ricky Arriola
The Adrienne Assht Center for the Pedorming Ads Center Trust
Mayor Maai Hersera Bower
Citizen" Overnight Committee
Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau
Tourist DeveBopment Council
Hilda Fernandez, Asst. CM.
Miami-Dade Counfil Homeiess Trust Board
Mitche81 Maplan
PeHorming A~s Center Trust (PACT)
Commissioner Bobin
MetropoBltan Planning Organization
Vacant Vacant Vacant
Dads Cultural Aillam
Commissioner Weithorn
Miami Dade League of Cities
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 City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalem, City Manager
DATE: July 13, 201 1 @
SUBJECT: BOARD AND COMMITTEE APPOBNTMENE - CITY COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Make appointments as indicated.
BOARDS AND COMMITTEES
1. Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
2. Capital Improvements Projects Oversight Committee
3. Design Review Board
4. Visitor and Convention Authority
Agenda Item Rq A\
F:\CLER\$ALL\MARIA-M\B & C\Commission Memo B L C FOR 07-13-1 1 .doc Date 7-13-1 1
61 9
Board and Committees Carrent Members
Affordable Houshg Advisory Co Sec. 2-1 67
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 serving 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
Vaca~acy :
To replace
Stephanie Berrnan
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 Bl 12/31/2012 City Commission
(8) Local Planning Boar 12/31/2012 City Commission
(6) Not For Profit 12/31/2012 City Commission
(10) Rep. Empl. withlju 12/31/2011 City Commission
(4) Low-Income Advoc. 12/31/2011 City Commission
(1) Res. Home Bldg. 12/31/2012 City Commission
(1 1) Rep. Essential Serv 12/31/2011 City Commission
(5) For Profit 12/31/2012 City Commission
(2) BankinglMortgage 12/31/2012 City Commission
Members :
Name Last Name Position/Ti&Se Term Ends: Appointed by: Term Limit:
- - .--.
---PmS%*n--*---- ---%&bP%----mM--m
&ionday, j- Page I of47
Board and Committees Current Members
Clark Reynolds (9) Res. Juris. Local Gvt 12/31/2011 City Commission 1 2/31 11 3
Michael Burnstine (7) Real Estate Prof. 12/31 1201 1 City Commission 1 2/31 11 3
Applicants Position/Title Applicants PositionRitle
Amy Perry
Arian Adorno
Dr. Barry Ragone
Marie Towers
Robefio DaTorre
Andrew Fischer
Charles Urstadt
Karen Fryd
Mark Wohl
Steven Gonzalez
e-----"m-P,--*~~m.,--v -.m-m~--~*~w--amM-a*------~-~~ -.z-,---.-.
Monday, June 20,2011 Page 2 of 47
Board and Committees Current Members
Capital hprovements Projects Oversi&t Co 2-1 90-1 27
Composition:
The Capital improvement projects oversight committee shall consist of nine (9) voting members, eight
(8) of whom shall be appointed by the city commission as a whole (at-large-appointees). The
membership of the committee shall further be comprised as follows:
1. The mayor or his/her designee, who shall sit as a voting member of the committee, and shall also
serve as chair person of the committee;
2. At least two (2) members shall be selected with experience in one of the following technical fields:
a. engineering;
b. architecture and/or landscape architecture; or historic preservation;
3. At least two (2) members shall be selected with experience in one of the following technical fields:
a. construction/general contractor; or
b. developer;
4. Two (2) members shall be selected with experience in the following technical field and/or the
following category:
a. capital budgeting and/or finance; or
b. citizen-at-large; and
5. The remaining two (2) members shall be selected from any of the technical experience categories
set forth in subsections (2) or (3) above.
City Liaison: Jorge Gomez
Vacancy:
To replace Fred (C3) Developer 12/31/2011 City Commission
Karlton
Members:
Name East Name PaasitionEitle Term Ends: Appointed by: Term Limit:
Christina
Dwight
Eleanor
Elizabeth
Richard (Rick)
Saul
Stacy
Tony
Cuewo
Kraai
Carney
Camargo
Kendle
Gross
Kilroy
Trujillo
(C5) Developer
(2) Engineer
(C4) At-large
(CZ) Architect
(C5) Engineer
(1) Mayor Designee
(C3) ConsffGen Contractor
(C4) Cap.BudglFinance
City Commission
City Commission
City Commission
City Commission
City Commission
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower
City Commission
City Commission
Positionmitle Applicants Position/Title
Christian Folland
Gerhard Rirna lvette Isabel Borrello
James Lloyd Jason Green
Josh Girnelstein Michael Laas
Rima Gerhard
----w-,- -_(s.rw*-m w --mM&*-P--U--m__ w,---T--~.~~--jl-.--~s~~,w--m
Monday, June 20,2011 Page 7of47
Board and Committees Current Members
Design Review Bomd Sec. 11 8.71
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 12/31/2012 City Commission
Laas
Members:
Name Last Name PositionEitle Term Ends: Appointed by: Term Limit:
. . -- - - - - - .- -. - .. - . -. - -
Carol Housen At-large 12/31/2012 City Commission 12/31 11 6
Gabrielle Redfem At-large TL 12/31 1201 1 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31/1 I
Jason Hagopian Registered Architect 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31/15
Lilia Medina Urban Planner 12/31/2012 City Commission 12/31 11 5
Seraj Saba Landscape Architect 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31/1 3
Thomas DeLuca Reg. Architect TL12/31/2011 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31/1 I
Gary Held advisorylcity Attorney Designee
Richard Lorber advisory/Acting Planning Director
Vacant ex-offiao/Disability Access Committee
Applicants
- - -
Beth Dunlop
Elizabeth Camargo
Jane Gross
Judy Schottenstein
Leonard Wien, Jr.
Pamela Palma
Position~itle Applicants
Daniel Garcia
Gilbert Squires
Jessica Conn
Larkin Menezes
Leslie Tobin
Scott Needelman
rI'Um~_A_m-.-e~~~--.--m-~~.-<-~a.-~- m---_lm_.P_ XI- --m~--wm~-v-?-w m"Mm--
Monday, June 20,2011 Page 16of47
Board and Committees Current Members
Visitor and Convention Authority Sec. 102-246
Composition:
Two (2) year term. Appointed by a minimum of 4 votes.
Seven (7) member who shall be permanent residents of Miami-Dade County.
The seven (7) members of the authority shall be representative of the community as follows:
1) Not less than two (2) nor more than three (3) members shall be representative of the hotel
industry;
2) and the remaining members none of whom shall be representative of the hotel industry, shall
represent the community at-large. Any member of the authority or employee therefore violating or
failing to comply with provisions of this article shall be deem to have vacated his office or position.
City Liaison: Grisette Roque.
Vacancy:
To replace At-large
Deborah Castillo
12/31/2012 City Commission
Members:
Name Last Name PositionBitle Term Ends: Appointed by:
-- - Te~m Limit:
Elsie Sterling Howard At-large TL 12/31/2011 12/31/2012 City Commission 1213111 1
Jaqueline Hertz At-large 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31 /I 3
Jeff Lehman Hotel Industry 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31 /I 3
Keith Menin Hotel Industry 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31/15
Micky Ross Steinberg At-large 12/31/2011 City Commission 12/31/15
Steven Adkins At-large 12/31/2012 City Commission 12/31/14
Applicants PositionlTitle Applicants Positionmitle
Aaron Perry Calvin Kohli
Christopher Todd Diana Fontani Martinez
Eric Lawrence Frank Kruszewski
Frank Kruszewski George Castillo
Harold Foster lleana Bravo-Gordon
James Lloyd Jeffrey Graff
Joy Malakoff Leif Bertrand
Margaret (Peggy) Benua Mark Tamis
Merle Weiss Mykel (Michael) Tulloch
Natalia Datorre Prakash Kumar
Zahara Mossman
P.Pm.9a.P
Tuesday, July 05,2011 Page 45 of4 7
VISITOR AND /'\.A 1 A /\./\ 1 CONVENTION p .- " kt ,. 1-4 g * +'+& F6 LJ &, .J<-I\, . ! i AUTHORITY
July 5, 2011
Mayor and Commission
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Dear Mayor and Commission:
Last week Miami Beach Visitor and Convention Authority (MBVCA) Board Member Deborah Castillo resigned from the
MBVCA. We know that the Commission is in hiatus in August, but we hope that you will consider making an
appointment to the MBVCA Board during the July Commission meeting.
Ms. Castillo's vacancy may be filled by either a hotelier or a community at large category as stated in Item 20 (b) of
Section 2-22, Article Ill.-Agencies, Boards and Committee, Division 1 of the City of Miami Beach Code "Notwithstanding
the above, with regard to the City of Miami Beach Visitor and Convention Authority, any vacancy remaining after city
commission appointments under the established categories may be filled by applicants from either or both (combined)
the "hotel industry" category or "community at large" category."
For your consideration, we are providing an updated and complete list of several individuals, in alphabetical order, any
of whom would be valuable additions to our Board, based on their individual understanding of tourism opportunities
and issues in Miami Beach, reputations for responsible commitment and demonstrated volunteer leadership. Recruiting
a knowledgeable marketer and community leader is critical to the success of both the MBVCA grant programs and the
new initiatives underway.
Peggy Benlsa (Hotelier) is the General Manager of the Dream South Beach Hotel. Peggy has 20 years of experience in the
hospitality industry, joining Marriott in 2000 as Resident Manager at the Eden Roc Renaissance.
Karen Brown (Hotelier) has spent the last 19 years working in the Hospitality Industry in South Florida focusing on Sales
and Marketing and most recently Operations. She has integrated social and community responsibility both personally
and professionally for the last fifteen years in Miami Beach. Currently she is the General Manager at The Angler's
Boutique Resort, a luxury boutique hotel where she has worked for over 4 years.
Eric Lawrence (Hotelier has over 17 year's experience in the real estate and hospitality industries. He is the owner of the
Anglers Boutique Resort Hotel. Eric purchased this abandoned and dilapidated property in 2005 and developed the
property, adding two new building to the Anglers Campus. He also restored the two original 1930 Anglers buildings back
to its original 1930 condition. The Anglers won several accolades for superior design and restoration, and earned the
2007 Dade Heritage Trust Most Outstanding Restoration project.
Aaron Perry (At-Large), former chairman of Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce and now currently managing partner
of Sobol-Perry Fashion Productions Inc., focuses on the development of strategic business partnerships and the global
expansion of the Miami Beach International Fashion Week brand.
777 17th Street Suite 402A r Miami Beach, Florida 33139 www.miarnibeachvca.com Tel: 305-673-7050 Fax: 305-673-7282
625
Ed Ponder (Hotelier) currently serves as the Chief Concierge of the Betsy Hotel in Miami Beach. Ed has been the
recipient of several awards for concierge service and community involvement and immediate Past-President (1999-
2002; 2004-2006) of the Southern Florida Concierge Association (SFCA) increasing the SFCA is visibility, community
involvement and membership from Key West to Palm Beach.
The MBVCA continues to have a significant commitment to tourism and tourist-related issues in Miami Beach; recruiting
knowledgeable and experienced members to our Board is critical.
We are available to answer any questions, when and if they arise.
Thank you for your attention.
Elsie ~terlini Howard
Chairperson
Cc: Robert Parcher, City Clerk
MBVCA Board Members
Harold Rosen, Esq.
Peggy Benua (Hotelier) is the General Manager of the Dream South Beach Hotel. Peggy has 20 years of experience in the
hospitality industry, joining Marriott in 2000 as Resident Manager at the Eden Roc Renaissance. After completing her
Management Training program with In Sheraton, she held various Rooms Operations positions in San Diego and Los
Angeles area Sheraton Hotels, including the Sheraton LAX and the Sheraton Grand, part of the In Sheraton Luxury
Collection. Prior to joining Marriott, Peggy was Hotel Manager at Le Wleridien Dallas from 1994 to 1999.
Peggy earned her BFA in the University of North Florida, where she graduated cum laude, and obtained her Master's in
Hotel and Food Service Management from Florida International University. When not working, she enjoys outdoor
sports, such as running, cycling and diving.
Karen Brown (Hotelier) has spent the last 19 years working in the Hospitality Industry in South Florida focusing on Sales
and Marketing and most recently Operations. She has integrated social and community responsibility both personally
and professionally for the last fifteen years in Miami Beach. Currently she is the General Manager at The Angler's
Boutique Resort, a luxury boutique hotel where she has worked for over 4 years. She has worked to create a sense of
community working with city officials and neighbors to increase awareness of the hotel as a supportive member of the
area and neighborhood.
She is also quite active in the facilitation of the hotels Social Media campaigns. Karen was Vice President of Sales and
Marketing for Boutique Hospitality Management which managed/consulted properties in cities such as South Beach, Ft.
Lauderdale, Atlanta, New York and Dominica. BHM managed The Angler's prior to her appointment as GM.
Before the Angler's Karen was Director of Sales at the beloved Abbey Hotel for 5 years and previously at Island Outpost
representing 6 properties on Miami Beach for Entertainment Sales. Over the last 19 years she has worked with the
GMCVB and has supported the VCA through backing of the arts and culture events where provision of hotel rooms and
the letters to support them were a key element to the success of several programs.
A resident of Miami Beach for over 15 years, Karen has worked to support her city through volunteerism and
participation of various entities such as Dade Community Foundation, GMCVB Gay & Lesbian Travel Committee, AQUA
Girl, Aids Walk, White Party, Winter Party, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, Miami Beach Gay & Lesbian Film Festival,
IGLTA (International Gay & Lesbian Travel Association, Ability Explosion and Miami Beach Gay Pride as Entertainment
Committee member and then Chair in 2011. She is currently an active member, appointed by Mayor Bower, of the City
of Miami Beach GLBT Business Enhancement Committee. Across the bay in Miami she has worked to bring awareness to
the struggle of young women exiting the foster care system by her volunteer work with Casa Valentina. She is a member
of the Miami Beach Community Church.
She happily worked on Sweet Charity, the blueprint for Aqua Girl and has participated either as a committee member or
volunteer since the inception of Aqua Girl and was named Aqua Foundation Volunteer of the Year in 2007. Karen is best
known locally as the co-emcee of the annual Aqua Girl Comedy Show and most recently as co-emcee for the inaugural
Miami Beach Gay Pride 2009 and again in 2011.
Ms. Brown has theatre degrees from both Florida State University (B.A. with Minor in Communications) and also Miami
Dade College in Miami. She likes travel, cooking, music, cultural arts, fishing, entertaining, dining out, and spending
precious time with family and friends. She has a cat named Petra.
Eric Lawrence (Hotelier) has over 17 year's experience in the real estate and hospitality industries. He is the owner of
the Anglers Boutique Resort Hotel. Eric purchased this abandoned and dilapidated property in 2005 and developed the
property, adding two new building to the Anglers Campus. He also restored the two original 1930 Anglers buildings back
to its original 1930 condition. The Anglers won several accolades for superior design and restoration, and earned the
2007 Dade Heritage Trust Most Outstanding Restoration project.
Since 2005, Eric has owned, developed and consulted on the several hospitality and multifamily properties. He has
extensive experience advising lending institutions on distressed hospitality assets throughout South Florida.
Prior to 2005, Eric was Asset Manager and V.P. of Acquisitions for Ty Warner Hotels and Resorts (TWHR). During his 8-
year tenure at WHR, Eric was responsible for the due diligence and eventual acquisition of the Four Seasons Hotel New
York. While Eric performed Asset Manger responsibilities at the Four Season N.Y. hotel, he directed the acquisition of
several other 'trophy' properties of TWHR, including 'Four Seasons Biltmore Hotel' (Santa Barbara, Ca), 'The San Ysidro
Ranch' (Montecito, CA.), Kona Village (Kona, HI.), Las Ventanas (Mexico), Montecito Country Club (Montecito, CA.) and
Sandpiper Golf course (Goleta C.A.). Additionally, Eric was the project manager responsible for room's renovations at
several TWHR properties. Eric credits his experiences at TWHR in developing his passion for hospitality. It was the first
time in his career where he was able to go 'beyond the numbers' and merge his intensive analytical skills while learning
the 'art of hospitality' from the founder and Chief Executives of Four Seasons, Rosewood and Ty Warner.
Eric spent the year prior to his tenure at TWHR working for JRM Development, a boutique real estate investment firm as
controller and Senior Analyst. Prior to Eric's experience at JRM, he was the controller for over three years at Castro-
Blanco, Piscioneri and Associates, a medium sized (60-person) architectural firm.
Eric started his career in public accounting at KPMG Peat Marwick, where he was a junior auditor working in the Real
Estate Group. After over a year at KPMG, Eric worked at David Berdon, another public accounting firm, in their real
estate division. Eric's almost three year start in public accounting was the beginning of his passion for real estate and
hospitality.
Eric earned his M.S. in Real Estate Investment at New York University (8102). He is a graduate of the City of Miami Beach
leadership academy. He is active in the Flamingo Park and Washington Avenue neighborhood Associations. Eric also
served on the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce Pillar Board. Eric spent over three years on the City of Miami Beach
Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) and currently serves on the City's Loan Review Committee. Eric
was also member of the Hospitality Asset Managers Association (HAMA) and Associate Member of the N.Y. State Society
of Certified Public Accountants.
Eric lived in New York, but had family living in Miami Beach all his life and considered Miami Beach his second home.
Finally, Eric and his wife Susan moved down to Miami Beach over six years ago and now considers Miami Beach home.
Eric is an avid (yet very mediocre) golfer and enjoys walking his two miniature dachshunds, traveling, spending time at
the beach, playing drums, cooking and volunteering as a marshal at pro golf tournaments (Doral and Miccosukee).
Aaron Perry (At-large), former chairman of Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce and now currently managing partner
of Sobol-Perry Fashion Productions Inc., focuses on the development of strategic business partnerships and the global
expansion of the Miami Beach lnternational Fashion Week brand. He is currently spearheading efforts to add a trade
show component to Miami Beach lnternational Fashion Week as well as other new shows including Miami Beach
lnternational Wedding Week which launches November 26,2011.
Aaron is the immediate past Chairman of the Board of the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce and continues to serve
as its senior vice chair. Recently, the Aaron B. Perry Innovation in Business Award was created by the Miami Beach
Chamber to recognize Aaron's accomplishments during his term. This annual award honors a business leader who has
used creative tactics to help lead their organization down a road to success.
Aaron also serves as president of Reputation Protection Group, a web based company focused on online reputation
management. His experience also includes a 13 year career working with Gulfstream Park Racing & Casino, most
recently as its vice president of strategic development and marketing and as a consultant to the holding company.
In 2010, Aaron oversaw the formation of a partnership with Community Newspapers and the Miami Beach Chamber of
Commerce to create the Miami Beach News, a bi-weekly publication serving the citizens and business community on
Miami Beach. Aaron continues to serve as the chairman of the editorial committee.
Aaron has three children and is married to Amy Perry, Senior Vice President & Chief Operating Officer at Mount Sinai
Medical Center.
Ed Ponder (Hotelier) currently serves as the Chief Concierge of the Betsy Hotel in Miami Beach. Ed has been the
recipient of several awards for concierge service and community involvement and immediate Past-President (1999-
2002; 2004-2006) of the Southern Florida Concierge Association (SFCA) increasing the SFCA is visibility, community
involvement and membership from Key West to Palm Beach. Ed is often sought for his insight and expertise on visitor
preferences and trends.
Ed's professional experience includes over twenty years in luxury and convention hotels. He has served on the Greater
Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau's (GMCVB) Marketing Committee, The Homestead Speedway's Roundtable,
Miami-Dade County's Taxicab Advisory Group (TAG), Miami Beach's Black Host Committee and Miami International
Airport's Customer Service Task Force. Mr. Ponder was born and educated in Miami.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFWLAMK
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION
TO: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
FROM: Matti Herrera Bower, Mayor bJ& &H~
DATE: June 3,201 1
SUBJECT: Consent Agenda Item: Reappointment to the Performing Arts Trust
Please place on the July 13,201 1 Commission meeting agenda my nomination of Richard Milstein
as one of the city's representatives to the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts Center
Trust. His bio is attached.
I thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to contact Rebecca Wakefield at extension 61 57.
Thank you.
We ore cornrni//ed lo providing excellen/ public service ond sofe/y lo all who live, work, and ploy in o
Agenda Item R9 b -
Date 7-13-//
RICHARD C. MILSTEIN
RESIDENCE: BUSINESS:
2505 Flamingo Place Akennan Senterfitt
Miami Beach, FL 33 140 One S.E. Third Avenue, 25''' Floor
(305) 534-7393 Miami, Florida 33 13 1-1704
(305) 374-5600
(305) 982-5607 [direct line]
(305) 349-48 16 [direct fax]
richard.milstein@akennan.coin
EDUCATION
LAW SCHOOL: University of Miami - J.D., December, 1973
UNDERGUDUATE: University of Miaini - A.B., cuin laude, 1968
Miami-Dade College - A.A. (honors), 1966
Ammm SENTEWSFITT - May, 1990 - Current
Private Client Group with emphasis in fiduciary litigation and administration
(probate, guardianship, and trust), estate and life planning, elder law, and family
law.
TESCHER %c MKSTEllIa7, P.A. - August, 1983 - April 30,1990
AUGUST, POHLIG $r MILSTEIN, P.A. - February, 1974 - July, 1983
(and its predecessors)
mMITTED TO PWCTICE:
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT - 1977
UNITED STATES FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS - 1974
UNITED STATES ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS - 1981
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
FLORIDA - Trial Bar - 1974
FLORIDA COURTS - All Levels - 1974
CERTIFBD MEDMTOR:
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Florida Circuit Courts - general civil
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
COMMITTEES TIIROUGH ADMIEVISTMTIVE ORDER
Judicial Appointment Selection Committee, 2005 - current
Guardianship Examining Coin~nittee Report Co~n~nittee, Chair - 2006 -
2007
BenchIBar Coin~nittee oil Judicial Attorney Appoinlments, Chair 1992-
1994
Public Guardianship Selectioil Comnlittee, 1990-1 99 1
General Master Selection Committee, 1990-1 991
Guardianship Law Implementation Committee, 1988-1 989
ProbateIGuardiar~ship Liaison Coimnittee, 1986-1 99 1
ProbateIGuardiansbip Project Coinmittee, 1982-1 954
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER - 1984- 1990
CITIZENS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT CENTER - Eleventh Judicial Circuit -
Voluilteer Mediator , 1978-1 983
BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS
AMEMCAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Representative to the House of Delegates, 1990-1 993
Coinmercial Litigation, Farnily Law, and Real Property,
Probate and Trust Law Sections
Elder Law Section, 1 99 1 - current
Chair, 1996-1 997
Elder Law Certification Coinmittee - 1997 - 1999 (Chair), 2002 - 2007
Council of Sections
Chair, 2004
Representative for the Elder Law Section, 1990- 2005
Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section
Probate Law Coinmittee, 1993 - 2004.2006 - current
Guardianship and Durable Power of Attorney Coinmittee, 1997 - current
ProbateIGuardianship Rules Committee, 1991 - 2004,2006 - current
Long Range Planning Committee, 1993 - 1995
Fa~nil y Law Section
All Bar Conference Representative, 2004 -2006
Special Coinlnittee on Professionalism, 1990 - 1992
Cominission on the Legal Needs of Children, 1999 - 2003
Committee on the Legal Needs of Children, 2003 - Current
Supreme Court Coillillission on Fairness - Guardianship Monitoring
Subcoinittee, 1999 - 2003
DADE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
President, 1988-1 989
Director and Officer, 1980-1989
Delegate to American Bar Associatio~l I-Iouse of Delegates, 1990-1 993
Committees:
By-Law Committee, 1985-1 990, 1993 - 2001
Executive Board, 1981-1 989
Building Committee, Chair, 1 987- 1991
Mediation Committee, 1988 - 2004
Membership Committee, Co-Chair, 1999 - 2003
Probate and Guardianship Committee, 1984 - Current
Judicial Attorney Selection Cominittee, Chair, 1ncel)tion to Date
Elder Law Committee, Chair, 1992 - Current
public Relations Committee, 1993-1 995
Elections Committee, 1983-1 985
Leadership Cominittee, 1980- 1985
Public Interest Law Bank (established first pro bono staffed
panel), 1981-1985
Put Sometl~ing Back Pro Bono Panel - Founder
HIVIAIDS Panel - Founder
Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts - Founder
Lawyers for the Arts Committee, Chair - Co-Founder
YOUNG LAWEWS SECTION OF DADE COUNTY BAlfP ASSOCMTION
Director, 1979-1 98 1
Community Relations Committee, Chairman 1980- 198 1
Legal Information Centers, Law Day, Chairman 1979-1982
AmMCm COLLEM OF TRUST AND ESTATE COKJNSEL
Member, 1 993 - Current
Elder Law Committee, 1998 - 2001,2004 - 2008
Fiduciary Litigation Committee, 2004 - 2008
NATIONAL COLLEGE OF PROBATE WDGES
Member, 2005 - current
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ELDER LAW
Member, 1990 - Current
DADE COUNTY TMAL LAWYERS ASSOChTION
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION FOR WOMEN LAWEIRS - Dade County Chapter
SOUTH PLOWIDA GUAWIANSHIP ASSOCIATION - Dade County Chapter,
1999 - Cull-ent
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE AGING, INC.
IFlLORIDA GUARDIANSHIP FOUNDATION
CUBAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
I SOUTH FLORIDA INTER-PROFESSIONAL COUNCIL, INC. (1 98 1-1 988)
i President, 1986-1 987
i Officer, 1983-1988
PARTNERS FOR PROFESSIONALISM,
Dade County Bar Association and University of Miarni Law School
Founding Co-Chair, 1988-1 989
PROFESSIONAL SPEAWNG ENGAGEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE FLORIDA BAR
Topics
Probate and Guardianship Litigation
Probate and Guardianship Administration
Guardianship Law
Elder Law Litigation
Elder Law Estate Planning
Ethics and Professionalism
Probate Estate and Guardianship Issues
The Ethical Responsibilities of the Court Appointed Attorney
Professionalism in High Profile Cases
Venues .
University of Miami Law School
Stetson Law School
American Bar Association
Litigation Section
Torts Litigation Section
National Association of Elder Law Attorneys
American College of Trust and Estate Counsel
Concerned Matrimonial Lawyers of Dade County, Inc.
Probate and Guardianship Seminar
National Association of Special Needs Planners
South Florida Guardianship Association
Florida Institute of CPA
Dade County Bar Association
Miami Beach Bar Association
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
DADE COMMUNITY FOUNDPa"rl[ON, INC.
Board of Directors, 1999- Current
Chair, 2004 - Current
PERFORMING ARTS CENTER TRUST, PNC.
Board of Directors, 2007- Current
Counsel (Pro Bono), 2001 - 2007
Committees, 1998 - 2000
Governance Com~riittee, 199 1- 1993
CITY OF MIAMI
Civilian Investigative Panel Nominating Committee, 2002 - 2003
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Appointed by Mayor Seymour Gelber to Transition Team, 1992-1 996
CitizensIPolice Relations Subcommittee - Chair , 1992-1994
Mayor and Comnission Appointment
Growth and Development Committee
Quality of Life Subcoinmittee
METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY CULTUWL AFFAmS COUNCIL
Coinmission Appointment, 1986-1 99 1
Vice-Chairman, 1987- 1991
OPEMTION SAIFEBRM, WC.
SecretaryITreasurer, 1988 - 1999
MIAMI COALITION FOR A DRUG PIWEE CO
Director, 1988-1 995
BASS MUSEUM
Advisory Board, 1990-1 992
INDEPENDENT mVIEW PANEL - Metropolitan Dade County, 1984-1986
BADE CULTUWL ALLIANCE, Chair 1993 - 1995
Secretary, 1997 - 1999
VOLUNTEER LAWYERS FOR THE ARTS
Co-Founder, past Chair and Member 1978 - Current
ESTATE PROmCT FOR ARTISTS WmH AIDS, Advisory Board, 1996 - 2000
ARTS AND BUSINESS COBTNSEL, for~nerly Business Volui~teers for the Arts,
1985 - Cui~ent
SOUTH FLORIDA COUNCIL ON DIVORCE MEDIATION, INC.
Chailman of the Board, 1985-1986
Director and Member, 1982-1 990
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI
Law Scl~ool Dean's Search Coll~n~ittee, 1998 - 1999
Law School Aluinni Association, 1987 - Current
President, 1997 - 1998
Director, 1987 - 1999
Dean's Circle Committee - Chair, 2000 - 2007
Law School Dean's Search Committee, 1998 - 1999
Law School National Visiting Committee, 1998 - 2008
Citizens Adviso~y Board, 1984 - Current
Endow~nent Committee, 1982 - Current
MIAMI-DADE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Aluinni Association .
Hall of Faine Selection Committee Chair 2007-2009
GmATER I C BEW OF COMMERCE
Cultural Committee, 1990 - 2000
Leadership Miami Alumni Association, 1989 - Current
GAY AND LESBlIm CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF MIAMI
SAW DADE, Inc. - Organization for the enactment and defense of the Human
Rights Ordinance in Miami-Dade County
Executive Board of Directors, 1997 - 2002
SAVE DADE Foundation, Pnc.
Board of DirectorsISecretary, 1998 - 2002
CAmmSOURCE (formerly Health Crisis Network and CRI)
Board of Directors, 1998-1 999
Chair of Planning, 1998-1 999
AIDS WALK MIAMI
Committee member, 1988-Current
Chair, 1999-2000
HONORS
GREATER MIAMI JEWISH PEDEUTION JUDICIAL THEODORE "TED" KLEIN
SPECIAL RECOGNITION AWAIiEb
Recipient - March, 2009
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE SURISPRUDENCE AWAm
Recipient -- November, 2008
CARERESOURCE 2sT" ANNIVERSARY
Recipient of Outstanding Service to the Coinillunity - November, 2008
PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICm WAY
Recipient of the Spirit of Liberty Award, 2007
STETSON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW (Deland Florida)
Recipient of the Williain Reece Smith, Jr. Public Service Award 2007
MIAMI DADE COLLEGE ALUmH HALE OF FAME
Inducted in the area of Law in 2007
GAY AND LESBIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF MIAMI
Recipient of the Businessman of the Year -- 2007
NATION& GAY AND LES
Recipient of the Miami manitarian Award (Miami) 2005
UNH%rERSHTU OF MIAMI ALUMNI ASSOCIATION
Recipient of the 2004 Williain R. Butler Community Service Award
FLOWDA Tmm'S FLODA LEGAL ELITE - 2004 - 2009
BEST LAWERS IN AMEMCA - 2004 - 2009
THE BUSmESS JOURWAL OF SOUTH PLO
Best of the Bar Award - 2004 - 2009
LEAVE A LEGACY
Recipient of the 2003 Professional Advisor Award
. UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW - CENTER FOR ETHICS
AND PUBLIC SERVICE
Recipient of the 2002 Lawyers in Leadership Award
UNITED WAY OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
Recipient of the 2002 Dorothy Shula Award for Outstanding Volunteerism
MOTEIERS' VOICES/SOUTH FLORIDA
Recipient of the 2000 Extraordinary Voices Award
DADE COUNTY BAR ASSOCUTLOIV ESTABLISmENT OF THE
IPICHAm C. MILSTEI~ EXCELLENCE AWARD
Awarded to a recipient each year com~llencing in 1999 in the areas of professionalis~n
and pro bono
UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW OUTSTANDING ALUMWS AWARD,
1999
FLORIDA SUPlfP3EME COURT TOBIAS SIMON PRO BONO SERVICE AWAm,
1996
AmRICAN BM ASSOCIATION - JOHN MINOR WISDOM PROFESSIONAL
AND PUBLIC SERVICE AWAIR31P, 1996
PLOmA BAR PWSDENTyS PRO BONO SERVICE AWAm FOR THE
ELEVJENTHI mD3[CI& CIRCUIT, 1986 and 1996
UMWRSITY OF MIAMI IWON OW HONO SOCIETY
1998 - Current
WHO'S MO IN AMERICAN LAW
1985 - Current
WHO9$ WHO IN ATTOWEYS
1 989 - Current
WHO'S WHO IN THE WOmD
1990 - Current
WHO9$ WHO OF SOUTHEAST UNITED STATES
1983 - 1991
WHO9$ WHO OF mOWHiDA
1982 - 1983,1988 - Current
DADE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
Presidential Certificate, 1983-1 995
Certificate of Merit, 1975-1 995
Pro Boiio Volunteer Award - July, 1985
Outstanding Volunteer Lawyer (VLA), 1982
Put Something Back, Pro Bono Program, Certificate of Appreciatioli 1982- 1995
R9B1 Dr. Stanley Sutnick Citizen's Forum. (1 230 p.m.)
R9B2 Dr. Stanley Sutnick Citizen's Forum. (5:30 p.m.)
AGENDA ITEM: R9B1-2
DATE: 7-13- 11
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CiV of Miami Beech, 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
DATE: July 13, 201 '1 0
SUBJECT: FDOT REPORT ON THE PROPOSED ALTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
BEWEEM sTH STREET AND MiCHBGAN AVENUE
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is presenting its proposed plans for Alton
Road between 5th Street and Michigan Avenue for informational purposes. This project is
scheduled for construction beginning October 2016 with an interim drainage project scheduled
to begin construction in April 201 3.
At its meeting of May 14, 2008, the City Commission unanimously passed Resolution 2008-
26824 (Attachments A and B) that urged FDOT to address the following issues:
1. that as part of the Project, the City Commission urges FDOT to address a short term
solution for flooding on Alton Road, and assure that all crosswalks and traffic lights are
properly synchronized in the meantime
Status: FDOT has separated the drainage component into an expedited, interim project
but has not included signal work in the design as this is an operational item.
2. that, as the City's economy will be greatly affected and serious life safety issues, such as
emergency vehicle movement, will be created during the pendency of the Project, FDOT
should designatelestablish alternative routes during construction; add message boards;
describe phasing of construction; and, in general, be clear and upfront with respect to
conflicting projects and timelines
Status: FDOT will have a complete Maintenance of Traffic plan at the 90% submittal that
will include alternative routes and message boards.
3. that FDOT present a petition to the Federal Highway Administration for the reduction of
the currently proposed eleven (11) foot travel lanes to ten and a half (10.5) feet
throughout the entire length of the Project
Status: FDOT did not petition the Federal Highway Administration for a reduction in the
width of the travel lanes nor did it reduce the speed limit to 30 miles per hour.
4. that the City Commission recommended alternative for the Project, Local Preferred
Alternative No. I, also include the following recornmendationslconsiderations by FDOT:
a. the undertaking of a study to reduce the speed limit on Alton Road down to thirty (30)
miles per hour;
b. the inclusion of aggregate pour-in-place mix for tree grates;
c. no blockage on signalized intersections;
d. the inclusion of on-demand pedestrian crosswalks;
Agenda Item R9 C-
Date 7-13-11
City Commission- FDOT Repod on the proposed Alton Road Improwemenls
July 13,201 1
Page 2 of 2
e. the inclusion of bike racks;
Status: FDOT did not reduce the speed limit but did include aggregate pour-in-place mix
for tree grates, no blockage on signalized intersections, on-demand pedestrian
crosswalks at the signalized intersections, and bike racks.
5. that FDOT expedite design, funding and implementation of this Project.
Status: FDOT is expediting design and funding for the interim drainage project.
Local Preferred Alternative No. 1 included four 1 I -foot travel lanes, one I I -foot turn center turn
lanelmedian island, two 9-foot parking lanes, and two 13-foot sidewalks with landscaping.
Status: The 60% design includes four 11-foot travel lanes, one 11-foot turn center turn
lane/median island, two 5-foot bike lanes, two parking lanes average 8 feet in width, and two
sidewalks with landscaping that average 9.5 feet in width.
FDOT met with the Mayor and Commissioners individually from February 22, 201 1 through
March 8, 201 1 and completed its 60% design plans on March 15, 201 1.
FDOT met with the following committees and boards:
e Transportation and Parking Committee - April 4, 201 1
Historic Preservation Board - April 12, 201 1
r Disability Access Committee - April 26, 201 1
e Planning Board - April 26, 201 1
e Neighborhoods 1 Community Affairs Committee - June 3, 201 1
r Planning Board - June 28, 201 1
FDOT held the following meetings:
r Project Advisory Group - June 8,201 1
as Adjacent Business Owners - June 14,201 1
e Public Meeting - June 23, 201 1
At the meetings listed above, inclusion of the bike lanes at the expense of wider sidewalks and
enhanced landscaping was a major complaint of many members of the public. FDOT explained
that bike lanes are now mandatory per state statute.
Since these plans have been presented, City staff has urged FDOT to incorporate
Transportation Design for Livable Communities concepts into its design. These concepts
include reducing the design speed from 40 mph to 35 mph, which could result in shorter sight
lines and less of a reduction in on-street parking. FDOT has already agreed to reduce the
required distance between curb and trees from 4 feet to 1.5 feet. This will allow for more
landscaping and greater tree canopy on the sidewalks.
Attachments:
A. Resolution 2008-26824 with memo
B. Afier Action for Resolution 2008-26824
Report on Alton Road Improvements w planning comments.doc
Attachment A
A RESOLUTBON OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, URGING THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) TO PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE, BLOCK-BY-
' BLOCK ANALYSIS 8% THE ALTON ROAD FROM sTH STREET TO MICHIGAN
AVENUE REHABILITATION PROJECT (THE PROJECT) INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, ADDRESSING THE FOLLOWING CRITICAL ISSUES
TO THE CITY: A SHORT BERM SOLUTION FOR FLOODING ON ALTON
ROAD; PLAN(S) FOR PHASING OF CONSTRUCTION; A REQUEST THAT
FDOT PETITION TO THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY THE
REDUCTION OF TI-IE PROPOSED ELEVEN (11) FOOT TRAVEL LANES TO
TEN AND A HALF (10.5) FOOT TRAVEL LANES; THE EXECUTION OF A
STUDY TO REDUCE THE SPEED LIMIT ON KTON ROAD TO THIRTY (30)
MILES PER HOUR; THE INCLUSION OF MGIREGATE POUR-BN-PLACE MIX
FOR TREE GRAPES; NO BLOCKAGE AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS;
THE INCLUSION OF ON-DEMAND PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS; THE
INCLUSION OF BIKE RACKS; AND FURTHER URGING THAT FDOT
EXPEDITE THE DESIGN, FUNDING AND lMPLEMEMTATlOPd OF THE
PROJECT, ALL TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY, AND ITS RESIDENTS AND
VISITORS, AWE DELIVERED THE BEST DESIGNED ROADWAY PROJECT,
IN THE MOST EFFiCIENT MANNER POSSIBLE.
WHEREAS, f DOT is responsible for the construction, design, and maintenance of Alton
Road (SR-907), including rehabilitationlredesign of the corridor, and is currently working on a
project for transportation improvements needed on Alton Road, from 5th Street to Michigan
Avenue which may include, without limitation, safety issues, drainage, traffic flow, pavement
conditions, bicycle faciiities, pedestrian enhancements, mass transit needs, parking, and
landscaping (the Project); and
WHEREAS, although Alton Road is a State-owned roadway, it is also unique in the City
of Miami Beach (City), in that this roadway is: heavily relied upon by those getting to-and-from
work; a major North-to-South artery; a local and visitor shopping, entertainment and commerce
venue; and also serves as a boundary for a residential historic district; and
WHEREAS, for many years, due to serious deterioration of the subsoil, a major flooding
problem has been created on certain parts of Alton Road, particularly in the southernmost
corridor; and
WHEREAS, due to lack of sufficient maintenance; proper marking and stripping; and
out-of-date and non-compliant design standards, Alton Road has earned the highest rates of
auto accidents and bicycle mortality statistics in the City; and
WHEREAS, traffic continues to develop into a substantial problem due to finite road
space and busier lives; and
WHEREAS, gasoline, insurance, and automobile prices are skyrocketing, necessitating
an imperative to strongly encourage more transit alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission, on behalf of its residents and visitors, encourages
the promotion of conscientious environmental and green alternatives; and
WHEREAS, under the "complete streets", principle all users of transportation systems,
including pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users, as welt as children, older individuals, and
individuals with disabilities, should be able to travel safely and conveniently on streets and
highways; and
WHEREAS, the City has invested significant capital improvement funds and grant
monies on improving City transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities to encourage alternatives to
private automobile use; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission is charged with determining a iocally preferred
alternative for the Project from a variety of plans designed by FDOT, with public input; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on May 14'~, 2008, the City Commission unanimously
endorsed Local Preferred Alternative No. 1 for the Project, with the following additional
recommendations:
I. that FDOT present a petition to the Federal Highway Authority (FHA) for the
reduction of the currently proposed eleven (1 1) foot travel lanes to ten and a half
(1 0.5) feet, lanes throughout the entire length of the Project;
2. that a study be undertaken executed to reduce the speed limit on Alton Road down
to thirty (30) miles per hour;
3. that the Project include, in aggregate, pour-in-place mix for tree grates;
4. that there be no Mockage on signalized intersections;
5. that on-demand pedestrian crosswalks be incorporated; and
6. that bike racks be incorporated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMiSSlON OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA that, with regard to the Alton Road
5th Street - Michigan Avenue Rehabilitation Project (Project), it is hereby the intent of the City
Commission to urge FDOT to take any and all actions, as necessary, to provide this community
with the best designed Project, on a block-by-block basis, NOT a one-size fits all policy, and that
in furtherance of this objective, the following issues be addressed:
I. that, as part of the Project, the City Commission urges FDOT to address a
short term solution for flooding on Alton Road, and ensure that all cross walks
and traffic fights are properly synchronized in the meantime;
2. that, as the City's economy will be greatly affected and serious life safety
issues, such as emergency vehicle movement, will be created during the
pendency of the Project, FDOT should designatelestablish alternative routes
during construction; add message boards; describe phasing of construction;
and, in general, be clear and upfront with respect to conflicting projects and
timelines; and
3. that FDOT present a petition to the Federal Highway Authority for the
reduction of the currently proposed eleven (1 1) foot travel fanes to ten and a
half (10.5) feet throughout the entire length of the Project; and
4. that the City Commission recommended alternative for the Project, Local
Preferred Alternative No. 1, also include the following
recommendationslconsideraiions by FDOT:
a. the undertaking of a study to reduce the speed limit on Alton Road down to
thirty (30) miles per hour;
b. the inclusion of aggregate pour-in-place mix for tree grates;
c. no blockage on signalized intersections;
d. the inclusion of on-demand pedestrian crosswalks;
e. the inclusion of bike racks; and
5. that FDOT expedite design, funding and implementation of this Project.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 14th dayof May 2008.
ATTEST:
Robert Parcher Saul Gross
F:\atto\AGUR\RESOS-ORD\FDOT Block by Block Analysis Reso.doc Vice-Mayor
- -
-%=F.- MIAMIBEACH
City iof 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: lylay 14, 2008
V
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(FDOT) ON THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN OPTiONS FOR THE ALTON
ROAD PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT (PD8E) STUDY,
FROM sTH STREET TO MICHIGAN AVENUE FOR SUBSEQUENT
DISCUSSION BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION.
This is an informational item only. In addition to the results of the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) Alton Road Project Development and Environment (PDBE) Study, FDOT
is going to present their recommended locally preferred alternative, which the Commission does
not need to take a position on.
BACKGROUND
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District Six is conducting the Alton Road
Project Development & Environment (PD&E) Study for transportation improvements needed on
Alton Road from 5th Street to Michigan Avenue. The study will identify improvements on Alton
Road which may include safety, drainage, traffic flow, pavement conditions, bicycle facilities,
pedestrian enhancements including addressing deficiencies with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), mass transit needs, parking, landscaping and aesthetics.
FDOT has been working on this project since early 2007. Part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requirement for this project is to conduct an intensive public involvement
process. As part of this requirement FDOT established the Alton Road PD&E Study Project
Advisory Group (PAG), which is comprised of stakeholders from the residential and
business community along Alton Road. No City staff was involved in the PAG; however,
FDOT has regularly provided the City with progress reports regarding the advancement of
this project. The purpose of the PAG is to provide input and direction on the development of
the conceptual design of the project.
Based on input provided by the PAG, City and City boards and committees, community
organizations, public comments, and further technical analysis, FDOT has narrowed the project
to alternatives that they believe best meet the purpose and needs of the project. Over ten (10)
possible alternatives have been reduced to five (5) alternatives: the no-build alternative; the
Transportation System Management (TSM) alternative; and three (3) build alternatives.
The current schedule for the Alton Road Project is as follows:
1. Presentation of final alternatives to seek input from the City's Neighborhoods/Community
Affairs Committee on April 30, 2008.
2. Presentation of final alternatives to seek input from the City Commissjon on May 14,
2008.
Agenda iltem Rq C
Date S-/ Y-0 B
FDOTAlton Road PD&E Study
May 14, 2008
Page 2 of 5
3. Preiiminary Engineering Report will be publicly displayed by end of May 2008. This
document was submitted to the City for review and comment. The report contains the
following:
a. Summary of existing conditions
b. Analysis of final preferred alternatives
c. Environmental work required for project
4. Public Hearing to be held in June 2008, followed by a Public Comment Period
5. Finalize Preliminary Engineering Report and submit to the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) in July 2008
6. Contingent on FHWA approval, design to begin in FY 09/10 (18 months to complete)
7: Design will provide an accurate construction cost, which will be used to prioritize
construction funds in the Transportation improvement Program (TIP)
8. Construction estimated to start in FY 201 2-1 3
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The existing conditions of Alton Road include a 100-foot Right-of-way (ROW), 70 feet of
existing pavement width typically comprised of four (4) 11' travel lanes, two (2) 5' turn lanes, two
(2) 8' on-street parking on each side of the street, and 14.5' of landscape and sidewalk on either
side.
FDOT has narrowed the design options for Atton Road to five (5) possible alternatives: no-build,
transportation system management (TSM), and three (3) build alternatives.
No Build Alternative
The no build alternative will not provide any additional roadway improvements beyond already
programmed projects such as pedestrian safety improvements, leaving the existing facilities
targely unchanged from their present configurations.
Transpo~atiow System Management (TSM) Alternative
The TSM alternative is a limited construction alternative that would use minor improvements to
enhance capacity. The following improvements were identified as part of the TSM Alternative:
e Resurfacing of pavement along with signage and pavement marking improvements.
e Four-lane roadway with 12-foot wide inner lanes to accommodate future mass transit;
'I 0-foot wide two-way left-turn lane; and periodic median islands.
e Landscaped sidewalks.
On-street parking.
ADA improvements.
ep Access management improvements
s Traffic signal optimization.
FDOT Alton Road PD&E Study
May -14, 2008
Page 3 of 5
A typical roadway section of the proposed TSM Alternative is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. PPoposed Typical Section of Alton Road TSM Alternative
Build Alhrnative 11
The first build alternative is composed of the following cross section: four (4) travel lanes, which
include two (2) I I-foot through lanes in each direction; I I-foot center left-turn ianelperiodic
median islands; %foot on-street parking lanes; and 13-foot sidewalks with opportunity for
landscaping.
A typical roadway section of Build ~liehative 1 is presented in Figure 2.
Pigare 2. Proposed Typical Section of Bnilid Alternative 1 for ABton Road wlo Bike Lanes
Build biternative 2
The second build alternative is composed of the following cross section: four (4) travel lanes,
which include two (2) 9 1-foot lanes in each direction; an I I-foot center left-turn lanelperiodic
median island; %foot on-street parking; 5-foot bicycle lanes; and 8-foot sidewalks. The 9-foot
wide parking can be reduced to 8 feet thus providing an extra foot for the inner lane to
accommodate mass transit in the future. This cross section considers improvements for traffic
safety, bicycle facilities, pedestrian enhancements, and public transit needs.
FDOT Alton Road PD&E Study
May 14, 2008
Page 4 of 5
A typical roadway section of Build Alternative 2 is presented in Figure 3.
Piguse 3. Proposed Typical Section of Build Alternative 2 for Altom Road with Bike Lanes
Build Alternative 1A (Pending City Resolution)
On March 26, 2008, the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee requested FDOT to meet
with the Alliance for Reliable Transport (ART) to explore the possibility of incorporating bike
paths into the design of AIton Road. At the April 7, 2008 ART meeting with FDOT, Build
Alternative I was modified to add one directional bike path adjacent to the sidewalk on each
side of Alton Road. The cross-section for this design would be as follows: two (2) 8' sidewalks,
two (2) 4' bike paths each with 2' of clearance between the bike path and curb and gutter, two
(2) 8' on-street parking lanes, four (4) 11' travel tanes, and an 11' median. In the originat
design, the on-street parking lane was 9' wide to allow space for a future mass transit project.
FDOT stated that a mass transit lane can still be accommodated with the reduction of one (1)
foot.
A typical roadway section of Build Alternative IA is presented in Figure 4. This typical section of
roadway is symmetrical on the left side of the center line.
Figure 4, Proposed Typical Section of Build Alternative 1A for Alton Road with Bike
Paths
FDOT Alton Road PD&E Study
May 14, 2008
Page 5 of 5
CURRENT STATUS
FDOT presented the Alton Road PD&E Study to the Neighborhoods/Cornrnunity Affairs
Committee on April 30, 2008. Committee members endorsed Build Alternative 1 as the
preferred alternative, which will provide 13 foot sidewalks with an opportunity for landscaping.
The Committee members requested that FDOT provide signage on the sidewalks to inform
pedestrians that bicyclists would be sharing the sidewalks.
The Alton Road PD&E Study is also scheduled for a presentation at the Historic Preservation
Board on May '13, 2008 and at a special Planning Board Meeting on May '13, 2008 at 5:OOpm.
Subsequently, FDOT will present the Alton Road PD&E Study and the preferred alternative at a
public hearing in June 2008.' The time and place of this public hearing are yet to be determined.
T:MGENDA\2008\May 14\Consent\FDOT Alton Road Memo.doc
Afteraction
Attachment B
May 14,2008 City of Miami Beach
"8:16:38 p.m.
Supplemental Materials (Revised title and Resolution)
R9C Cf ?r
REVlSED TITLE SUBMITTED VIA THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA
A Resolution Urging The Florida Department Of Transportation (FDOT) To Provide A
Comprehensive, Block-By-Block Analysis Of The Alton Road From 5th Street To Michigan Avenue
Rehabilitation Project (The Project) Including, Without Limitation, Addressing The Following Critical
Issues To The City: A Shod Term Solution For Flooding On Alton Road; Plan@) For Phasing Of
Construction; And Expedition Of Design, Funding And Implementation Of The Project; All To Ensure
That The City, And Its Residents And Visitors, Are Delivered The Best Designed Roadway Project, In
The Most Efficient And Expedient Manner Possible.
(Public Works)
ACTION: Resolution No. 2008-26824 adopted. Fred Beckmann and Jorge Chaetrand to
handle.
Motion made by Commissioner Wolfson to approve Commissioner Tobin's resoiution and
fu~her amending to have FDOT present a petition to the Federal and State government for
10.5 feet lanes as a waiver and recommending Local Preferred Alternative No. 1 (see below)
per Commissioner Gross' suggestion; seconded by Commissioner Tobin; Voice vote: 7-0.
Local Preferred Alternative No. 1
1) 30 miles per hour speed limit study
2) Tree grates like the newly installed grates on Llncoiw Woad, but no other landscaping
3) No blockage on signalized intewectioas
4) Pedestrian crosswalks on-demand
5) include bike racks
End -
Bayo Coker, FDOT District Project Development Engineer and Manager, presented the project.
Powerpoint presentation shown.
Greg Kyle, Kimberly Horn & Associates, summarized the alternatives under consideration and
informed that following the Commission Meeting, a formal Public Hearing is scheduled on June 26,
2008. Subsequent to that, the documents will be forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration
for approval. FDOT is requesting the endorsement of the Commission for the Locally Preferred
Alternative for the corridor.
Discussion held.
Mayor Bower expressed her concern with bicycles and pedestrian, especially children, in the same
area on the sidewalk.
Commissioner Gross suggested addressing issues brought up by the Art Group, such as addition of
signals at the same cycle and speed limit.
Bayo Coker, FDOT District Project Development Engineer and Manager, explained the signal warrant
Prepared by the City Clerk's Office Page No. 35 of 43
M:\$CMB\CITY CLER\AFTERACT\2008\Afteractions\05142008\aa051408.doc
Afteraction May 14,2008 City of Miami Beach
study and due to the blocks on Alton Road being so short, FDOT believes that those signals would
not be warranted on the intersections.
Discussion continued.
Kimberly Horn, FDOT representative, explained the pedestrian guidelines required for signalized
intersections.
Commissioner Tobin explained having met with the engineers and the consultants from FDOT and
suggestions and modifications were provided as addition to the plan and suggested FDOT engineers
to go with a block-by-block analysis. He read a resolution into the record outlining this plan.
Bayo Coker, FDOT District Project Development Engineer and Manager, stated that the block-by-
block plan will be discussed at the 60% approval point of the project.
Discussion continued.
Motion made by Commissioner Wolfson to approve Commissioner Tobin's resolution, which
was distributed on the floor. No second offered.
Discussion continued.
Commissioner Wolkon reviewed his motion to approve Commissioner Tobin's resolution.
Gabriele Redfern, Project Advisory Group, spoke.
Jack Johnson spoke.
Erika Brigham spoke.
Mark Needle spoke.
David Kelsey spoke.
Bill Farkas spoke.
Judy Robertson spoke.
Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager, stated that in discussions with FDOT, it was learned that they plan to
reduce the width of lanes on Interstate 95 to 1 1 feet, which is the same as what is being proposed for
Alton Road. He encouraged the City Commission to ask FDOT to reduce the width of travelling lanes
on Alton Road to 10 feet, which will reduce the speed and add to the sidewalk.
Bayo Coker, FDOT District Project Development Engineer and Manager, spoke.
Discussion held.
Motion:
Motion made by Commissioner Wolkoge to approve Commissioner Tobin's resolution and
fu&her amending to have FDOT present a petition to the Federal and State government for a
I0 feet lane as a waiver and recommending Local Preferred Alternative No. 1 per
Commissioner Gross' suggestion; seconded by Commissioner Tobin.
Discussion continued.
Bayo Coker, FDOT District Project Development Engineer and Manager, spoke.
Jorge Gonmalem, City Manager, recommended FDOT representatives to submit drawings at 30% with
a 10 feet wide lane rather than 11 feet lane wide.
Prepared by the City Clerk's Office Page No. 36 of 43
M:\$CMB\ClTY CLERWFTE RACn2008Wfteractions\05 142008\aa051408.doc
Afteraction May 14,2008 City of Miami Beach
Bayo Coker, FDOT District Project Development Engineer and Manager, explained that the City can
request a 10 feet lane waiver, but stated that it is not safe from a professional point of view.
Discussion continued.
Commissioner Gross asked Mr. Coker if FDOT could accept 10.5 feet to have one side for dedicated
bicycle lanes and landscape.
Discussion continued.
Gommbsioner Gross amended the motion to add a 40.5 feet width lane waiver.
FINAL MOTION:
Motion made by Commissioner Wolfson to approve Commissioner Tobin's resolution and
fu~her amending to have FDOnresent a petition to the Federal and State government for
'10.6 feet lanes as a waiver and recommending Local Preferred Alternative No. '1 (see below)
per Commissioner Gross9 suggestion; seconded by Commissioner Tobin; Voice vote: 7-0.
kocai Preferred Alternative No. 'l
1) 30 miles per hour speed limit study
2) Tree grates, but no other landscaping
3) No blockage on signalized Intersection
4) Pedestrian crossing
5) Bike racks
End -
Handout or Reference Materials:
1. Resolution distributed on the floor amended by Commissioner Tobin
Prepared by the City Clerk's Office Page No. 37 of 43
M:\$CMB\CITYCLERWFTERACn2008Wfteractions\05142008\aa051 408.doc
655
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
AM! BEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
Robert Parcher, City Clerk
FROM: Jorge R. Exposito, Commissioner
DATE: June 29, i0ll
SUBJECT: Agenda item: update on Security
Please place a discussion item on the July 13,2011 Commission Meeting agenda regarding an
update on security analysis by the Police Department investigation related to security of the
Mayor and Commission Offices and Chamber. This item was discussed in the January 19,2011
City Commission Meeting (R9C-Committee Of The Whole- Discuss Security Issues -Exposito-)
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 are cornmifed to providing excellent public service and sofey to a// who live, work, and play ~n our Agenda Item R9 D
Date 7-13-11
657
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION
TO: Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager
Jose Smith, City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 1, 20 1 1
SUBJECT: Agenda Item for July 13 Commission Meeting
I would like to request an update and discussion of the Art Basel Miami Beach
contract renewal negotiations.
Thank you.
\;Ve ~:e comnitked to pi~.,idins exce!kct puhiiic se.rv,ice end sofet;~ 10 s!! vV,h~i,o iisve, vd3r.k. and pby in ov!-
Agenda item R q E
Date 7-13- 11
659
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jorge M. Gonzalem, City Manager
FROM: Ed Tobin, Commissioner
DATE: July 5, 201 11
SUBJECT: Agenda Item for July 13~~ Commission Meeting
Please place on the July 13'~, 201 11 Commission Meeting Agenda a request for discussion
and update regarding the progress for repairs to South Pointe Park.
If you have any questions please contact, Dessiree Kane at Extension 6274
Agenda item R 9 F
We ore cornmined to providing excellent publ~c servlce and safety to all who live, work, and ploy in ( Date 7-13-1 1
661
WHIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Reports and Informational Items see LTC #I 68-201 1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency
City Hall, Commission Charnbew, 3rd Floor, 1700 Convention Center Drive
July 113,2011
Chairperson of the Board Matti Herrera Bower
Member of the Board Jorge Exposito
Member of the Board Michael Gdngora
Member of the Board Jerry Libbin
Member of the Board Edward L. Tobin
Member of the Board Deede Weithorn
Member of the Board Jonah Wolfson
Executive Director Jorge MI. Gonzalem
Assistant Director Jorge Gomez
General Counsel Jose Smith
Secretary Robert E. Parcher
AGENDA
1. NEW BUSINESS
A A Resolution Of The Chairperson And Members Of The Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency
(RDA), Authorizing The Executive Director, Or His Designee, To Select, Negotiate, Award And
Reject All Bids, Contracts, Agreements, Purchase Orders, Change Orders And Grant
Applications; Renew Existing Contracts Which May Expire; And Terminate Existing Contracts,
As Needed, From The Last Commission Meeting On July 13,201 1, Until The First Regularly
Scheduled Meeting On September 14,201 1, Subject To Ratification By The City Commission
At Its First Regularly Scheduled Meeting On September 14, 201 1. Joint Citv Commission
(Page 667)
(Procurement)
MIAMIBEACH
Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33 139, www.rniarnibeachfl.gov
HOW A PERSON MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
The regularly scheduled meetings of the Redevelopment Agency are established by Resolution and are
generally held on the same day the Miami Beach City Commission holds their regularly scheduled
meetings. The Redevelopment Agency meetings commence at 10:OO a.m.
1. Jorge M. Gonzalez has been designated as the Agency's Executive Director.
Robert Parcher has been designated as the Agency's Secretary.
Person requesting placement of an item on the agenda must provide a written statement to the
Agency Executive Director, 4th Floor, City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, telephone 673-
7285, outlining the subject matter of the proposed presentation. In order to determine whether or
not the request can be handled administratively, an appointment will be set up to discuss the matter
with a member of the Executive Director's staff. Procedurally, "Request for Agenda Consideration"
will not be placed upon the Agency agenda until after Administrative staff review. Such review will
ensure that the issue has been addressed in sufficient detail so that the Agency members may be fully
apprised of the matter to be presented. Persons will be allowed three (3) minutes to make their
presentation and will be limited to those subjects included in their written request. Such written
requests must be received in the Executive Director's office no later than noon on Tuesday of the
week prior to the scheduled Agency meetinq to allow time for processing and inclusion in the
agenda package.
3. Once an agenda for the Redevelopment Agency meeting is published, and a person wishes to speak
on items listed on the agenda, he/she may call or come to the Agency Secretary's Office, 1 st floor,
City Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, telephone 673-74 1 1, before 5:00 p.m., on the Tuesday
prior to the Agency meeting and give their name, the agenda item to be discussed and, where
known, the agenda item number.
The Agency agenda is available via the City's website, (www.miamibeachfl.gov) on the Friday prior to
the Agency meeting or may be reviewed at the Agency's Secretary Office (City Clerk's Office) on the
Monday prior to the Agency's regular meeting.
4. All persons who have been listed by the Agency Secretary to speak on the agenda item in which
they are specifically interested, will be allowed up to three (3) minutes to present their views.
Robert Parcher
Agency Secretary March 5, 2007
F:\CLER\CLER\CITYCLER\RDA Agenda .V3.doc
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,
1700 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 13 [Wednesday] April 27 [Wednesday]
May 1 1 [Wednesday] May 18 [Wednesday)
June 1 [Wednesday]
July 13 Wednesday] July 20 Wednesday]
August - City Commission in recess
September 14 [Wednesday)
October 19' [Wednesday) October 26 [Wednesday]
November 2 [Wednesday] - Election related only
December 14 [Wednesday] December 2 1 [Wednesday]
F:\CLER\$ALL\a City Commission\201 1 Schedule of City of Miami Beach.docx
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Authorizing Executive Director, Or His Designee To Select, Negotiate, Award And Reject All
Bids, Contracts, Agreements, Purchase Orders, Change Orders And Grant Applications; Renew Existing
Contracts Which May Expire, And Terminate Existing Contracts As Needed From The Last City RDA
Meeting On July 13, 201 1, Until The First Regularly Scheduled RDA Meeting On September 14, 201 1,
Subject To Ratification By The RDA At Its First Regularly Scheduled Meeting On September 14,201 1.
Key intended Outcome Supported: I August Recess Authorization Supports All City Key Intended Outcomes.
Suppoding Data (Suweys, Environmentai Scan, ete.): NM
Issue:
Whether to Adopt the Resolution?
Between the last meeting on July 13, 201 1, and the first regularly scheduled meeting on September 14,
201 1, the RDA will not be in session. During this period there may be bids or contracts in excess of the
$25,000, which may need to be rejected, awarded or terminated.
Based on the above, it is requested, that the Executive Director, or his designee, be authorized to sign all
contracts, agreements, purchase orders, change orders, and grant applications; renew any existing
contracts, for an appropriate period of time; terminate existing contracts, as needed, from the last RDA
meeting on July 13,201 1, until the first regularly scheduled RDA meeting on September 14,201 1, subject
to ratification by the RDA at its first regularly scheduled meeting on September 14,201 1.
I ADOPT THE RESOLUTION. I
Adviso~ Board Recommendation:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
I Gus Lopez, ext. 6641
Financial Information:
Source of
Funds:
OBPl
9 :
a ]
3 1
Total :
holieM Amwag
City sf Miami Beech, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 331 39, www.miamibeachfl.gov
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairperson and Members of the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, Executive Director
DATE: July 13, 201 1
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE MIAMI
BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA), AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO SELECT, NEGOTIATE, AWARD AND
REJECT ALL BIDS, CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, PURCHASE ORDERS,
CHANGE ORDERS AND GRANT APPLICATIONS; RENEW EXISTING
CONTRACTS WHICH MAY EXPIRE; AND TERMINATE EXISTING
CONTRACTS, AS NEEDED, FROM THE LAST RDA MEETING ON JULY 13,
2011, UNTIL THE FIRST REGULARLY SCHEDULED RDA MEETING OM
SEPTEMBER 14, 20dd, SUBJECT TO WATIFICATBON BY THE RDA AT ITS
FiRST REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETBNG ON SEPTEMBER 14,2011.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
BACKGROUND
Between the last meeting on July 13, 201 1, and the first regularly scheduled meeting on
September 14, 201 1, the RDA will not be in session. During this period there may be bids
or contracts in excess of the $25,000, which may need to be rejected, awarded or
terminated.
Based on the above, it is requested, that the Executive Director, or his designee, be
authorized to sign all contracts, agreements, purchase orders, change orders, and grant
applications; renew any existing contracts, for an appropriate period of time; terminate
existing contracts, as needed, from the last RDA meeting on July 13, 201 1, until the first
regularly scheduled RDA meeting on September 14, 201 1, subject to ratification by the RDA
at its first regularly scheduled meeting on September 14,201 1.
Since this authorization is necessary to ensure that essential services and projects continue
during the period between the last RDA meeting on July '13, 201 1, until the first regularly
scheduled RDA meeting on September 14, 201 1, it is recommended that the RDA adopt this
Resolution.
RESObUTlON NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CHAlRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE MIAMI BEACH
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA), FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO SELECT, NEGOTIATE, AWARD AND REJECT ALL
BIDS, CONTRACTS, AGREEMENTS, PURCHASE ORDERS, CHANGE ORDERS AND
GRANT APPLICATIONS; RENEW EXISTlNG CONTRACTS WHICH MAY EXPIRE; AND
TERMINATE EXISTING CONTRACTS, AS NEEDED, FROM THE LAST COMMISSION
MEETING ON JULY f3,2011, UNTIL THE FIRST REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING
ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2011, SUBJECT TO RATIFICATION BY THE CITY COMMlSSlON
AT ITS FlRST REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 14,201 1.
WHEREAS, between the last meeting on July 13, 201 1, and the first regularly scheduled
meeting on September 14,201 1, the RDA will not be in session; and
WHEREAS, during this period, there may be bids or contracts in excess of the $25,000,
which may need to be rejected, awarded or terminated; and
WHEREAS, the RDA has historically, during its August recess, assigned the Executive
Director with the authority to select, negotiate, award andlor renew contracts, as needed,
subject to ratification by the RDA; and
WHEREAS, it is therefore requested that the Executive Director, or his designee, be
authorized to sign all contracts, agreements, purchase orders, change orders, and grant
applications; renew any existing contracts, which may expire, for an appropriate period of time;
terminate existing contracts, as needed, from the last RDA meeting on July 13, 201 1, until the
first regularly scheduled RDA meeting on September 14, 2011, subject to ratification by the
RDA at its first regularly scheduled meeting on September 14, 201 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CHAIRPERSON AND
MEMBERS OF THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, Chairperson and
Members hereby authorize the Executive Director, or his designee, to select, negotiate, award
and reject all bids, contracts, agreements, purchase orders, change orders, and grant
applications; renew existing contracts which may expire; and terminate existing contracts, as
needed, from the last RDA meeting on July 13, 201 1, until the first regularly scheduled meeting
on September 14, 2011, subject to ratification by the RDA at its first regularly scheduled
meeting on September 14,201 1.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,201 1
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
T:\AGENDAEOI 1\7-13-11\AugustRecessResoRDA.doc APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
,, & FOR EXECUTION
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK