20140430 BMMIAMIBEACH
Presentations & Awards/City Commission Meeting
City Hall, Commission Chambers,3rd Floor, 1700 Convention Center Drive
April 30,2014
Mayor Philip Levine
Vice-Mayor Micky Steinberg
Commissioner Michael Grieco
Comm issioner Joy Malakoff
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Comm issioner Deede Weithorn
Comm issioner Jonah Wolfson
City Manager Jimmy L. Morales
City Attorney Jose Smith
City Clerk Rafael E. Granado
Visit us at www.miamibeachfl.gov for agendas and video "streaming" of City Commission Meetings.
ATTENTION ALL LOBBYISTS
Chapter 2, Article Vll, Division 3 of the City Code of Miami Beach, entitled "Lobbyists,"
requires the registration of all lobbyists with the City Clerk prior to engaging in any lobbying
activity with the City Commission, any City Board or Committee, or any personnel as defined
in the subject Code sections. Copies of the City Code sections on lobbyists laws are
available in the City Clerk's office. Questions regarding the provisions of the Ordinance
should be directed to the Office of the City Attorney.
Call to Order - 5:00 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance
Special note: ln 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.
ln addition, the Mayor and City Commission may, at their discretion, adjourn the Commission Meeting
without reaching all agenda items.
Presentations and Awards Reqular AqendaPA Presentations and Awards R2 Competitive Bid ReportsR5 Ordinances
Consent Aqenda R7 ResolutionsC2 Competitive Bid Reports Rg New Business/Commission RequestsC4 Commission Committee Assignments R10 City Attorney ReportsC6 Commission Committee ReportsC7 Resolutions Reports and lnformational ltems
We are committed to providing excellent public seNice and safety to all who live, work, and play in our vibrant, tropical, historic community.
1
Commission Agenda, April 30, 2014
Presentations and Awards
PA1 Proclamation To Be Presented To David Graubart, Owner Of Atlas TV Center, Located At 736
7'l't Street, Which ls Closing lts Doors After 61 Years Of Serving The Community.
(Requested by Commissioner Deede Weithorn)
PAz Presentation Of The First Generation Comprehensive City Of Miami Beach APP Developed For
IOS And Android, Utilizing The Miami Beach Visitor And Convention Authority APl.
(Requested by Vice-Mayor Micky Steinberg)
PA3 Certificates Of Appreciation To Be Presented To Volunteers Who Participated ln Operation
RenderSafe, A Full-Scale Regional Specialty Team Exercise Hosted By City Of Miami Beach ln
Coordination With The Southeast Regional Security Task Force (SERSTF), South Florida
Regional Planning Council (SFRPC), And The Urban Area Security lnitiative (UASI).
(Emergency Management)
REGULAR AGENDA
R2 - Gompetitive Bid Reports
R2A Request For Approval To Award A Contract, Pursuant To lnvitation To Bid (lTB) No. 2014-154-
SR For Turnkey Trolley Operations And Maintenance Services.
(Tra nsportation/Procurement)
R5 - Ordinances
RsA RM-2 Oceanfront Height Regulations
An Ordinance Amending The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, By Amending Chapter
142, "Zoning Districts And Regulations," Article ll, "District Regulations," Division 3 "Residential
Multifamily Districts" By Amending Section 142-217, "Area Requirements," Regarding Maximum
Building Height And Maximum Number Of Stories For Oceanfront Lots With A Property Line
Within 250 Feet Of North Shore Open Space Park; Providing For Codification; Repealer;
Severability; And An Effective Date. 5:45 p.m. Second Readinq Public Hearinq
(Sponsored by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
(Legislative Tracking: Planning)
(Continued from April 23, 2014 - RsE)
2
Commission Agenda, April 30, 2014
R5 - Ordinances (Continued)
RsB AFSCME MBERP Ordinance
An Ordinance lmplementing Provisions Of The 2013-2016 Collective Bargaining Agreement
Between The City And The American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees,
(AFSCME) Local 1554; Amending The Miami Beach Employees' Retirement Plan Created By
Ordinance 2006-3504; Amending Section 2.26 Of The Plan By Extending The Deferred
Retirement Option Plan (DROP) Program From Three (3) To Five (5) Years For Eligible
Members; Amending Section 5.13 To Reflect Amended Eligibility And Participation Requirements
And Amended DROP Plan Features; Amending Section 4.03 By Eliminating The Purchase Of
Additional Creditable Service Effective April 23,2015; Amending Section 6.02 Of The Plan By
Reinstating An Additional Two Percent Member Contribution For Members Of The AFSCME
Bargaining Unit Hired Prior To September 30, 20'10; And Eliminating The Additional Two Percent
Member Contribution When The Plan Actuary Confirms That The City's Annual Required
Contribution To The Retirement Plan ls 23.5o/o Of Payroll Or Less; Providing For Severability;
Repealing All Ordinances ln ConflictTherewith; And Providing An Effective Date. First Readinq
(Sponsored by Commissioner Deede Weithorn)
(Legislative Tracking: Human Resources)
(Deferred from April 23, 2014 - RsT)
R7 - Resolutions
R7A A Resolution Consenting To And Confirming The Appointment Of Daniel J. Oates As The Chief
Of Police For The City Of Miami Beach, Florida.
(Human Resources)
R7B A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager Pertaining To The Ranking
Of Firms, Pursuant To Request For Proposals (RFP) No. 2014-091-SW For lnvestment Advisory
Services.
( Finance/Procurement)
R9 - New Business and Commission Requests
RgA Public Hearing To Consider Changes ln Designation, Use, And Modification To The Plans,
Approved For The Par 3 Golf Course Located AI 2795 Prairie Avenue, Miami Beach, 33140, As
Provided ln The Stipulated Settlement Agreement Approved And Adopted By The '1 1th Judicial
Circuit Court ln And For Miami-Dade County On October 28, 2011 ln Bavshore Homeowners
Assoc., lnc. v. City Of Miami Beach, Case No. 07-42998.5:30 p.m. Public Hearins
(Requested by Commissioner Edward L. Tobin)
(Legislative Tracking: Parks & Recreation/City Attorney's Office)
(Continued from April23, 20'14 - RgJ)
3
Commission Agenda, April 30,2014
R9 - New Business and Commission Requests (Continued)
RgB Referral To The Planning Board - Amend Slngle Family Development Regulations Applicability -
An Ordinance Amending The Land Development Regulations Of The Miami Beach City Code, By
Amending Ordinance 2014-3835, Which Revised The Development Regulations For Single
Family Homes ln The RS-1, RS-2, RS-3 And RS-4 Zoning Districts, Which Amended Sections
142-105 And 142-106 Of The City Code, By Amending The Ordinance's Applicability Section 3,
"Exceptions," To Provide For Additional Exceptions For Persons Who Had Applied For Land Use
Board Approval Or Permits Prior To Adoption Of The Ordinance, Providing For Repealer;
Severability; And An Effective Date.
(Requested by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson)
(Legislative Tracking: City Attorney's Office)
(Continued from April 23,2014 - C4R)
RgC Update On The Audible Pedestrian Signal Program.
(Transpo(ation)
RgD Reconsideration Of My Vote On The Alton Road Buffer Overlay (RSJ) From The April 23'd
Commission Meeting.
(Requested by Commissioner Joy Malakoff)
End of Asenda
4
Presentations and Awards
PA1 Proclamation To Be Presented To David Graubart, Owner Of Atlas TV Center, Located
At 736 71"1 Street, Which ls Closing lts Doors After 61 Years Of Serving The
Community.
(Requested by Commissioner Deede Weithorn)
PAz Presentation Of The First Generation Comprehensive City Of Miami Beach APP
Developed For IOS And Android, Utilizing The Miami Beach Visitor And Convention
Authority APl.
(Requested by Vice-Mayor Micky Steinberg)
PA3 Certificates Of Appreciation To Be Presented To Volunteers Who Participated ln
Operation RenderSafe A Full-Scale Regional Specialty Team Exercise, Hosted By City
Of Miami Beach ln Coordination With The Southeast Regional Security Task Force
(SERSTF), South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC), And The Urban Area
Security lnitiative (UASI).
(Emergency Management)
Agenda nem PAI-3
oate 1-30'/V
5
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Commission A Comprehensive Mobility Plan Which Gives Priority Recommendations
rom Non-Vehicular To VehicularAnd lncludinq Parki
Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc: N/A
Condensed Title:
Request ForApproval To Award A Contract, Pursuant To lnvitation To Bid (lTB) No. 2014-154-SR For
Turnkev Trolley Ooerations And Maintenance Services
lntended Outcome Su
Advisorv Board Recommendation:
l,..l^
-
The purpose of lnvitation to Bid (lTB) No. 2014-154-SR is to establish a contract, by means of sealed
bids, with a qualified firm to provide the turnkey trolley operations and maintenance services.
The anticipated start date for the fixed route, fixed schedule trolley services being sought after in this
ITB process would be July 1,2014 with new and/or used TEMPORARYvehicles upon the City's
approval. To allow for new trolley ordering and manufacturing lead time, the City is seeking to start
services with all NEW trolley vehicles by October 31,2014. As an incentive to the successful bidder, the
City shall pay a performance premium of twenty percent (20%) of operation cost for all new trolley
vehicles for the period of service in operation prior to October 31 ,2014.
lnvitation to Bid (lTB) 2014-154-SR was issued on March 27,2014, with an opening date of April 15,
2014. A Pre-Bid conference was publicly held on April 2,2014. One ('l )addendum was issued to
answer questions submitted by prospective bidders. The City received two (2) bids from Limousines of
South Florida, lnc. and MV Transportation, lnc.
Limousines of South Florida, lnc., the lowest bidder, was deemed responsive pursuant to the
requirements in the lTB. ln determining responsiveness of the responding bidder, the Department of
Procurement Management has verified that Limousines of South Florida, lnc. met the minimum
requirements, financial capacity requirements, and past performance requirements set forth within the
solicitation as noted in more detail in the attached memorandum.
RECOMMENDATION
After considering the review and recommendation of City staff, the City Manager exercised his due
diligence and is recommending to the Mayor and the City Commission to award a contract to
Limousines of South Florida, lnc.
APPROVE THE AWARD OF THE CONTRACT
Financial lnformation:
Source of
Funds:
@
FY 2013114: 106-6260-000300 Transportation Quality of Life Fund
Future annual costs subject to annual budget appropriations$1,624,000.00
Financial I
Clerk's Office L islative Tracki
DAVO14\April\APRIL 30 -
AGEHDA ITEM F2AE MIAMIBEACH r,l;*E tl'b-lv7
g MIAMIBEACH
€ity of Miomi Beoch, I 700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139, www. miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Philip Levine and Members of t City Com
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: April 30,2014
SUBJECT:
|NV|TATION TO BID (lTB) NO. 2014-154-SR FOR TURNKEY TROLLEY
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES
ADMIN ISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve the award of contract.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Commission A Comprehensive Mobility Plan Which Gives Priority Recommendations (From
Non-Vehicular To Vehicular And lncluding Parking)
FUNDING
$409,000.00 FY 2013114:. 106-6260-000300 Transportation Quality of Life Fund
$1,624,000.00 Future annual costs subject to annual budget appropriations
Should additional funding be required due to increased need of services, it will be subject to the
review and approval of the Office of Budget and Performance lmprovement (OBPI).
BACKGROUN D IN FORMATION
The purpose of lnvitation to Bid (lTB) No. 2014-154-SR is to establish a contract, by means of
sealed bids, with a qualified firm to provide the turnkey trolley operations and maintenance
services.
At the July 29, 2013 meeting of the Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee (NCAC), the
Administration presented the results of an evaluation of several transit studies completed in
recent years that recommended transit circulator service for the North Beach community, in
particular, the Coastal Communities Transit Plan (CCTP) completed in 20Q7. Subsequently,
staff presented a preliminary route for a North Beach Circulator based on the CCTP but with
some suggested modifications.
As a result of staff's presentation and after some discussion from the NCAC regarding the need
to improve mobility in North Beach, the Committee directed the Administration to immediately
pursue a transit circulator for North Beach and work with Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) to
implement an express north-south bus route as part of its ongoing bus service restructuring
8
Commission Memorandum - ITB 2014-154-SR - Turnkey Trolley Operations & Maintenance Servlces
April 30, 2014
Page 2
process in order to connect a proposed North Beach Circulator with the current South Beach
Local service.
At the September 23,2013 Commission Budget Workshop, the Commission approved the
creation of a fifth category for transit circulators in tourism eligible areas from the 50 percent
portion of Quality of Life (QOL) resort tax funds. While not all portions of the North Beach
Trolley Circulator route may be tourism-eligible, funding could be swapped with the South
Beach Local to result in the necessary funding being available for a North Beach Trolley
Circulator regardless of the route.
City staff has been working with MDT staff to coordinate the North Beach Trolley route in an
effort to minimize duplication of service and to develop the terms and conditions of an lnterlocal
Agreement between Miami-Dade County and the City of Miami Beach for Provision of Municipal
Circulator Services. The Administration anticipates taking the lnterlocal Agreement to the City
Commission for approval at its May 21,2014 meeting and to the Miami-Dade County Board of
County Commission for approval at its July 1,2014 meeting.
The desired start date for the fixed route, fixed schedule trolley services being sought after in
this ITB process would be July 1,2014 with new and/or used TEMPORARY vehicles upon the
City's approval. To allow for new trolley ordering and manufacturing lead time, the City is
seeking to start services with all NEW trolley vehicles by October 31,2014. As an incentive to
the successful bidder, the City shall pay a performance premium of twenty percent (ZOoh) ot
operation cost for all new trolley vehicles for the period of service in operation prior to October
31,2014.
lTB PROCESS
lnvitation to Bid (lTB) 2014-154-SR was issued on March 27,2014, with an opening date of
April '1 5, 2014. A Pre-Bid conference was publicly held on April 2, 2014. One ('1 ) addendum was
issued to answer questions submitted by prospective bldders.
Notices were posted on the Public Group website. Notices were also delivered by E-mail to
potential bidders and via local newspaper public announcement. The advertisements resulted in
the receipt of two (2) blds from Limousines of South Florida, lnc. and MV Transportation, lnc.
Responsiveness Verification.'The ITB stated that the lowest responsive, responsible bidder
meeting all terms, conditions, and specifications of the ITB will be recommended for award.
Veterans and local preferences were considered during the tabulation of the bids
received. Please note that neither veteran nor local preference was applied to any of the
bidders.
Through the Department of Procurement Management's review of the bid for responsiveness,
Limousines of South Florida, lnc. was deemed responsive pursuant to the requirements listed in
the lTB. ln determining responsiveness of the responding bidder, the Department of
Procurement Management has verified the following:
A. Minimum Requirements
Limousines of South Florida, lnc. is a state certified and licensed contractor and is
authorized to perform this type of service.
9
Commission Memorandum - ITB 2014-1 54-SR * Turnkey Trolley Operations & Maintenance Servlces
April 30,2014
Page 3
B. Financial Capacitv
A Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) Supplier Qualifier Report (SQR) was obtained indicating that
Limousines of South Florida, lnc. has an acceptable Supplier Evaluation Risk (SER)
rating.
C. Past Peiormance
It has been confirmed that Limousines of South Florida, lnc. has successfully completed
three (3) projects similar in scope and volume as the work referenced in the Contract
Documents. References contacted provided positive reviews.
As a result of the Department of Procurement Management's responsiveness review process,
the following table provides the proposed base bid prices and total prices for turnkey diesel or
gasoline-powered trolley services on a per hour basis to include all equipment, fuel,
maintenance, operations, licensing, insurances, and any other incidental items or fees required
for a fully functioning trolley service.
Vendor Name Unit Cost
Per Service Hour
Limousines of South Florida, lnc.$69.49
MV Transportation, I nc.$84.70
Based on the above, it is recommended that Limousines of South Florida, lnc. be awarded the
contract.
Limousines of Soufh Florida, lnc. is a locally owned and operated business founded in 1984
providing transportation services to a multitude of clients, including, but not limited to, public
municipalities. Currently, Limousines of South Florida, lnc. operates in over twenty five
municipalities providing fixed route, fixed schedule transportation services 5 days a week, 52
weeks a year, far exceeding the requirements set forth in the lTB.
CITY MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE
After considering the review and recommendation of City staff, the City Manager exercised his
due diligence and is recommending to the Mayor and the City Commission to award a contract
to Limousines of South Florida, lnc.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends the award of the contract to Limousines of South Florida, lnc.,
the lowest responsive, responsible bidder pursuant to lnvitation to Bid (lTB) 2014-1 54-SR, for
Turnkey Trolley Operations & Maintenance Services at the per service hour rate of $69.49, for a
total annuafgperating and maintenance cost of $1 ,624,000.00..rc
JLM/MT/KGT/AD
T:\AGENDAU614\April\APRIL 30 - PROCUREMENnITB 2014-1s4-SR - TROLLEY SVCS - MEMO.docx
10
lntended Outcome Su
Maintain strong growth management policies.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc 48o/o of residential respondents and 55% of
businesses rate the effort put forth bv the Citv to requlate development is "about the rioht amount."
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Second Reading to consider an Ordinance Amendment to modify the maximum height requirements
for oceanfront properties within RM-2 zoning districts.
Clerk's Office lative Tracki
Tr\AGENDAU014lApril\RM2 Oceanfront Heights - SUM 2nd Read.docx
Agenda ltem
-S.[-D*re q-30-lq
Item Summary/Recommendation:
SECOND READING PUBLIC HEARING
The proposed Ordinance would modify the maximum height requirements for oceanfront properties
within RM-2 zoning districts. located within 250 feet of North Shore Open Space Park.
On March 5, 2014, the City Commission approved the Ordinance at First Reading and scheduled a
Second Reading Public Hearing for April 23,2014.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the Ordinance.
On February 25,2014, the Planning Board transmitted the subject Ordinance to the City Commission
with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 7 to 0.
Financial lnformation :
Source of
Funds:
Amount Account
1
2
3
OBPI Total
Financial lmpact 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 determined that there will be no measurable impact on the City's
budget.
Thomas Mooney
g MIAMIBEACH 11
g MIAMI BEACH
Cify of Miomi Beoch. I /00 Convenlion Cenler Drive, Mloml Beqch, F orids 331 39, www. miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: April 30, 2014
SUBJECT: RM-2 Oceanfront Heights
the City mmtsston
READING PUBLIC HEARING
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING
DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS,' ARTICLE II, "DISTRIGT
REGULATIONS,'' DIVISION 3 "RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMlLY DISTRICTS"
BY AMENDING SECTION 142-217 REGARDING MAXIMUM BUILDING
HEIGHT AND MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES FOR OCEANFRONT LOTS
wlTH A PROPERTY LINE WITHIN 250 FEET OF NORTH SHORE OPEN
SPACE PARK; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; REPEALER;
SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
On Ja;Gry 15tF,2014, the City Commission referred a proposed Ordinance directly to
the Planning Board, regarding the creation of a new height category in the Residential
Multifamily, Medium lntensity (RM-2) Zoning district for Oceanfront lots located within
150 feet of the North Shore Open Space Park.
A proposal has been put forward to redevelop the site located at 8701 Collins Avenue,
where the existing Dezerland (formerly the Biltmore Terrace) Hotel currently stands. The
proposed redevelopment of the site would include the construction of a 200 foot tall
residential building, pedestrian promenade, and street enhancements located on the
northerly portion of the property.
ANALYSIS
The proposed Ordinance amendment would permit all lots in the RM-2 district fronting
the Atlantic Ocean and within 250 feet of the North Shore Open Space Park Boundary, a
maximum allowable height of up to 21 stories or 200 feet. The subject property located
at 8701 Collins Avenue is currently zoned RM-2. This area comprises one of only two
RM-2 zoning districts fronting the Atlantic Ocean. The radius from the park boundary line
was increased from the Commission's initial recommendation of 150 feet to 250 feet in
order to ensure that all portions of the oceanfront lots in the RM-2 district would be
included under the purview of this Ordinance amendment.12
Commission Memorandum
Ordinance: RM-2 Oceanfront Heights
April 23, 2014 Page 2 of 2
The existing 22O room, Biltmore Terrace Hotel and associated commercial units are
allowable uses within the RM-2 district. Pursuant to Section 142-217 of the City Code,
the maximum height limit for the subject property is 6 stories or 60 feet. The height of the
existing building on the site is legally non-conforming at 118'-9', according to the plans
submitted. The owners of the property plan to retain the existing Biltmore Terrace Hotel
as is, in its present location, but are interested in constructing an 18 story, 200 ft tall
residential development with an adjoining pedestrian promenade and garden along the
northerly portion of the property.
The proposal to increase the maximum building height to 21 stories or 200 feet would be
comparable to the maximum permitted heights found within existing residential multi-
family districts that front the Atlantic Ocean. The nearest RM-3 zone is located south of
72nd Street, and the closest Oceanfront multi-family properties are located in the
neighboring City of Surfside. The proposed increase in height would allow more flexibility
in the design of a new residential project that would address the needs and concerns of
the North Beach community, while preserving the existing hotel. Additionally, any and all
new development found under the purview of this ordinance amendment must still
comply with the applicable portions of the City Code that regulate floor area and setback
requirements in the RM-2 district, which include a floor area ratio (FAR) limitation of 2.0.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW
The Planning Board reviewed the proposed Ordinance on February 25, 2014 (PB File
No. 2165), and recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0.
FISCAL IMPACT
ln 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. The proposed Ordinance is
not expected to have any tangible fiscal impact.
SUMMARY
The subject Ordinance was approved at First Reading on March 5,2014.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission adopt the subject Ordinance.
JLM/JMJ/TRM
T:\AGENDA\2014\April\RM2 Oceanfront Heights - MEM 2nd Read.docx
13
RM-2 Oceanfront Height Regulations
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY GOMMISSION OF THE GITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING GHAPTER 142, "ZONING
DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS,'' ARTICLE II, ''DISTRICT
REGULATIONS," DIVISION 3 "RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS''BY AMENDING SECTION 142.217, "AREA REQUIREMENTS,''
REGARDING MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND MAXIMUM NUMBER
OF STORIES FOR OCEANFRONT LOTS WITH A PROPERTY LINE
WITHIN 250 FEET OF NORTH SHORE OPEN SPACE PARK; PROVIDING
FOR CODIFICATION; REPEALER; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFEGTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the North Beach area of the City has lagged behind other areas of the
City in economic redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission desire to encourage innovative and
compatible redevelopment in the North Beach area;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Chapter 142 ot the City Code, "Zoning Districts and Regulations," Artlcle ll,
"Zoning Districts and Regulations," Division 3 "Residential Multifamily Districts", Section 142-
217,"Area Requirements," is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 142-217. Area Requirements.
The area requirements in the RM-2 residential multifamily, medium intensity district are
as follows:
Minimum
Lot Area
(Square
Feet)
MinimumLot Width
(Feet)
Minimum Unit
Size (Square
Feet)
Average Unit
Size (Square
Feet)
Maximum
Building
Height (Feet)
Maximum
Number of
Stories
7,000 50 New
construction-
s50
Non-elderlyand elderlylow and
moderate
income
housing: See
Section 142-
1 183
Rehabilitated
buildinqs-
New
construction-
800
Non-elderlyand elderlylow and
moderate
income
housing: See
Section 142-
1183
Rehabilitated
buildinqs-
Historic
district-S0
(except as
provided in
section 142-
1161
Area
bounded by
lndian Creek
Dr., CollinsAve., 26th
St., and 44th
st.-75
Historic
district-S
(except as
provided in
section 142-
'1161
Area
bounded by
lndian Creek
Dr., CollinsAve., 26th
St., and 44th
sr.-8
14
400
Hotel unit:
15%: 300-
335
85%:335+
550
Hotel
N/A
un its-
Area fronting
west side of
Collins Ave.
btwn. 76th
St. and 79th
st.-75
Othena/se-
60
Lots fronting
BiscayneBay less
than 45,000
sq. ft.-100
Lots fronting
BiscayneBay over
45,000 sq.
ft.-140
Lots fronting
Atlantic
Ocean over
100,000 sq.
ft.-140
Lots frontinq
Atlantic
Ocean with a
oropertv line
within 250
feet of North
Shore Ooen
Soace Park
Boundarv -
200
Area fronting
west side of
Collins Ave.
btwn. 76th
St. and 79th
st.-8
Otherwise-
6
Lots fronting
BiscayneBay less
than 45,000
sq. ft.-11
Lots fronting
BiscayneBay over
45,000 sq.
fL-15
Lots fronting
Atlantic
Ocean over
100,000 sq.
ft.-15
Lots frontino
Atlantic
Ocean with a
property line
within 250
feet of North
Shore Open
Soace Park
Boundary -
21
sEcTtoN 2. coDlFtcATloN.
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 3. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances and all section and parts of sections in conflict
herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.
lf 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.
This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption.
15
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
First Reading:
Second Reading:
March 5,2014
April23,2014
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO
FORM AND LANGUAGE
FOR EXECUTION
9-ll-l.r'Date
20
Verified by;
Thomas Mooney, AICP
Acting Planning Director
Underscore denotes new language
T:\AGENDA\2014\April\Rl\42 Oceanfront Heights - ORD 2nd Read.docx
16
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
An Ordinancp Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, lmplementing Provisions Of The 201 3-2016
Collective Bargaining Agreement Between The City And The American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees, (AFSCME)
Local 1554; Amending The Miami Beach Employees' Retirement Plan Created By Ordinance 2006-3504; Amending Section 2.26 Of The
Plan By Extending The Deferred Retiremenl Option Plan (DROP) Program From Three (3) To Five (5) Years For Eligible Members;
Amending Section 5.13 To Reflect Amended Eligibility And Participation Requirements And Amended DROP Plan Features; Amending
Section 4.03 By Eliminating The Purchase Of Additional Creditable Service Effective April 23, 2015; Amending Section 6.02 Of The Plan
By Reinstating An Additional Two Percent Member Contribution For Members Of The AFSCME Bargaining Unit Hired Prior To September
30, 2010; And Eliminating The Additional Two Percent Member Contribution When The Plan Actuary Confirms That The City's Annual
Required Conlribution To The Retirement Plan ls 23.5% Of Payroll Or Less; Providing For Severability; Repealing All Ordinances ln
Conflict Therewith: And Providing An Effective Date.
Key lntended Outcome Supported:
Ensure expenditure trends are sustainable over the long-term.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.) N/A
Currentty, tnere is a three year DROP for Tier A and Tier B AFSCME MBERP members, and a five year DROP for Tier C (post 2010
employmenl date) members. ln the tentative collective bargaining agreement between the City and AFSCME covering the period May 1,
2013, through April 30, 2016, the parties agree to exlend the DROP period for Tier A and Tier B AFSCME MBERP members from three to
five years, effective upon ratiflcalion of the agreement. The extension of the DROP yields savings by reducing the City's annual required
contiibution (ARC) to MBERP, since DROP participants do not receive the annual retiree coslof-living increase during their DROP years. ln
addition, DROP participants do not earn additional pension benefits.
Effective April 23, 2015, AFSCME bargaining unit members wrll no longer have the option to purchase up to two years of prior creditable
service. On average, 157 employees elect to purchase additional creditable service in the MBERP each year. A member pays ten percent
of his or her pensionable earnings for each year of prior services purchased. The lrue actuarial impact is significantly higher. The ultimate
cost of the prior credilable service purchase provision is measured by the difference between the full actuarial cost of the time purchased
and the ten percent of pay for each year purchased. For example, the full actuarial cost to purchase the maximum of two years of service
to a 45 year old member with ten years of service and an annual salary of $60,000 is approximately $38,000; yet pursuanl to current
provisions, lhe member pays $12,000. The difference of $26,000 is recognized as an experience loss and is funded by additional City
contributions over time. The effect on the ARC due to this membe/s service purchase is an increase of about $2,300 per year for 30 years.
Based on trends, the average annual impact of $2,300 per member represents $361 ,000 to the City each year based on an average of 157
buybacks per year, of which approximately $292,410 is estimated to be attributed to GSAF, CWA, Unclassified and "Others" combined; and
$68,590 is attributable to AFSCME members alone.
Effective upon ratification of the 2013-2016 collective bargaining agreement by the bargaining unit members April 21, 2014), and the City
Commission April 23, 2014, the additional two percent pension contribution will be reinstated for all AFSCME bargaining unit members, and
will not sunset. When the City's ARC reaches 23.5% of pensionable payroll or less, the City will rescind the additional two percenl pension
contribution levied on employees covered by the AFSCME collective bargaining unit who participate in MBERP and were hired prior to
September 30, 2010. The estimated impact of the additional two percent pension contribution by AFSCME bargaining unit members is
approxrmately ($541 ,5OO) for the term of the agreement, and will continue to rise as employee pensionable eamings increase over time.
The pension changes recently negotiated with AFSCME are expected to generate a savings toward the City's ARC, as well as savings off
the unfunded actu3rial accrued liability (UAAL). The terms of the agreement are parallel to those reached wilh the Communication Workers
of America (CWA) and Government Supervisors Association of Florida (GSAF), as well as those also applied lo non-represented
employees in the "others" and "unclassified" salary groups.
Based on the foregoing, the Administralion recommends approval of the ordinance on first reading and setting the second reading and
public hearing for the nLxt regularly scheduled City Commission meeting on May 21,2O14, as implementing the changes described herein
will orovide Dension savinqs in the short and lonq-term-
Committee Pension Reform lnitiative Recommendalion Report, August 2012
@PextensionwillnotaffectthebudgetduringFY2013l14ihoWever,itwillreSultinrecurringsavings
off the ARC estimated in the amount of $125,000, during FY 2014115, FY 2015116, FY 2016n7 and FY 2017118 for a tolal live year impact
of ($5OO,OOO). The salary cost attributable to the extension of the DROP for AFSCME MBERP members is as follows: $3,077 in FY
2O13t14, $37,487 inFy 2O14t15; $96,021 in FY 2015t16; $87,'109 inFY 2016117 and $1 16,786 inFY 2017118, assuming all eligible
employees opt to extend their participation in DROP. The total five year salary increase impact for the extension of the DROP is $340,480.
ln FY 2013/14 and FY 2O14t15 there will be no savings from the elimination of the ability 10 purchase prior service; however, there will be
an anticipated savings of ($28,579) in FY 2015/16; ($97,169) inFY 2O16t17; and ($165,759) in FY 2017/18. Therefore, the total five year
impact of eliminating the prior service buyback is a savings of ($291,507).
The projected savings from the reinstatement of the additional two percent pension contribution is as follows: ($108,000) in FY 2013114;
($272,0b0) in Fy 2oi4l15; ($277,000) in FY 2015/16; ($282,000) in FY 2016/17; and ($288,000) inFY 2017118. The total five year impact
is a savings of ($1,227,000).
combined imoact of these ilems is a savinqs of ($1
Tabak. Human Resources Director
Agenda rtem RSB17
g MIAMI BEACH
€ity of trtiomi Beoch, I 700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 331 39, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Philip Levine and Members of the City
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: April30, 20't4 FIRST READING
sUBJECT: AN ORDINANGE OF THE MAYORAND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEAGH, FLORIDA, IMPLEMENTI}IG PROVISIONS OF THE 2013.2016 COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION
oF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, (AFSGME) LOCAL 1554;
AMENDING THE MIAMI BEAGH EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT PLAN CREATED BY
ORDINANCE 2006-3504; AMENDING SECTION 2.26 OF THE PLAN BY EXTENDING
THE DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PLAN (DROP) PROGRAM FROM THREE (3)
TO FIVE (s) YEARS FOR ELIGIBLE MEMBERS; AMENDING SECTION 5.13 TO
REFLECT AMENDED ELIGIBILITY AND PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS AND
AMENDED DROP PLAN FEATURES; AMENDTNG SECTION 4.03 BY ELIMINATING
THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL CREDITABLE SERVIGE EFFECTIVE APRIL 23,
2015; AMENDING SECTION 6.02 OF THE PLAN BY REINSTATING AN ADDITIONAL
TWO PERCENT MEMBER CONTRIBUTION FOR MEMBERS OF THE AFSCME
BARGAINING UNIT HIRED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2010; AND ELIMINATING THE
ADDITIONAL TWO PERCENT MEMBER CONTRIBUTION WHEN THE PLAN ACTUARY
CONFIRMS THAT THE GITY'S ANNUAL REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION TO THE
RETIREMENT PLAN lS 23.5% OF PAYROLL OR LESS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES !N CONFLICT THEREWITH; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends approval of the ordinance on first reading and setting the second
reading and public hearing for the City Commission meeting on May 21,2014.
BACKGROUND
ln 2010, the Administration negotiated changes to pension benefits for then current and future
employees who participate in the Miami Beach Employees' Retirement Plan (MBERP). These
changes were included in the labor agreements entered Into by the City with the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Communications Workers of
America (CWA), Local 3178; and Government Supervisors Association of Florida (GSAF), OPEIU,
Local 100. ln keeping with the spirit of treating similar groups of employees consistently, these
contractual changes were also applied to all members of the plan not covered by a collective
bargaining unit.
The changes to MBERP implemented in 2010 included an increase to the employee's pension
contribution of two percent. This increase was implemented for the general employee salary groups
as follows: Unclassified and Others in January 2010, employees covered by the AFSCME and
GSAF collective bargaining units in July 2010, and employees covered by the CWA collective
18
Commission Memorandum
April 30, 2014
MBERP Pension Ordinance AFSCME First Reading
Page 2 ol2
bargaining unit in November 2010. The additional employee contribution remains in effect for
incumbents in all salary groups except employees covered by the AFSCME collective bargaining
agreement, which expired April 30, 2013, as the provision sunset.
The final average monthly earnings (FAME) increased from two to five years for current (Tier A and
Tier B members) and future employees (Tier C members), phasing in those members who were
between two and four years from the normal retirement age, so as not to adversely impact them.
The change in FAME yielded a reduction of approximately $1.9 million in the City's annual actuarial
required contribution (ARC). Gabriel, Roeder and Smith (GRS), the actuary for MBERP, estimated
that the change in FAME for all members would yield an annual savings ranging from $1.49 million
to $2.275 million per year (approxim alely 2.12 percent of payroll) each year over the next ten years.
The standard benefit is a lifetime annuity. Additional pension reform was negotiated for all
employees hired after September 30, 2010 (October 2010 for employees whose classifications are
covered by the CWA collective bargaining unit). The changes for new employees (Tier C) included:
. Normal retirement - Age 55 with a minimum of thirty years of creditable service, or age 62
with a minimum of five years of creditable service. As compared to Tier A members who can
retire at age 50 and Tier B members who can retire at age 55.
o The early retirement date will be the date on which the member's age plus years of creditable
service equals 75, with a minimum age of 55.
. The benefit multiplier will be two and one half percent multiplied by the member's years of
creditable service, subject to a maximum ol 80% of the member's FAME. As compared to
three or four percent for Tier A members and three percent for Tier B members.
o The retiree Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) will be one and one half percent per year, with
the first adjustment deferred to one year after the end of the Deferred Retirement Option
Plan (DROP) as compared to two and one half percent for Tiers A and B members.
. Employee contribution: 12 percent for Tier A members and ten percent for Tiers B and C
members.
. Members who separate from City employment with five or more years of creditable service
but prior to the normal or early retirement date will be eligible to receive a normal retirement
benefit at age 62.
. Members will be eligible to enter the DROP at the normal retirement age specified above and
may participate in the DROP for a maximum of five years.
The annual savings attributed to the changes for future employees beginning in FY 2011/12 was
approximately $900,000 (1.92 percent of payroll) to the City's ARC. GRS estimated that the City
would realize an additional annual reduction of seven-tenths percent per year of payroll applied as a
reduction toward the Cig's ARC in perpetuity. These savings on the City's ARC were estimated to
vary from a low of $910,000 in FY 20111121o as much as $5.995 million in FY 2020121.
The negotiating teams for the City and AFSCME began meeting in April 2013, to negotiate a
successor agreement to the 2010-2013 collective bargaining agreement which expired April 30,
19
Commission Memorandum
April 30,2014
MBERP Pension Ordinance AFSCME First Reading
Page 3 of 3
2013. After ten negotiation sessions, on March 19,2014, the City and AFSCME reached a tentative
three year agreement covering the time period May 1 , 2013, through April 30, 2016. Bargaining unit
employees ratified the contract April 21 , 2014 and the City Commission on April 23,2014.
ANALYSIS
The pension changes recently negotiated with AFSCME are expected to generate a savings toward
the City's ARC, as well as savings off the unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL).
The agreement with AFSCME includes the reinstatement of the additional two percent pension
contribution effective upon ratification of the three year labor agreement. The estimated impact of
the two percent contribution attributable to AFSCME/MBERP members is approximately $108,000 in
FY 2013114. This amount will increase each year as employee pensionable earnings rise
The City and AFSCME have agreed to the following pension related items:
Extension of the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP)
The DROP is an arrangement used by many public organizations under which employees who
would otherwise retire and collect benefits pursuant to the employer's defined benefit (pension)
retirement plan continue working for a fixed number of years. lnstead of having the compensation
and additional years of service taken into account for purposes of the defined benefit plan formula,
the employees have a sum of money, equal to their monthly retirement benefit, credited during their
extended employment to an interest bearing account under the employer's retirement plan.
No further contributions are made to the employees' pension but as long as they remain in the
DROP, they continue earning their full salaries and all other applicable incentive pays, if any. lf
these employees are not exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), they
earn overtime if they actually work more than 40 hours per week and they are also eligible for merit
increases and/or salary COLAs other employees may receive. When the employees leave at the
end of the DROP period, their contributions to the interest bearing account are disbursed to them by
the plan. At that point, they start collecting the monthly benefits they earned based on earlier years
of service. During the DROP period, employees are not eligible for the retiree COLA.
There are two reasons why the DROP yields saving to the City's ARC. The first, is that participants
are not eligible for the annual retiree COLA. The second is that the employee is not earning
additional pension benefits while in the DROP.
The City has already implemented a five year drop for all members of MBERP excluding members
covered by the AFSCME bargaining unit. Currently, there is a three year DROP for Tier A and Tier B
members covered by AFSCME and a five year DROP for Tier C (post-2010 employment) members
covered by AFSCME. AFSCME has agreed to extend the DROP period for Tier A and Tier B (pre-
20'10 employment) members from three to five years, effective upon ratification of the 2013-2016
collective bargaining agreement.
Any employee who previously executed a form entitling him or her to enter the DROP for a period of
less than sixty (60) months in total shall be given a one-time irrevocable election, within thirty (30)
calendar days from the effective date of the conforming City ordinance amending the DROP period
as set forth herein, to execute a new form extending his or her DROP period for up to sixty (60)
months in total.
20
Commission Memorandum
April 30, 2014
MBERP Pension Ordinance AFSCME First Reading
Page 4 of 4
Based on the actuarial impact statement provided by GRS (Attachment 1), the total estimated
impact from extending the DROP period for all AFSCME pre-2010 employment members represents
a reduction in the present value of future benefits of approximately $1 .2 million. This means the plan
would be expected to pay out $1.2 million less, in today's dollars. The City's ARC payable on
October 1,2014, will be reduced by approximately $125,000. This savings is comprised of a
reduction in the amortization payments on the UAAL of approximately $916,000 and a reduction to
the normal cost.
The analysis provided by the pension actuary does not take into account the financial impact of
salary earnings. By extending the DROP to five years, retirement-eligible employees who earn
higher salaries will remain employed, requiring the City to pay their higher salaries for a longer
period. That expenditure is offset somewhat by the fact that hiring new employees is postponed,
eliminating the City's contribution toward their pension. Quantifying the fiscal impact from a salary
perspective is difficult since there is no true way to forecast assumptions regarding which employees
will choose to extend their DROP participation or separate earlier.
As of our latest analysis, there are 16 AFSCME bargaining unit members in the MBERP DROP. The
cost effect on salaries caused by the extension of the DROP from three to five years for AFSCME
bargaining unit members is as follows: $3,077 in FY 2013114; $37,487 in FY 2014115; $96,021 in FY
2015116; $87,109 in FY 2016/17; and $116,786 inFY 2017118. To reach these conclusions, the
salary of each DROP member was compared to the entry level salary of a new incumbent in the
classification ultimately affected by the DROP participant's retirement. For example, when a
Municipal Service Worker lll (MSW lll) retires, his/her position becomes available to an incumbent in
a feeder classification and the domino effect would lead to the City ultimately hiring a new entry level
Municipal Service Worker I (MSW l). ln such example, the impact is the difference between the
MSW lll's salary and the entry level salary of an MSW l. For this illustrative purpose, the assumption
was that all DROP participants take advantage of the opportunity and remain employed with the
City.
Elimination of Prior Creditable Service Purchase Option
Effective one year from date of ratification of the 2013-2016 collective bargaining agreement, the
option to purchase up to two years of prior creditable service will be eliminated.
Currently, any AFSCME/MBERP member with five or more years of service can purchase up to two
years of creditable service earned prior to the member's date of hire by the City. Such purchase is
contingent upon the member not receiving a pension benefit for the same period under another
retirement plan (gl 12.65, Florida Statutes). Eligible prior service includes: (1) military service in the
United States Armed Forces or Coast Guard; (2) fulltime employment with another governmental
entity; or (3) full{ime employment in the private sector performing the same or similar duties the
member performs for the City at the time of his/her additional service purchase. Members who
exercise this option pay ten percent of their annual rate of pensionable earnings multiplied by the
number of years and fractions of a year purchased.
On average, 157 employees elect to purchase additional creditable service in the MBERP each
year. A member pays ten percent of his or her pensionable earnings for each year of prior services
purchased. The true actuarial impact is significantly higher. The ultimate cost of the prior creditable
service purchase provision is measured by the difference between the full actuarial cost of the time
purchased and the ten percent of pay for each year purchased. For example, the full actuarial cost
21
Commission Memorandum
April 30, 2014
MBERP Pension Ordinance AFSCME First Reading
Page 5 of 5
to purchase the maximum of two years of service to a 45 year old member with ten years of service
and an annual salary of $60,000 is approximately $38,000; yet pursuant to current provisions, the
member pays $12,000. The difference of $26,000 is recognized as an experience loss and is funded
by additional City contributions over time.
The effect on the ARC due to this member's service purchase is an increase of about $2,300 per
year for 30 years. Based on trends, the average annual impact of $2,300 per member represents
$361,000 to the City each year based on an average oI 157 buybacks per year, of which
approximately $292,410 is estimated to be attributed to GSAF, CWA, Unclassified and "Others"
combined; and 968,590 is attributable to AFSCME members alone (effective in FY 2015/16). As
shown on the table below, this impact is compounded each year buybacks are allowed.
FY 2014115 FY 2015/r6 FY 2016t17 FY 20'.t7t18 FY 2018/19
FUTURE
YEARS
Elimination of
FY 2014115
loss
amortization
$0 $28,579 $28,579 $28,579 $28,579
THE IMPACT
OF THE
BUYBACK
wlLL
CONTINUE TO
COMPOUND
EACH YEAR
Elimination of
FY 2015/16
loss
amortization
$68,590 $68,590 $68,590
Elimination of
FY 2016117
loss
amortization
$68,590 $68,590
Elimination of
FY 2017t18
loss
amortization
$68,590
TOTAL $28,579 $97,169 $165,759 $234,349
Additional Two Percent Emplovee Pension Contribution
The Budget Advisory Committee's (BAC) Recommendation on Pension Reform Report of August
2012 included policies and guidelines for the City to adopt to establish thresholds which, if not met,
would require the City to take prompt and appropriate measures to meet the criteria. At the July 17,
2013 City Commission meeting, the Mayor and City Commission adopted the policies and guidelines
proposed by the BAC. These policies and guidelines included the following related to the
management of risk and risk sharing:
"lf the City's contribution to a defined benefit plan exceeds 25 percent of payroll for
general employees and 60 percent of payroll for high-risk employees, the employee
contribution should be reviewed."
ln 20'10, the City negotiated a two percent increase in pension contributions from all employees
hired before that year. This represented an increase for Tier A members (AFSCME bargaining unit
employees hired prior to April 30, 1993), from ten to 't2 percent of pensionable earnings and an
incieaie from eight to 10 percent of pensionable earnings for Tier B employees (AFSCME
bargaining unit employees hired on or after April 30, 1993). The additional employee pension
22
Commission Memorandum
April 30, 2014
MBERP Pension Ordinance AFSCME First Reading
Page 6 of 6
contribution implemented in 2010 helped address the increased costs that resulted from the
downturn in the stock market that occurred in 2008 and 2009.
The actuarial valuation report approved by the MBERP Board in March 201 3 indicates that the cost
of the plan represents 40.3 percent of payroll. Although the Plan is still recognizing the impact from
the 2008-2009 economic downturns, the recently negotiated pension changes will yield longterm
savings.
Effective upon ratification of the 2013-2016 collective bargaining agreement, the additional two
percent pension contribution will be reinstated for all AFSCME bargaining unit members, and will not
sunset. When the City's ARC reaches 23.5o/o of pensionable payroll or less, the City will rescind the
additional two percent pension contribution levied on employees covered by the AFSCME collective
bargaining unit who participate in MBERP and were hired prior to September 30, 2010.
Re-instating this provision in the collective bargaining agreement results in the City avoiding a cost
rather than experiencing an actual savings since the plan has not taken into account the fact that the
provision expired April 30,2013, and the contribution will be re-instated prior to the actuarial
valuation report for October 1,2014.
CONCLUSION
The parties agreed to the aforementioned pension changes. At the time of this writing, AFSCME has
scheduled the ratification vote among their membershipfor April 21 ,2014. The results of this vote
will be provided to the City Commission under separate cover.
The estimated five year impact of these proposed pension changes is a combination of savings and
cost avoidance of ($1 ,678,027), as shown below.
FY 2013t14 FY 2014t15 FY 2015116 FY 20'.16117 FY 2017118 TOTAL
Estimated lmpact
on ARC From
Extension of DROP
$0 ($125,000)($125,000)($125,000)($125,000)($500,000)
Salary lmpact From
Extension of DROP $3,077 $37,487 $96,021 $87,109 $1 16,786 $340,480
Estimated lmpact
on ARC From
Elimination of Two-
Year Buyback
$o $o ($28,57e)($97,16s)($165,759)($291,507)
SUBTOTAL
COST(SAVINGS)$3,077 ($87,s13)($57,558)($57,558)($173,e73)($451,027)
Estimated Cost
Avoidance lmpact
from Reinstatement
of Additional Two
Percent Pension
Contribution
($1o8,ooo)($272,000)($277,000)($282,000)($288,000)($1,227,000)
TOTAL
cosT(SAVINGS)($104,923)($359,s13)($334,558)($417,060)($46r,973)($1,678,027)
The Admtnistration recommends amending Ordinance No. 2006-3504, the Miami Beach Employees'
23
Commission Memorandum
April 30,2014
MBERP Pension Ordinance AFSCME First Reading
Page 7 of 7
Retirement Plan, by extending the DROP for pre-2010 AFSCME MBERP members from three to five
years; and eliminating the two year past service purchase option for members covered by the
AFSCME collective bargaining agreement. lmplementing the described changes will provide
additional pension savings.
Based on the foregoing, the Administration recommends the City Commission approve the
ordinance on first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for May 21 ,2014.
Attach#&nt
+lo
JLM/K@/SC-T
T:\AGENDA\2014\ApriI\AFSCME\April 30, 2014\AFSCME 2013-2016 MBERP Pension DROP and Buyback Memo APRIL 30, 2014.docx
24
ORDINANGE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
GITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS
OF THE 2013.2016 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
STATE, COUNTY AND MUN|C|PAL EMPLOYEES, (AFSCME)
LOCAL 1554; AMENDING THE MIAMI BEACH EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT PLAN CREATED BY ORDINANCE 2006.3504;
AMENDING SECTION 2.26 OF THE PLAN BY EXTENDING THE
DEFERRED RETIREMENT OPTION PLAN (DROP) PROGRAM
FROM THREE (3) TO FIVE (5) YEARS FOR ELIGIBLE MEMBERS;
AMENDING SECTION 5.I3 TO REFLECT AMENDED ELIGIBILITY
AND PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS AND AMENDED DROP
PLAN FEATURES; AMENDING SECTION 4.03 BY ELIMINATING
THE PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL CREDITABLE SERVICE
EFFECTIVE APRIL 23, 2015; AMENDING SECTION 6.02 OF THE
PLAN BY REINSTATING AN ADDITIONAL TWO PERCENT
MEMBER CONTRIBUTION FOR MEMBERS OF THE AFSCME
BARGAINING UNIT HIRED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 30,2010; AND
ELIMINATING THE ADDITIONAL TWO PERCENT MEMBER
CONTRIBUTION WHEN THE PLAN ACTUARY CONFIRMS THAT
THE CITY'S ANNUAL REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION TO THE
RETIREMENT PLAN IS 23.5% OF PAYROLL OR LESS; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY; REPEALING ALL ORDINANGES !N
GONFLIGT THEREWTH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA:
Section 1. Section 2.26 ol the Miami Beach Employees' Retirement Plan created by
Ordinance 2006-3504, as subsequently amended, is hereby further amended as follows:
2.26 Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) - A program under which a Member who
has reached the normal retirement date may elect to retire for purposes of the Plan but
continue employment with the City for up to thirty-six (36) months, and have his/her
monthly retirement benefit paid into a DROP account during the DROP period, in
accordance with Section 5.13. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence.
(g) Effective July 17, 2013, Members within classifications in the CWA bargaining unit
who were hired prior to October 27,2010, and Members not included in any bargaining
unit, who were hired prior to September 1 0, 2010, may elect to retire for purposes of the
Plan but continue employment with the City for up to sixty (60) months, and have their
25
monthly retirement benefit paid into a DROP account during the DROP period, in
accordance with Section 5.'l 3.
(E) Effective October 16, 2013, Members
within classifications in the GSAF bargaining unit who were hired prior to July 14, 2010,
may elect to retire for purposes of the Plan but continue employment with the City for up
to sixty (60) months, and have their monthly retirement benefit paid into a DROP
account during the DROP period, in accordance with Section 5.13.
(c) Effective April 23, 2014, Members within classifications in the AFSCME barqaininq
unit who were hired prior to September 30. 2010. mav elect to retire for purposes of the
Plan but continue emolovment with the Citv for up to sixtv (60) months. and have their
monthlv retirement benefit paid into a DROP account durinq the DROP period. in
accordance with Section 5.1 3.
Section 2. Section 5.13 of the Miami Beach Employees' Retirement Plan created by
Ordinance 2006-3504, as subsequently amended, is hereby further amended as follows:
5.13 A defened retirement option plan (''DROP') is hereby established for eligible
Members, as follows:
(a) Eligibility and participation:
1. A Member who attains the normal retirement date shall be eligible to
participate in the DROP.
2. A Member's election to participate in the DROP shall be irrevocable.
A Member may participate in the DROP only once.
3. An eligible Member may participate in the DROP for a maximum of
thirty-six (36) months. Effective July 17, 2013, Members within
classifications in the CWA bargaining unit, who were hired prior to
October 27, 2010, and Members not included in any collective
bargaining unit, who were hired prior to September 10, 2010, may
participate in the DROP for a maximum of sixty (60) months. Effective
October 16, 2013, Members within classifications in the GSAF
bargaining unit, who were hired priorto July 14,2010, may participate
in the DROP for a maximum of sixty (60) months. Effective April 23.
2014. Members within classifications in the AFSCME barqainino unit.
who were hired prior to September 30. 2010, mav particioate in the
26
4.
DROP for a maximum of sixtv (60) months.
An eligible Member who elects to participate in the DROP must
provide at least thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City of
his or her election to participate in the DROP. A Member who elects to
participate in the DROP may elect to terminate DROP participation
and City employment sooner than the maximum DROP period, with
thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the City.
Effective July 17, 2013, any Member within classifications in the CWA
bargaining unit, and any Member not included in any collective
bargaining unit, who previously executed an election form entitling
him/her to participate in the DROP for a period of less than sixty (60)
months and whose DROP period ceases between July 1,2013 and
July 16, 2016, shall have a one-time opportunity to submit an
irrevocable amended election from provided by the Board, within thirty
(30) calendar days following the effective date of this ordinance,
extending his or her DROP period to a maximum of sixty (60) months
in total. Effective October 16, 2013, any Member within classifications
in the GSAF bargaining unit, who previously executed an election
form entitling him/her to participate in the DROP for a period of less
than sixty (60) months and whose DROP period ceases between
October 16,2013 and October 15,2016, shall have a one-time
opportunity to submit an irrevocable amended election from provided
by the Board, within thirty (30) calendar days following the effective
date of this ordinance, extending his or her DROP period to a
maximum of sixty (60) months in total. Effective April 23, 2014. anv
Member within classifications in the AFSCME barqaininq unit. who
previouslv executed an election form entitlinq him/her to oarticipate in
the DROP for a period of less than sixtv (60) months and whose
DROP period ceases between April23, 2014 and April22. 2015, shall
have a one-time opportunitv to submit an inevocable amended
election from provided bv the Board. within thirty (30) calendar davs
followino the effective date of this ordinance, extendino his or her
DROP period to a maximum of sixtv (60) months in total.
5.
27
(b) DROP plan features:
1. An eligible Member who elects to participate in the DROP will be
considered to have retired for purposes of the Plan upon entry into the
DROP, except that such Member shall be eligible to vote for and
serve as an Employee member of the Board of Trustees during the
DROP participation period. The Member's monthly retirement benefit,
determined in accordance with the Plan based on years of creditable
service and final average monthly earnings at the time the Member
enters the DROP, will be paid into the Member's DROP account every
month during the DROP period.
2. No Member contributions shall be required after a Member enters the
DROP, and the Member will not accrue any additional creditable
service or any additional benefits under the Plan after entering the
DROP. No City normal cost contributions shall be required after a
Member enters the DROP and DROP participants shall be excluded
from the covered payroll for the Plan.
3. A Member who elects to participate in the DROP shall not be eligible
for disability or preretirement death benefits under the Plan, nor shall
a Member be eligible for any post retirement adjustment provided in
Section 5.10 during the DROP participation period.
4. A Member who elects to participate in the DROP shall retain the
earned balance of annual and sick leave as of the date of entry into
the DROP, and shall continue to earn annual and sick leave during
the DROP period, in accordance with applicable City ordinances.
Alternatively, at the time of entry into the DROP, a
Member may request full or partial payment of the earned balance of
annual and sick leave as of the date of entry into the DROP, up to the
maximum allowed by applicable City ordinances for employees who
terminate City employment, but reduced by the amount of annual and
sick leave used for the purchase of additional credited service under
section 4.03, if any, at the Member's rate of compensation upon
entering the DROP; provided that the Member must retain at least 120
hours of accrued sick leave after any such payment. Upon
termination of City employment, a Member who has participated in the
428
5.
DROP shall be eligible to receive payment for the earned balance of
annual and sick leave as of the date of termination, up to the
maximum allowed by applicable City ordinances for employees who
terminate City employment, but reduced by the amount of annual and
sick leave for which payment was received upon entry into the DROP,
if any; and further reduced by the amount of annual and sick leave
used for the purchase of additional credited service under section
4.03, if any. ln no event shall payments for accrued annual or sick
leave be included in a member's Earnings for purposes of the Plan.
As a condition of participating in the DROP, the Member must agree
to terminate City employment at the conclusion of the DROP period,
and to submit an irrevocable letter of resignation stating this prior to
entering the DROP. A Member who elects to participate in the DROP
must also submit an irrevocable written DROP election prior to
entering the DROP on a form provided by the Board. Notwithstanding
the preceding sentence, eligible Members who are participants in the
DROP on July 1, 2013, shall be given a one-time opportunity to
submit an inevocable amended election form, as provided in Section
5.13 (a) 5., extending the DROP period to a maximum of sixty (60)
months in total. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, eligible
Members who are participants in the DROP on October 16, 2013,
shall be given a one{ime opportunity to submit an irrevocable
amended election form, as provided in Section 5.13 (a) 5, extending
the DROP period to a maximum of sixty (60) months in total.
Notwithstandino the precedino sentence, eliqible Members whose
classifications are covered bv the AFSCME baroainino unit who are
participants in the DROP on April 23, 2014. shall be qiven a one-time
opoortunitv to submit an irrevocable amended election form. as
provided in Section 5.13 (a) 5, extendino the DROP period to a
maximum of sixtv (60) months in total.
At the conclusion of the DROP period and upon termination of City
employment, the Member's monthly retirement benefit shall be paid to
the Member in accordance with the Plan. ln the event of the
Member's death during or at the conclusion of the DROP period, a
6.
29
benefit may be payable in accordance with Section 5.07
8. Participation in the DROP is not a guarantee of City employment, and
DROP participants will be subject to the same terms and conditions of
employment that are applicable to employees who are not DROP
participants.
9. During participation in the DROP, the Membe/s monthly retirement
benefit will be paid into the DROP account, and shall be
credited/debited with earnings/losses as provided herein. The
Member may direct that their DROP account be invested in any of the
investment options approved by the Board, on forms provided by the
Board. Any gains on the Member's DROP account investments shall
be credited to the Member's DROP account; and any losses incurred
by the Member shall be deducted from the Member's DROP account
balance, and shall not be made up by the City or the Retirement Plan.
A Member's DROP account shall only be credited or debited with
earnings/losses while the Member is a participant in the DROP.
10. A DROP participant may designate a beneficiary or beneficiaries for
his/her DROP account on a form provided by the Board.
11. Within thirty (30) days following a DROP participant's termination of
City employment or death, whichever occurs first, the Member, or in
the event of the Membe/s death the Membeis designated
beneficiary, may submit a written election on a form approved by the
Board, to receive the Membe/s entire DROP account balance, which
shall be distributed to the Member (or in the event of the Member's
death, to the Member's designated beneficiary or estate in
accordance with paragraph (b)9., below) in a cash lump sum, unless
the Member elects to have all or any portion of an eligible rollover
distribution paid directly to an lM or eligible retirement plan specified
by the Member in a direct rollover. Any such direct rollover shall be
processed in accordance with Article 12 of the Plan. ln the event a
Member or designated beneficiary does not submit a written election
to receive a distribution of the Membe/s DROP account balance
within thirty (30) days following the Member's termination of City
employment or death, the Member's DROP account shall be
30
maintained by the Plan but shall not be credited with earnings/losses
after thirty (30) days following the Membeis termination of City
employment or death.
12. lt a DROP participant dies before his or her DROP account is
distributed, the participant's designated beneficiary shall have the
same rights as the participant with respect to the distribution of the
DROP account. lf the participant has not designated a beneficiary, the
DROP account balance shall be paid to the Member's estate.
13.The Board of Trustees shall make such administrative rules as are
necessary for the efficient operation of DROP, but shall not adopt any
rule that is inconsistent with this Ordinance or the Plan.
14.The DROP shall be administered so that the Plan remains qualified
under the lnternal Revenue Service Code and in compliance with
applicable laws and regulations.
Section 3. Section 4.03 of the Miami Beach Employees' Retirement Plan created by
Ordinance 2006-3504, as subsequently amended, is hereby further amended as
follows:
4.03 (a) A Member with flve (5) or more years of creditable service may, at any time prior to
retirement, elect to purchase up to a maximum of two (2) years of additional creditable
service as provided in this section 4.03. Notwithstanding any provision of this Section 4.03,
effective September 30, 2013, Members whose classification is included in the CWA
bargaining unit and Members who are not included in any collective bargaining unit shall not
be eligible to purchase additional creditable service under this section 4.03.
Notwithstanding any provision of this Section 4.03, effective September 30, 2013, Members
whose classification is included in the GSAF bargaining unit shall not be eligible to purchase
additional creditable service under this section 4.03. Notwithstandino any provision of this
Section 4.03, effective Aoril 23. 2015. Members whose classification is included in the
AFSCME barqainino unit shall not be eliqible to purchase additional creditable service under
this section 4.03. The benefit multiplier that the Member is eaming at the time of the election
to purchase additional creditable service pursuant to this section 4.03 shall be applied to the
additional credited service purchased. To be eligible to purchase additional creditable
service under this section 4.03, a Member who previously elected to participate in the
Defined Contribution Retirement System (401 (a) Plan) must first purchase all available
731
creditable service in accordance with section 4.04. An eligible Member may elect to
purchase additional creditable service under this section 4.03 for any of the following types
of employment prior to the employee's date of hire by the City, provided that the Member
may not purchase such service if the Member has received or will receive a pension benefit
for the same period of employment under another retirement plan:
1. Active duty military service in the Armed Forces of the United States or the Coast Guard.
2. Full-time employment with another governmental entity.
3. Full-time employment in the private sector performing the same or very similar duties the
employee is performing for the City at the time of his/her election to purchase additional
service.
Section 4. Section 6.02 of the Miami Beach Employees' Retirement Plan created by
Ordinance 2006-3504, as subsequently amended, is hereby further amended as follows:
6.02 Contributions by Members
(a) Each Member shall contribute to the Plan eight percent (8%) of earnings, except as
otherwise provided in this Section 6.02. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, effective
July 14, 2010, each Member in a classification within the AFSCME and GSA bargaining
units, and each Unclassified and 'Othei' Member, shall contribute to the Plan ten percent
(10%) of earnings, except as otheruise provided in this Section 6.02. Notwithstanding the
first sentence of this subsection (a), effective November 27,2010, each Member in a
classification within the CWA (MBEBA) bargaining unit shall contribute to the Plan ten
percent (10%) of earnings, except as othenrvise provided in this Section 6.02., and contingent
on State approval of an acluarial impact statement confirming a reduction in the City's annual
required pension contribution for FY 2010-2011 associated with the pension changes
contained in the 2009-2012 collective CWA collective bargaining agreement of at least
$1,000,050. The contributions made by each Member to the Plan shall be deducted from the
Membe/s Earnings and designated as Employer contributions pursuant to section 414(h) of
the lnternal Revenue Code. Such designation is contingent upon the contributions being
excluded from the Members' gross income for Federal lncome Tax purposes. For all other
purposes of the Plan, such contributions shall be considered to be Member contributions.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) above, all persons entering service with the City prior
to April 1, 1993 who are in the classifications within the AFSCME bargaining unit; all
persons entering service with the City prior to February 21 , 1994 who are in classifications
32
within the CWA (MBEBA) bargaining unit, and all persons entering service with the City prior
to August 1, 1993 who are in classifications within the GSA bargaining unit or classified as
"Othe/', who were members of the Classified Plan continuously from the date they entered
service with the City until March 18,2006, shall contribute to the Plan ten percent (10%) of
their earnings throughout their service as a Member of this Plan. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, effective July 14, 2010, each Member described in the preceding
sentence who is in a classification within the AFSCME or GSA bargaining units shall
contribute to the Plan twelve percenl (12yo) of earnings, and effective January '18, 2010,
each Member described in the preceding sentence classified as "Othe/' shall contribute to
the Plan twelve percent (12Yo) of earnings. Notwithstanding the first sentence of this
subsection (b), effective November 27,2010, each Member described in the first sentence of
this subsection (b) who is in a classification within the CWA (MBEBA) bargaining unit shall
contribute to the Plan twelve percenl (12o/o) of earnings, contingent on State approval of an
actuarial impact statement conflrming a reduction in the City's annual required pension
contribution tor FY 2O1O-201 'l associated with the pension changes contained in the 2009-
2012 collective CWA bargaining agreement of at least $1 ,000,050.
(e) Notwithstandinq subsections (a) and (b) above. for members who are in classifications
within the AFCSME barqaininq unit:
1. For Members hired orior to April 30. '1993. the emplovee contribution shall be
twelve oercent (12%) of earninqs effective Julv 14. 2010 throuoh April 30, 2013: ten percent
(10%) of earninos effective Ma)L 1 . 201 3 throuqh Aoril 23, 2014; and twelve percent (12%) of
earnings effective April 23. 2014.
2. For Members hired on or after April 30, 1993 and before September 30. 2010. the
employee contribution shall be ten percent (10%) of earninos effective Julv 14. 2010 throuoh
April 30, 2013; eiqht percent (8%) of earnings effective Mav 'l . 2013 throuqh Aoril 23. 2014;
and ten percent (10%) of earninqs effective April 23. 2014.
3. For members hired on or after Seotember 30. 20'10. the emplovee contribution
shall be ten oercent (10%) of earninos.
4. The employee contribution provided in paraoraphs 1. and 2. above shall decrease
by two percent (2%) of earninos when the Plan actuarv confirms that the City's annual
required contribution to the Plan is twentv-three and one-half percent (23.5%) of oensionable
33
oavroll or less. The two oercent decrease in the emplovee contribution shall take effect on
the same date as the City's annual required contribution of twentv-three and one-half percent
(23.5%) of oensionable pavroll or less.
Section 5: Conflicts and Severability.
(a) All Ordinances, and parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith shall be and
the same, are hereby repealed.
(b) ln the event any article, section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase
of this Ordinance shall be adjudicated invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall
in no manner affect the other articles, sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or
phrases of this Ordinance, which shall be and remain in full force and effect as fully as if
the item so adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part hereof.
Section 6. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect the day of 2014,
except as otherwise provided herein.
PASSED and ADOPTED by the City Commission of the Gity of i/liami Beach this
day of 2014-
PHIL!P LEVINE
MAYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO
FeRL,l& LA.I'.IGUAGE
& FCIR FJECUTICIN
RAFAEL E. GRANADO
CITY GLERK
T:lAGENDA\2014WpriI\AFSCME\AFSCME 2013-2016 MBERP Pension DROP and Buyback Ordinance 1st rdg.docx
1034
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A resolXion consentrnS to the appointment of Daniel J. Oates as the Chief of Police for the City of
Miami Beach.
lntended Outcome of Su
Item Summary/Recommendation:
Financial
lnsist on Police Department accountability and skilled managemenuleadership.
Supporting Data (Suweys, Environmental Scan, etc.): The 2012 survey data shows that 66% of our
residents rite the quality of the Police Department as excellent or good, an 18Vo decline when compared to
the 84olo rating in 2009; 85% of resident felt very safe and somewhat safe in business commercial areas
during the evening/night, compared to 88% in 2009, a 3% decline. The environmental scan of 2013 shows
a total Part I crimes (violent and property) decrease oI 21 .8o/o when compared to the 2012 data.
The Police Department is tasked with providing and enhancing quality police services to the Miami Beach
community by promoting a safe environment through police and citizen interactions with an emphasis on
integrity, fairness, and professionalism.
Daniel J. Oates, a career law enforcement professional and a lawyer by training, began working in the field
as a police officer in '1980 and today is the Chief of Police of the City of Aurora, Colorado. The Aurora
Police Department has 670 sworn personnel and 124 civilian employees, with an operating budget of $94
million. As Chief, he is responsible for providing law enforcement services to a city with a diverse
population of 345,000 residents and covering 172 square miles.
After many conversations and appropriate inquiries, I have reached the conclusion that Chief Daniel Oates
is the besi person to meet the City of Miami Beach's needs in terms of a Police Chief. Chief Oates will
make an outstanding member of my management and executive teams and contribute greatly toward
meeting your expectations from the administration of the City of Miami Beach.
Pursuant to the requirements of Article lV, Section 4.02(b) of the City Charter, it is recommended that
the Mayor and the City Commission adopt the attached resolution consenting to and confirming Daniel
J. Oates as the Police Chief for the City of Miami Beach.
Source of I IFunds: I fI I 2l
ll 3lI rl
OBPI , Total
I
Financial lmpact Summary:
Sylvia Crespo-Tabak, Human Resources Department
S
Department Director Assistant CitpEnager city(lv\nager
sc-r04,KGBJgZ JLNMl'fi-
AGENDA ITEil R?AE MIAMIBEACH DATE
35
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, 1700 Conveniion Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139, www. miomibeochfl.gov
SSION MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Philip Levine, and Members the City
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: April 30, 2014
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAY AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE GITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,ENTING TO THE APPOINTMENT OF DANIEL J.
OATES, AS CHIEF OF POLICE THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Ever since my memorandum of March 6, 2014, when I communicated to you that Chief
Raymond Martinez intended to retire effective April 4, 2014,I have been actively reaching out to
or responding to individuals who could effectively fulfill the role of Chief of Police for the City of
Miami Beach. I also enlisted assistance from the Police Executive Research Forum in
identifying potential candidates.
After an extensive process, it is my pleasure to introduce and recommend Daniel J. Oates, for
appointment as the new Chief of Police for the City of Miami Beach.
ANALYSIS
Daniel J. Oates is currently the Chief of Police for the City of Aurora, Colorado, and has served
in that capacity since 2005. The Aurora Police Department currently has 670 police officers and
794 total employees. lt provides comprehensive police services to a diverse city of 345,000
residents and 172 square miles. During his tenure, Chief Oates has overseen a 30-percent
reduction in major index crime in Aurora.
Prior to his appointment in Aurora, Chief Oates served for four years as Chief of Police and
Safety Services Administrator for the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, where he was responsible for
all police, fire and emergency management services for a city of 114,000 that included the
University of Michigan.
Prior to going to Ann Arbor, Chief Oates served for 2'l years in the New York Police
Department. He finished his NYPD career as a Deputy Chief and the Executive Officer and
second-in-command of the Patrol Borough Brooklyn South, where he supervised 3,000 patrol
officers and 700 civilians and was responsiblefor all patrol services for 1.4 million residents in
the City's largest borough. Between 1997 and 2001 , Chief Oates served as the Commanding
Officer of the NYPD's lntelligence Division. He was a member of the Police Commissioner's
Executive Staff and served as his principal advisor on citywide security and intelligence matters.
Chief Oates' prior NYPD assignments also included serving as the chief counsel and
Commanding Officer of the Legal Bureau, the 8S-attorney law office of the NYPD.
36
City Commission Memorandum
Consenting and Confirming to the Appointment of Dan Oates as the Chief of Police
April 30, 2014
Page 2 ot 2
Chief Oates is a 1977 graduate of Bucknell University with a B.A. degree in English. He was
graduated from New York Law School in 1986 and is admitted to practice law in Colorado, New
York and New Jersey. He also holds a Master's of Science Degree in Management from New
York University. He is a member and Vice-Chair of the Colorado Peace Officers Standards and
Training (POST) Board, a Past President of the Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police, and
chairperson of the Colorado Information Sharing Consortium (CISC), the statewide law
enforcement cooperative that manages a state-of-the-art data and records exchange to fight
crime. He is also a member of numerous professional associations, including the Police
Executive Research Forum and the lnternational Association of Chiefs of Police, where he
serves on the executive committee/governing board. Chief Oates also serves on the Criminal
lntelligence Coordinating Council, the national advisory council of police chiefs and sheriffs,
created in May, 2004 to advise the U.S. Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security
on intelligence and security strategies in a post-g/1 I world.
I have had an opportunity to speak with people in and out of law enforcement who have worked
with Dan in Aurora, Ann Arbor and New York. The assessment has been the same: he is a
great cop, a fine leader and knows how to work with all communities. He is focused on integrity
and transparency, and has been a game changer wherever he has gone. Finally, you may
recall that Chief Oates was Chief in Aurora during that horrific movie theater shooting incident.
He received local and national praise for how he handled that difficult period, and his strength
and leadership reassured his community. I think we will be fortunate to have a police chief of
his caliber to call our own.
Chief Oates' resume, with significantly more information on his accomplishments, is attached.
CONCLUS!ON
After many conversations and appropriate inquiries, I have reached the conclusion that Chief
Daniel Oates is the best person to meet the City of Miami Beach's needs in terms of a Police
Chief. I believe he will make an outstanding member of my management and executive teams
and greatly assist me in meeting your expectations from the administration of the City of Miami
Beach.
Pursuant to the requirements of Article lV, Section 4.02, of the City Charter, it is recommended
that the Mayor and City Commission adopt the resolution consenting to and confirming Daniel J.
Oates as the Chief of Police for the City of Miami Beach.
Attachment
JLM/KGB/SC-T
c:\users\humacres\desktop\chief of police\dan oates - chief of police - app0intment memo.docx37
ATTACHMENT
DANIEL J. OATES
24601 E. Ontario Drive, Aurora, Co. 80016
(303) 263-72s8
E-mail : doatcs'4,atrroragor'.9t9
WORK HISTORY CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO
Nov. 2005 - Present Police Chief
Chief Executive of Aurora's nationally accredited Police Department and manager of a
$94 million annual budget and795 employees
Responsible for all police services in the 56th largest U.S. city, with 345,000 residents and
a service area of 172 square miles that includes Buckley Air Force Base and the
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Led the Department in reducing Major Index Crime by 30 percent in eight years,
including reductions in every category measured nationally by the F.B.I.
Brought stable leadership and new vision to the Department following demotion of
former chief and awkward 1O-month period of interim leadership
In first year in office, revitalized police-community relations in the aftermath of several
negative, high-profile police incidents; engaged officers and citizens in "community
forums" that built mutual trust and led to action plans for improving citizen interaction
and police department recruiting and diversity
Led formation of and currently serves as chairperson of the Colorado Information Sharing
Consortium (CISC), a collaboration ofchiefs and sheriffs that has built a state-of-the-art
network for sharing and analyzing law enforcement data to fight crime across Colorado
Implemented a comprehensive anti-gang initiative that gathers, analyzes and integrates
gang intelligence with coordinated street operations, leverages state and federal partners
and resources, and offers an annual, transparent report on gang activity to the community
Successfully pursued creative changes in city charter and personnel rules, thereby
achieving reform in long-criticized Civil Service processes for hiring and promotion;
changes have included greater flexibility in recruit testing and in the appointment and
removal of Civit Service commissioners, an improved oral assessment process, added
recognition for second-language skills and a process for merit selection in executive ranks
Created a police/citizen mediation process to resolve complaints against officers
Created and published a comprehensive annual public report on police discipline,
working in cooperation with union leadership and in response to community demand
CAREERHIGHLIGHT
Elected President of the 150-member Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police in 2009
and recipient in 2008 of the CACP's Ralph Smith Professional Innovation Award, a
coveted peer honor for statewide leadership efforts on behalf ofthe profession.
38
DANIEL J. OATES, page 2
2OOI-2005 CITY OF ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN
Safetv Services Administrator/Police Chief
Chief Executive of City's Police, Fire, Emergency Management, Code Enforcement and
Public Safety Communications services
Responsible for $35 million annual budget and 325 employees
Service area included 26 square miles, with 114,000 residents, 37,000 University of
Michigan students and a total dalime population over 200,000
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
o Appointed Safety Services Administrator within a year of hire as Police Chief (retaining
Police Chief title and responsibilities) and given a lead role in a new senior management
team charged with making sweeping change to downsize and improve city govemment
o Cut costs and streamlined police, fire and emergency management by merging
administration, budget, palT oll, purchasing, technology and other support services
o Reduced major index crime by l3 percent and violent crime by 24 percent in three years;
implemented COMPSTAT crime-reduction strategies throughout AAPD
o Reduced complaints against police officers by 26 percent in three years, and markedly
improved the AAPD's standing with all elements of the community
. Balanced the Police FY 01-02 budget, despite $1.1 million in unbudgeted costs due to
early retirements and contract settlements; saved $700,000 more in PD/FD 02-03 budgets
r Served twice as Interim Fire Chief, implementing long overdue reforms and cost-cutting
measures (upheld in subsequent arbitrations) that closed one fire house and reduced daily
staffing without diminishing essential services
r Totally revamped emergency management, installing new leadership and overhauling
security and threat planning; implemented new, comprehensive all-hazards response
plans for emergencies, natural disasters and threats to the City's critical infrastructure
r Successfully led the AAPD through a comprehensive racial profiling study, conducted by
a nationally recognized expert, which found no evidence of profiling and was deemed
among the best results ever achieved nationally in such a study
r Achieved a cost-cutting merger of Police and Fire radio operations; built a $1.3 million
state-of-the-art 911 Public Safety Communications facility, opened in February, 2005
r Created a new Community Standards Unit to perform all city code enforcement (e.g.,
parking, garbage, sidewalks, vegetation, cabaret, snow and ice, etc.), providing "one-stop
shopping" for council and citizen complaints and prompt, consistent response
o Successfully negotiated a breakthrough agreement with the firefighters' union, achieving
new language on staffing, discipline, promotions, mufual aid, etc., that saved $800,000 a
year; eliminated wasteful Fire Department runs, reducing calls for service by 17 percent
39
DANIEL J. OATES, page 3
1980-2001 NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
2001 Deputy Chief, Executive Officer, Patrol Boroueh Brooklyn South
. Second in command of 3,000 police officers and 700 civilians
r Responsible for all patrol services for 1.4 million residents, including all crime-reduction
and community-policing initiatives
o Service area included 49 square miles and 13 police precincts
. Retired after 5 months in this assignment and 2l-year NYPD career to accept
appointment as Chief of Police in Ann Arbor
1997-2000 Deputy Chiefi Commandine Officer. Intellieence Division
. Commander of 365 police officers, detectives, supervisors and civilian staff
o Reported directly to the Police Commissioner, serving on his Executive Staff as the
principal advisor on citywide security and intelligence matters
r Planned and implemented NYPD's security for the President of the United States, all
world leaders, dignitaries, VIP guests and highthreat visitors to New York City, and
coordinated appropriate security for all major public events
o Served as the NYPD's principal coordinating official and liaison to foreign governments
and to the United Nations' diplomatic corps
o Served as the NYPD's principal liaison on all security and intelligence matters to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. State Department, Interpol and
other local, federal and international law-enforcement agencies
. Conducted the NYPD's most sensitive investigations into threats to public security and to
the Mayor, public officials and police officers
o Coordinated a.nd supervised the 24-hour protection for the Mayor and his family and for
other high-ranking government officials
. Designed, staffed and maintained an innovative new 24-hour Regional Intelligence
Center with personnel from the NYPD and local, state and federal law enforcement
o Designed and implemented new systems to collect, analyze and disseminate criminal
intelligence on violent street gangs and on organized crime and criminal enterprises
. Worked with U.S. State Department and New York City Commission for the United
Nations to update, redesign and implement a comprehensive new NYPD training program
on privileges and immunities of diplomatic and consular personnel working in New York
CAREER HIGHLIGHTS
Designed and oversaw the successful implementation of the NYPD's comprehensive
security plan for the United Nations Millennium Summit (September, 2000), the largest
gathering of world leaders in history; subsequently recognized by the U.N. Secretary
General, the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Secret Service for this achievement.
40
DANIEL J. OATES, page 4
Totally re-engineered the NYPD's Intelligence Division, modernizing and vastly
expanding the Division's data systems, reshaping its investigative, threat-assessment and
dignitary-protection functions, building a new $3 million headquarters, and creating a 24-
hour Intelligence Center, a modern Gang Intelligence Unit, and a paperless process for all
41,000 police officers to report criminal intelligence.
1994-1996 Deputy Inspector: Commanding Officer. Legal Bureau
o Director of the NYPD's law office, including its 85 lawyers and 40 support staff
. Served as counsel to the Police Commissioner and his Executive Staff
r Initiated and supervised the litigation of approximately 1 ,500 actions annually in
forfeiture and nuisance abatement
. Served as the Department's expert on criminal procedure and First Amendment law
r Prepared and/or approved all legal training for the agency's 41,000 swom ofhcers
o Prepared and/or approved all agency correspondence on legal matters
o Supervised the Legislative Affairs Unit, which oversaw the NYPD's local, state and
federal legislative agenda; briefed and prepared the Police Commissioner and other
NYPD witnesses appearing before the City Council and other legislative bodies
r Represented the NYPD in sensitive negotiations with other govemment agencies and the
private sector; served as in-house counsel on all civil law issues, including: human rights
and equal employment litigation; hiring, discipline, termination and other personnel
matters; contract negotiations; defense and disclosure of sensitive records, etc.
CAREER HIGHLIGHT
Led the successful campaign to win the Ford Foundation's 1995 Innovations in American
Govemment Award for the NYPD's "Civil Enforcement Initiative." Raised the number
ofnuisance-abatement actions and court-ordered closings ofgambling, auto chop shop,
prostitution and narcotics locations from less than 50 to nearly 500 annually.
1980-1994 OtherNYPDEmployment
o Varied field and staff assignments in the ranks of police officer tlrough Captain,
including patrol in three Manhattan precincts, community relations, law, personnel
management, teaching in the Police Academy, supervising narcotics investigations and
coordinating training for the 1,000-member Narcotics Division.
EDUCATION NEWYORKLAWSCHOOL
9/82-5186 Degree: Juris Doctor, cum laude, June, 1986
9/91-9/93 NEW YORK LINIVERSITY
Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
Degree: Master of Science (Management), September, 1993
41
DANIEL J. OATES, page 5
9173-5177 BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY
Degree: Bachelor of Arts (English), cum laude, May,1977
1993 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Graduate School of Business: "The Police Management Institute," an
eight-week certificate program in progressive management theory that
serves as the NYPD executive corps' elite leadership training
2OO7 F.B.I. NATIONAL EXECUTIVE INSTITUTE
BAR State of Colorado
ADMISSIONS State of New York
State of New Jersey
U.S. District Courts for the Southem and Eastern Districts of New York
and the District of New Jersey
NATIONAL Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council
PROFESSIONAL The national advisory council of law enforcement executives, created in
AFFILIATIONS 2004 to advise the U.S. Auomey General and Secretary of Homeland
Security on intelligence and security strategies in a post-9/l I world
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Member, Executive Committee (IACP's Goveming Board)
Member, IACP Police Investigative Operations Committee
Member, IACP Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Committee
Police Executive Research Forum
Board of Advisors, Long Island University Homeland Security
Management lnstitute, and adjunct professor of constitutional law
COLORADO Vice-Chair, Colorado Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Board
AFFILIATIONS Member, Colorado Association of Chiefs of Police (CACP);
Past President and Past Chairperson of Legislative Committee
Chairperson, Colorado Information Sharing Consortium
Chairperson, Board of Directors, Denver-Area Metro Gang Task Force
Member, Executive Board, Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area (HIDTA)
CNIC Board Member, Aurora Symphony Orchestra
ASSOCIATIONS Board Member, Open Door Youth Gang Altematives
Member, Aurora Rotary Club
PERSONAL Birth date: January 2, 1955, in Hackensack, N.J.
DATA Married: Nancy Boecker Oates in 1978; two children
REFERENCES Fumished upon request
42
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, CONSENTING TO AND
CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF DANIEL J. OATES AS THE
CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE GITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, current Chief of Police, Raymond Martinez, announced his
retirement from the City of Miami Beach; and
WHEREAS, Chief Oates' track record in law enforcement demonstrates that he
has the leadership skills necessary to lead the Police Department; and
WHEREAS, as a result of the recruitment process undertaken by the City
Manager himself, Chief Oates has emerged as the person best suited to lead the City of
Miami Beach Police Department; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article lV, Section 4.O2 ot the City of Miami Beach
Charter, the City Manager has the power to appoint directors of the City departments
with the consent of the Mayor and the City Commission;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND CIry
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, consent to and confirm the
appointment of Daniel J. Oates as the Chief of Police for the City of Miami Beach.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 30th day of April, 2014.
ATTEST:
Philip Levine, Mayor
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
APPROVEDASTO
FORM & LAI{GUAGE
UTION
1-2.1-il
Daie
43
44
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR ANO CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF FIRMS, PURSUANT TO REQUEST
FOR PROPOSALS NO. 2OI4.O9{.SW FOR INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES.
Ensure Expenditure Trends Are Sustainable Over The Long
Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc: N/A
Item Summary/Recommendation:
The City requires the services of an investmenl advisorto manage and directthe City's inveslmenls. The investment advisor
is to manage and direct the investment of excess funds in accordance with the City's investment objectives as set forth in Cily
of Miami Beach's lnvestment Policy. The key objectives of the City's investment policy are safety of capital, sufficient liquidity
to meet requirements and attaining market-average rates of return. Excess funds are defined as funds not required to
meeting short term expenditures of the City. Currently, funds available for investment consist of approximately $522 million
which include: $346 million from operating funds, $103 million from various bond proceeds, and $73 million from the Miami
Beach Redevelopment Agency (RDA).
Through RFP 2014-091-SW, the City of Miami Beach, Florida (the 'City') has sought proposals from firms interested in
providing the City with investment advisory services to manage and direct the City's investments as detailed herein.
On December 11,2013, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 2014-
091 for an lnveslment Advisory Services. The RFP was issued on February 6, 2014, with an opening date ofMarch25,2014.
The solicitation was advertised and notices were released to prospective proposers. The RFP resulted in proposals from the
following six (6) firms:
After proposer's presentalions and interviews, the Committee discussed the proposers' qualifications, experience, and
competence, and further scored the proposers accordingly. The Committee was instructed lo score each proposal pursuant
to the evaluation criteria established in the RFP. The final rankings are as follows:
1 . First Southwest
2. Davidson Fixed lncome Management
2. Public Trust Advisors, LLC
4. PFM Asset Management LLC
5. Cutwater Asset Management
6. Russell lnvestments
After reviewing all the submissions and the Evaluation Committee's rankings of proposals received, the Cily Manager
exercised his due diligence and is recommending that the Mayor and the City Commission enter into negotiations with First
Southwest, the top-ranked firm. Should negotiations with the topranked firm be successful, the City Manager recommends
negotiating with the firms tied as second-ranked, Davidson Fixed lncome Management and Public Trust Advisors, LLC.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida accept the
recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the ranking of proposals, pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) No.
2014-091-SW for investment advisory services; further authorizing the Administralion lo enter into negotiations with thetop-
ranked firm, First Southwest; and should the administration not be successful in negotiating an agreement with the top-
ranked proposer, authorizing negotiations with the second-ranked proposers (tie), Davidson Fixed lncome Management and
Public Trust Advisors, LLC; and further aulhorizing the mayor and city clerk to execute an agreement upon conclusion of
successful negotiations by the administration.
RECOMMENDATION
the Resolulion
Financial lnformation:
Financial lm
AGENDA ,rri Rl B/F-AAry ,Yl AMIBTACH D,rie q'30-lq45
g MIAMIBEACH
Ciry of Miami Beach, I /00 Convention Cenier Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISS ON MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Philip Levine and Members o
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: April30, 2014
the City C
SUBTECT: RESOLUT1ON OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF FIRMS, PURSUANT TO REQUEST
FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 2014-091-SW FOR INVESTMENT ADVISORY
SERVICES.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Ensure Expenditure Trends Are Sustainable Over The Long Term
ANALYSIS
The City requires the services of an investment advisor to manage and direct the City's
investments. The investment advisor is to manage and direct the investment of excess funds in
accordance with the City's investment objectives as set forth in City of Miami Beach's
lnvestment Policy. The key objectives of the City's investment policy are safety of capital,
sufficient liquidity to meet requirements and attaining market-average rates of return. Excess
funds are defined as funds not required to meeting short term expenditures of the City.
Currently, funds available for investment consist of approximately $522 million which include:
$346 million from operating funds, $103 million from various bond proceeds, and $73 million
from the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency (RDA).
The City expects its investment advisor to be highly experienced, a leader and innovator in the
management of investments, and able to provide comprehensive investment advisory services.
The firm selected as the investment advisor and its affiliates will be restricted from selling to the
City, or buying from the City, any securities to or from that firm's own inventory or account. The
investment advisor will also be restricted from placing into the City's portfolio any securities for
which it, or an affiliate, is the issuer. lnvestment advisors will not provide custodial services or
security safekeeping. All City investments, except for swap agreements must be held in an
independent custodial account. The contract term will be for five (5) years, with five (5) one (1)
year renewal options at the sole option and discretion of the City, through the City Manager.
The City requires that the selected lnvestment Advisor, at a minimum, provide the following
services:
46
City Commission Memorandum - lnvestment Advisory Serwbes
April 30, 2014
Page 2 of 5
Provide full-time management on a daily basis of the City's investment portfolio pursuant to
the specific stated investment objectives and the City's lnvestment Policy. Place all orders
for the purchase and sale of securities, communicate settlement information to City staff and
assist in coordinating security settlement.
Serve as a general resource to City staff for information, advice and training regarding fixed
income securities, investment and yield curve analysis.
Work with City staff to develop cash flow projections to ensure that the investment strategy
is consistent with the City's cash requirements.
Provide monthly statements detailing investment activity, earnings, the value of the
investment portfolio, a portfolio return, mark to market valuation, and weighted average
maturity, accrued interest by investment type, rating of investment by Standards & Poor's
and M6ody's. The selected investment advisor must maintain accurate reports including
portfolio composition showing diversity of investments and compliance with applicable
investment policies of the City of Miami Beach and State of Florida Statutes.
Develop and implement investment strategies for the Advisory Account that will seek to
enhance portfolio performance under current and future market conditions within the
parameters of the City's investment policy and cash flow needs.
Obtain and document competitive prices for securities transactions'
Provide semi-annual and annual portfolio performance reports.
Review and update the City's investment policy and written investment procedures.
Perform due diligence reviews of current and proposed broker/dealers.
Monitor the creditworthiness of the City's depository and custodian bank and investments in
the portfolio.
Provide client training on investment management subjects.
Attend meetings with the City's finance staff and governing body upon request.
Provide arbitrage calculations and reports on the investment of bond proceeds.
47
City Commission Memorandum - lnvestment Advisory Services
April 30,2014
Page 3 of 5
Maturitv and LiquidiW Requirements
The City selects investments whose terms compliment the need to make the majority of
expenditures set forth below.
1. Biweekly Payrolls
2. Periodic Debt Service Payments
3. Capital Project Needs
For each expenditure event, investments are selected whose maturities occur at a date close to
the date that funds will be needed. lnvestments also are selected based on the highest yield for
the particular type of investment. ln the case of capital projects, in which the exact date that
expenditures will need to be made is unknown, the City selects several investments with varying
maturities so that monies are available each month to cover all capital expenditures. Any
unused capital investment funds are then placed in investments of one year or more to
maximize return potential.
Through RFP 2014-091-SW, the City of Miami Beach, Florida (the "City") has sought proposals
from firms interested in providing the City with investment advisory services to manage and
direct the City's investments as detailed herein.
RFQ PROCESS
On December 11,2013, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of Request for
Proposals (RFP) No. 2014-091 for an lnvestment Advisory Services. The RFP was issued on
February 6,2014, with an opening date of March 25, 2014. The solicitation was advertised and
notices were released to prospective proposers. The RFP resulted in proposals from the
following six (6) firms:
1. Cutwater Asset Management
2. Davidson Fixed lncome Management
3. First Southwest
4. PFM Asset Management LLC
5. Public Trust Advisors, LLC
6. Russell lnvestments
On April 3,2O14, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 111-2014 appointed an
Evaluation Committee (the "Committee") consisting of the following individuals:
o Jim Goldsmith, Resident *
. Sanford Horwitz, Resident. Georgie Echert, Finance Department, City of Miami Beach
. James Sutter, lnternal Audit, City of Miami Beach
o Julie Santamaria, RBC Capital Markets
* Jim Goldsmith was unable to participate due to prior commitments he could not reschedule.
The Evaluation Committee (the "Committee") convened on April 17,2014, to consider proposals
received and interview the proposers. The Committee was provided with information relative to
the City's Cone of Silence and Government in the Sunshine Law, general information on the
scope of services, reference responses, and additional pertinent information from all responsive
proposers.
48
City Commission Memorandum - lnvestment Advisory Services
Apnl 30,2014
Page 4 of 5
After proposer's presentations and interviews, the Committee discussed the proposers'
qualifications, experience, and competence, and further scored the proposers accordingly. The
Committee was instructed to score each proposal pursuant to the evaluation criteria established
in the RFP. The final rankings are as follows:
Georgie
Echert
Sanford
Honruitz
Julie
Santamaria
James
Sufter
Low
Aggregate
Totals /
Rank
First Southwest e6 (1)84 (1)90 (1)93 (1)4 (1\
Davidson Fixed lncome
Manaqement 82 (3)81 (2)78 (3)85 (2)10 (2) tie
Public Trust Advisors, LLC 86 (2)75 (3)84 Q\83 (3)10 (2) tie
PFM Asset Management LLC 79 (4)66 (4)71U\80 (4)16 (4)
Cutwater Asset Management 78 (5)66 (4)68 (5)77 6\19 (s)
Russell lnvestments 62 (6)40 (6)56 (6)5e (6)24 (6)
LOCAL PREFERENCE: The City, through the Procurement Division, will assign an additional
five (5) points to Proposers which are a Miami Beach-based vendor as defined in the City's
Local Preference Ordinance. Please note that no proposer was eligible for local's preference.
VETERANS PREFERENCE: The City, through the Procurement Division, will assign an
additional five (5) points to Proposers which are a small business concern owned and controlled
by a veteran(s) or a service-disabled veteran business enterprise, as defined in the City's
VLterans Preference Ordinance. Please note that no proposer was eligible for Veteran's
preference.
ln determining responsiveness and responsibility of the firms, the Department of Procurement
Management verified compliance with the minimum requirements established in the RFP,
financial capacity as contained in the Dun & Bradstreet Supplier Qualifier Report, and past
performance through client references submitted by each proposer.
Public Trust Advisors. LLC, has a long history of serving the City of Miami Beach in their prior
rote as inv'estrnent advisor and fiduciary for the City's investment program. From 2003 - 2012
members of the Public Trust Executive team in close partnership with City's Finance team and
staff implemented and managed a fully customized investment program based on the City's
unique cash flows, risk tolerances and investment objectives. Public Trust has more than 20
years of extensive experience providing investment and treasury management services.
burrent and recent clients include Town of Davie, City of Fort Lauderdale, City of Aventura and
Broward County Schools.
First Southwest has been providing quality financial services to local government clients since
1946. First Southwest has been working exclusively with conservative governmental investors
and actively managed $6.8 billion for dozens of local governments. ln addition, they served as
the investment advisor for an additional $5.6 billion, participating in strategy development,
market and economic analysis, and selection of prudent security alternatives. First Southwest
currently provides services for Miami-Dade County, Miami-Dade Schools and the Miami-Dade
Expressway Authority in addition to other municipalities.
Cutwater Asset Manaoement is the current lnvestment Manager for the City of Miami Beach.
@krecordofprovidingsimilarserviceStopublicsectorentities
nationwide for over 20 years. With over $23.9 billion in fixed income assets under
management as of December 31,2013, including $8.5 billion fo|121 public sector clients,
49
Aty Commission Memorandum - lnvestment Advisory Services
Apil 30,2014
Page 5 of 5
Cutwater is uniquely qualified to continue managing funds for the City of Miami Beach. ln
addition to the City of Miami Beach, Cutwater currently provides services for the City of
Pompano Beach, Florida, the City of Aventura and Leon County, Florida.
PFM Asset Manaqement LLC has over thirty (30) years of dedicated quality investment
advisory services to state and local governments. As of December 31,2013, they
currently manage or advise on $91.8 billion in total assets. Their experienced staff,
analytical capabilities, accounting and reporting services, and risk management
systems will be leveraged to support the high demands and standards of the City of
Miami Beach. Currently, PFM provides similar services for the City of Doral, City of
Hallandale Beach, Broward Schools and Hillsborough County, Florida.
Davidson Fixed lncome Manaqement has offices in Palm Beach Gardens and has over
25 years of public funds experience in the state of Florida. With over 1,000 employees
and a 75 year company history, Davidson Companies states they are able to provide
the foundation, financial strength, and stability to the City of Miami Beach. DFIM was
founded in 1986 as an SEC Registered lnvestment Advisor providing fixed income
investment advisory, consulting and management services to institutional investors.
Some of the current clients of DFIM include Citrus County Schools in Florida, City of
Deltona, Florida, City of North Lauderdale, Florida and the City of Tamarac, Florida'
Russell lnvestments has over 30 years working with public entities as an investment
advisor and is uniquely qualified to provide strategic advice and asset management
services to the City of Miami Beach. Russell is unique in that they are one of a few
firms that offer strategic advice, asset management, and implementation services all
under one roof. Russell began providing investment consulting services in 1969 and
currently manages more than $53.7 billion in fixed income assets for their clients. Some
of Russell's current clients are the MBTA Police Association Retirement Plan, Louisiana
Sherriffs' Pension and Relief Fund and the City of Boynton Beach Police Retirement
Fund.
CITY MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE
After reviewing all the submissions and the Evaluation Committee's rankings of proposals
received, the City Manager exercised his due diligence and is recommending that the Mayor
and the City Commission authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations with First
Southwest, the top-ranked firm. Should negotiations with the top-ranked firm not be successful,
the City Manager recommends negotiating with the firms tied as second-ranked, Davidson
Fixed lncome Management and Public Trust Advisors, LLC.
CONCLUSION
f6e nOministration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida accept the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the ranking of
proposals, pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 2014-091-SW for lnvestment Advisory
Services; further authorizing the Administration to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked
firm, First Southwest, and should the Administration not be successful in negotiating an
agreement with the top-ranked proposer, authorizing negotiations with the second-ranked
pioposers (tie), Davidson Fixed lncome Management and Public Trust Advisors, LLC; and
iurther authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement upon conclusion of
successful negotiations by the administration.
JLM/MT/DM/AD
T:\AGENDA\2014\April\APRIL 3O - PROCUREMENT\Award RFP 2014-09'l-SW lnvestment Advisory Svs MEMO.docx
50
RESOLUTION TO BE SUBMITTED
51
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
52
4 I,,\IAMIBEACH
JOSE SMITH, CITY ATTORNEY
OFF]CE OF THE CITY AITORNEY
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine
Members of the City Commission
CC:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:Public Hearing To Consider Changes ln Designation, Use, And Modification
To The Plans, Approved For The Par 3 Golf Course Located At 2795 Prairie
Avenue, Miami Beach, 33140, As Provided ln The Stipulated Settlement
Agreement Approved And Adopted By The 11th Judicial Circuit Court ln And
For Miami-Dade County On October 28, 2011 ln Bavshore Homeowners
Assoc., lnc. v. Citv Of Miami Beach, Case No. 07-42958.
Pursuant to a motion passed by the City Commission at the March 5, 2014 Commission
meeting, a public hearing has been scheduled and duly noticed pursuant to the court approved
Stipulated Settlement Agreement in the case of Bavshore Homeowners Association, lnc. v. Citv
of Miami Beach,'l 1th Jud. Cir. Court Case No. O7-4299A CA 30 ("Bayshore case"), for the
purpose of considering changes in designation, use, and modification to the plans approved for
the Par 3 Golf Course located at2795 Prairie Avenue, Miami Beach, 33140.
The documenls relevant lo this matter are as follows and are attached hereto:
1. Order of Stipulated Dismissal with Prejudice and Stipulated Settlement Agreement in the
Bavshore case;
2. Resolution No.2014-28468 adopted January 15,2014 authorizing Amendment No. 1 to
the Pre-Construction Services Agreement with QGS Development, lnc. (with agenda
materials attached) (ltem R7B);
3. January 15,2014 AfterAction for item R7B;
4. Letter to Commission 108-2014 (Parks & Recreational Facilities Advisory Board Motion);
5. Letter to Commission 125-2014 (Parks & Recreational Facilities Advisory Board Revised
Motion with graphics attached).
JS/DT/lr
F:\ATTO\TURN\MEMOS\Par 3 Public Hearing April 23 201 4.docx
Jimmy Morales, City Manager
Jose Smith, City Attorney
April30, 2O14 '...
Aoenda ltem Rq A- o^tW53
ATTACHMENT 1
54
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCIIIT
IN AND FORMIAIO.DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CENERAI- J URTSDICTION DIVJSION
CASENO.: 0742998 CA 30
BAYSHORE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC..
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Florida Municipal
Corporation.
Defendant.
ORDER OF STIPULATED DISMISSAL
WITH PREJUDICE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal in whjch the
parties agree to an Order of Dismissal ou the grounds that this action has been amicabiy
resolved. It is therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. The terms of the Settlement Agreement provide for a fair and equitable resolution of the
matter.
2. The Setllement Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby
approved and adopted in fu1l by this court. Bayshore Horneowners Association and the
Cit5, slMi ' Beach are bound by the terms of the Settlemenl Agreement and are hereby
ordered to abide by all of its terms.
3. The Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order and the Sefflernent
Agreement,
c1
F-Z]* cf, ,'cyrJ:t'9i-Gl# &, r"'81
TaEE,"3t r,bl.]frr*C{-. _:cJ73i m*Z-q A<1-r1 dl
c1
14
55
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami-Dade County, Florida on this
-
day of
October',201l.
Conlormed Copies to:
Robert N. Hru'tsel1, Esq,
Gary He1d, Esq.
GffiNFORffiHffi
ocT 2 I Z0lt
Judgetlester Langer
CiftuitCnurt Judge
Circuit Court.ludge
56
t-
IN TIIE CIRCUIT COURT OF TIIE EI,EVEI'{TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR 1\ItrAMI-DADE COUNTY, X'LORIDA
GEITTERAI ruRISD]CTION DIVISION
CASENO. | 07-42998CA30
BAYSI{ORE HOIvGOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintitrs,
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, aFlorida Municipal
Corporatiorr,
Defendant.
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS STPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is entered into by alld among the
Piaintitr, Bayshore Homeowners Association, Inc', ("Bayshore') and the City of Miami Beach
(,City,), to settle the case of Bayshore Homeowners Association, Int. v. City of Mi*ni Beach,
Case No. O'l-4ZggB as a complete and final settlement of all clZrims raised in the above-styled
proceeding related to the disposition and protection of lands knowu as "The Miami Beaoh Par'3
Golf Course."
. RECITALS
ryHER-EAS, a settlement agreement was executed on octobel 14, 1995 between
Citizens for Greenspace, Inc,, Michael Kinerk, th.e City (includiug individual City
Commissioners sitting at the time), the Greater Miami Hebrew Academy, and Daughters of
Israel, !rc., regarding Case No. 92-1594 CIV-GRAIIAM (the i'Greenspace Settlement
Exhibit "A"
57
Agreement''); and
VftIEREAS, the Greenspace Settlement Agreement and this Lawsuit involve the
property known as the Par 3 Gotf Course, ("Par 3 Golf Cowsd) located at?795 Prairie Avenue,
Miarni Beach, Florida 33140 andfully described therefu; and
WHEREAS, the Greenspace Settlement Agreement required that the City expressly
designate the land comprising the municipal Par 3 Golf Course as "park and reoreational use,"
and that it will not change tlre use or desip.ation of the Pa 3 Golf Course land without a super-
majority vote by the City Commission (a "super-majority" is defined in the Gteenspace
Settlement Agreement as the "nu:nber of comrnissionas required to otherwise approve a
resolution plus one additional commissioner").
WHEREAS, the parties agree that renovations and improvements to the Par 3 Goif
Course af,e necessary and time of is of the essence to complete renovations and imProvements
identified by the City in City Conmission Resolution 2017-2'1677 '
WImREAS, Bayshore is a duly registered not for profit corporatioD r:nder the laws of
the State of I'lorida and the person(s) signing on its behalf have been duly authorized to enter
into this setflement agreement by action of the corporation; ancl
WHEREAS, the parties enter into this Settlement Agreement to resolve all disputes
between them, without admitting liability for any of the claims inthe Lawsuit; aad
WHEREAS, the parties clesire to resolve and settle all pending disputes, claims and
counterclaims between them allegedly arising from the Greenspace Settlement Agreemant,
including without limitation ali claims and couaterclaims tbat were or could have been asserted
in tre Lawsuit; aod
WHE.REAS, the parties believe it would be intheir best interests and the iaterests of the
58
citizens and residents of Miami Beach to agtee to the provisions of this Settlement Agreement.
NOW, TI{EREX'ORE, in oonsideration of the mutual agreements, undertakings and
representations contaiaed irr this Settlement Agreement and other good aad valuable
consideration, the receipt alrd sufficiency ofwhich are hereby acknowledged, ttre parties agree as
follows:
1. The foregoing reoitals are true, accwate and correct and are incorporated herein by
this reference.
2. TheCity aglees to implement renovations and improvements to the Par 3 GoIf Course
zubstantially in accordance with the ooncept plan in Exhibit "A," approved by City Commission
Resolution 2ott-27677 adopted June I, 2011, and prpceed with reasooable expediency.
3. The City agrees to continue to fundthe plannedrenovations and improvements unlil
completiog so the Par 3 Golf Course becomes and remaias a viable 9'hole golf course, unless its
use or designation is amended as otherwise provided for herein.
4, The City agrees that it shall not change the use, zoniug or land designation of the Pax 3
GolfCourse land, except as provided inthis paragraph (unless conflicting provisions otherwise
exist, in which event the stricter provisiols shall control). The following paroel designations
couespond to those subparcels identifled in Exhibit "A.":
a. As to Parcels A (the Par 3 9-ho1e golf course), B (the scott Racow open Play
Ar.ea), and D (an area within the Par 3 Golf Course, ternporarily used as part of the Public Works
storage yard, which shall be returned to iandscaped park and recreation uses), such uses shall
remain as designated ia this paragraph and in the plans approved by the Cify for renovation of
the golf course by Resolution 2OlL-2'767'l and identif,red in Exhibit "A", ur .ess the City
Commission apploves, by a 5/7 vote of the entire City Commission, a change to passive
59
refieation use(s), or fhe City Commission approves, by a717 vote of the entire City Commission,
a change to any park and recreation use(s), after a duly uoti.oed public hearing,
b, As to Parcel C (the tennis courts, tot iot, splash pad, starter and restroom
buiidiag, ni:re parkilg spaces and landscaping), such uses shail rernain as designated in this
paragraph and in the plans approved by the City for renovation of the golf course .by Resolution
2olt-27677 and identified in Exhibit '0A", unless the City Commission approves, by a 5/7 vote
of the entire City Commissiou, a change to any park aud recreaiioo use(s), a.fter a duly noticed
pubiic hearing.
c. As to Parcel E, the Greenspace Settiernent Agreement provides that this space
may be improved for parking by the Hebrew Academy, with rights of shared use for Par 3 Golf
Course and other uses shown on Exhibit "A" as provided in that Agreemeut'
5. No later than five (5) days from execution of this Settlement Agreement by all parties,
the parties (a) shail file with the Court a stipulation for diuaissal with prejudice of the lawsuit,
with this Settlement Agreement attached, and (b) agree to exchange muhrai releases, the forms of
which are attached as Exhibit "B".
6. Bayshore agrees not to pursue any action in conflict with the provisions of this
Agreemen! except tlrough modification of this Settlement Agreement in writing as provided for
herein,
7. Bayshore agrees not to fi.Ie, and will not encourage auy Bayshore Horneowner's
Association resident or any other person or entity to file, any adminishative or judicial actions
contrary to this Agreement.
60
8. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Cify
of Miami Bpach and the Bayshore Homeowner's Association, Inc, as well as their respective
successors and assigns.
9. Any violatiou or bleach of aay of the terms of flris Settlement Agreement may be
remedied soleiy by specific performance. The prevailingparty in any proceeding seeking to
enforce this Settlement Agreement or any portiou Lereof shall be entitled to receive from the
other party court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. This patagraph aiso applies to any cost
and fees incurred in conaeotion to any appeals.
10. T[is Sett]ement Agreement may only be modified, amended or released by a written.
instur:reut executed by the Bayshore Homeovarer's Association, Inc. its successors or assigns
aodthe City of Miami Beach.
1 1 . I::validation of any one of these provisions by judgment of Court shall not affect any
of the other provisions of t}ris Settiement Agleement, which shall remain in fuIl force arrd effect.
12. This Settlement Agteement shall be governed by, construed, and erdorced in
accordance with the iaws of the State of Florida. Venue to enforce this Settlement Agreemeot
shall be in the i 1th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade Corufy, Florida. As to any
matters set forlh in the Greenspace Sottlemont Agreoment, the federal cor.rt sha1l retain
jwisdiction. Nothing in lhis Settlement Agreement is intended to supersede or conflict with the
terms of fhe Greenspace Settlement Agreement, exoept for the additional provisious horein
conceming a) the City's agreement to improve the Par 3 Golf Course land substantially in
accordanoe with flre approved Site Plan (Exhibit "A") as provided in paragraphs 2 md 3 hereur,
aad b) the voting provisions in paragraph 4 herein,
61
13. This Settlement Agreement may be executed by the parties in courterpart originais
with the same force and effect as if fulIy and simultaneously executed in a single original
document.
14. Each party shall bear its own costs, includiag attomey fees, incured in corurection
with the above-oaptioned case, except as oflrerwise provided in paragraph 9'
15, This Court shall retain judsdiction to enforce the telms of this Settlement
Agreement.
' 16. This Settlement Agreement shail be deemed drafted by all parties and there shall
be no presumption against any party relating to the drafting of the SettlementAgreement ar:.d the
language used herein.
IN WIINESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Settlernent Agreement to be duly
entered into 'and signed as ofthe day and year first written above,
grrie.<i.ria r,r-.
62
fl\?ffi
H,';ffi#
ffi;.S
City of MiamiBeach
a Florida municipal corporation
APPROVED AS TO FORM
F:\ATTO\HELG\LITIGATION\BayshoIc HomcowuErs Assoc\SEttlemcnt\Stipulated rettlemont as approved by Commission l0'19-1l,doc
63
F.oXtil64
Ia/tl
€D
MCCUMBERG€LI
vlvr IrGr sENOi noH sood-
Plan Key
S@! lhm
Exlsllng Tr.E
PrcPolrd TrEs
EE Jooglng Trall
AoA Golf Pattr (lm agloary llne): Consele Sldewalk
/A\ L"nd"""p" Bed Wb6dlinB$ry
-^i\\ Laks Edso wllh Uftoral Shelf
Goll Hde
Final Concept Plan for
Daie: June 3,2011
Revised: September 7, 201 1
Scale: 1" = 50'
q d rsr o/G/r.r,
i
t!
I )!.
,I,ifi'/-,F
I
o
North
The Miami Beach Par-3 Golf Gourse
The City of Miami Beach, Florida
in temporary use by
works. To be
Scorecard
65
Exlfbit "B"
66
LIMITED MUTUAL RELEASE
KNOW ALL MEN BY TIIESE PRESENTS, that Bayshore Homeowners
Association, Inc., and the City of Miami Beach, for and in consideration of the teffis,
conditions, stipulations, and aclcnowledgments of the Settlemenl Agreement between the
parties dated @oB;elc-- L4 ,'Zott- , and for other good and valuable consideration
received by all parties, the receipt and sufficieacy ofwhich are hereby acknowledged, do
hereby mutually remise, release, acquit, satisfy and discharge one another for themselvos,
their successors, heirs, assigns, agents and attorneys of and from any and all actions,
causes of action, counterclaims, suits, torts,'debts, sums of money, accounts, reckonings,
contracts, controversies, agleements, promises, damages, constitutional clairns, torhrous
interference claims, malicious prosecution claims, abuse of process claims, j udgments,
executions, claims and demands whatsoever, pasl present and future, ia law or in equity,
which each had, may have had, asserted, or may have asserted agaiast the other(s) in, on
account of, or arisiog out ofthe lawsuit styled Bayshore l{omeowners Association, Ing, v.
City of Miami Beaih,CaseNo. 07-42998, in the 11d'Judicial Circuit Court in and for
Miami-Dade County, Florida. , gt4-
Witness our hands and seals titrs 21 day of OCTOBER ,201 1 .
on, Iuc.
Narile:+iLr.ri+ r.,t.
Title: Co-PeB\ Da{T ,/TEE-A+ .
ffi
tuoY#
of Miami Beach
APPROVED AS TO FORM
F:\ATTO\HELG\LITIGATI0N\Bayshore Horneownors Assoc\Satllcmert\Mutral Relcase l0-I3-201Ldoc
67
NFztrlI(JF68
RESOLUTION NO.2014-28468
ARESOLUTION OFTHE MAYORAND CITYCOMMISSION OFTHE CIryOF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZTNG THE MAYOR
AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE
(GMP) AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PRE-CONSTRUCTTON SERV|GES
AGREEMENTW|TH QGS DEVELOPMENT, tNC., DATED MARCH 20,2012,
FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AT RISK SERVICES FOR THE PAR 3
GOLF COURSE PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,227,898 PLUS A FIVE
PERCENT OWNER'S CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2I1,395; FOR A
TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,439,293 WITH PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED
FUNDING !N THE AMOUNT OF $3,637,975 FROM FUND 388 - MDC CDT
INTERLOCAL-CDT/RESORT FUND; $100,000 FROM FUND 429
STORMWATER LOc - RESO 2009-27076; $211,395 FROM FUND s88- MDC
CDT INTERLOCAL-CDT/RESORT FUND; AND $489,923 FROM FUND 306 -
MID BEACH QUALITY OF LIFE, SUBJECT TO FUTURE APPROPRIATION
THROUGH A CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CAPITAL BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013/14 TO BE PRESENTED AT THE JANUARY 15, 2014
COMM]SSION MEETING.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission at its July 13, 2011 commission meeting
authorized the Administration to issue an RFQ for a Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) firm to
provide pre-construction services and construction phase services via a Guaranteed Maximum
Price (GMP) amendment for the Par 3 Golf Course Project; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 201 1 the City issued RFQ No. 41 -1 0/1 1 and QGS Development
(QGS) submitted their proposal and were interviewed along with four (4) other CMR Iirms. On
August 19,2011, the selection committee unanimously ranked QGS as the top-ranked firm; and
WHEREAS, on October 19,2011, the Mayor and CltyCommission approved Resolution No.
2011-27791, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Pre-Construction Services
Agreement with QGS; and
WHEREAS, on September 27,2O13, QGS held their subcontractor bid opening at the
Capital lmprovement Projects (ClP) Office in the presence of representatives of the City's CIP office,
and consultants, McCumber Golf lnc. (McCumber) and Kobi Karp Architecture and lnterior Design
(KobiKarp);and
WHEREAS, Following a number of discussions, evaluation of value-engineering (VE)
options, analysis of constructability recommendations, and negotiations, QGS submitted the final
negotiated GMP proposal; and
WHEREAS, the GMP Amendment No.1 (Exhibit B) reflects the proposed amount
$4,227,898, and a five percent owner's contingency in the amount of 9211,395 for a total
$4,439,293; and
WHEREAS, a consultant was retained under the City's Constructability, Cost & Value
Engineering Review Services contract, to perform an independent construction cost estimate
(Exhibit C); and
WHEREAS, the negotiated Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of 94,227,898 was
compared to the cost estimate provided by an independent estimator; and
of
o'f
69
WHEREAS, the administration is of the opinion that based on the scope of work identified
in the documents the final negotiated GMP is a competitive, fair and reasonable price for the
conslruclion of the Par 3 Golf Course and proposed amenities; and
WHEREAS, the construction duration for this project has been negotiated at 273 calendar
days and it is anticipated that this work will commence in March 2014 (pending permit approvals).
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 accept
the recommendation of the City Manager approving and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to
execute Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Amendment No. 1 to the Pre-Construction services
agreement with QGS Development, dated March 20,2012, for Construction Managemenl at Risk
Services for the Par 3 Golf Course project, in lhe amount ol $4,227,898 and a five percenl owner's
contingency in the amount of $211,395, from previously appropriated funding and future budget
appropriation at the January 15,2014 Commission Meeting.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this lstlt
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOH EXECUTION
aav ot T|norar{ ,zo1/tt
F:\LDrive\AGENOAUo14\Januar$Par 3 Golf Course\Par 3 Golf Course - QGS GN4P Approval - RESO -Revised memo.do6
70
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
lntended Outcome
A Resolulion Ot The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, Approving And Authorizing The MayorAnd
The City Clerk To Execute Guaranteed Maximum Price(GNIP) Amendmenl No. 'l ToThe Pre€onstruction ServicesAgreementWiUl
QGS Oevelopment, lnc., Oated October 19, 2011, For Construction Management At Risk Services For The Par 3 Ciolf Course
ln The Amount Of$4,227,898;And A Five (5)Percent Owner's Contingencyln The AmountOf $2'1'1,395 For A TolalArnount
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): The2012 Cuslomer Salisfaction Survey indicated thatS'l%of
businesses rated completed capital improvement projects as "excellent'or "good."
Pursuant to theiormer Ciiy l\4anager's on October 19,2011. the Mayor and approved Resolution No. 2011-
27791, authorizing the Mayorand City Clerk to execute a Pr+Construction Services Agreemenl with QGS. These services included: review of
proiect requirements, exisling on-sile conditions, preliminary budget, project scheduling and phasing, value engineering; and submission of
consiructability recommendalions to lhe consultanl.
Per the requirements ofthe contract, the CMR, coordinates veith lhe ArchitecuEngineer leam and the City, the issuance ofbid documenls loa
prBapproved list of subcontraclors to obtain the pricing in orderto develop the GMP,
On September 27, 2013, QGS held their subconlractor bid opening at the Capital lmprovement Projects (CIP) Office in the presence ol
represenlalives of the Cily's CIP ofllce, and consultants, Mccumber GolI lnc. (McCumber) and Kobi Karp Architeclu re and lnt€rior Design (Kobi
Karp). The bids were evaluated and lhoroughly reviewed to insure lhat they encompassed the full scope of ,,vork. The GMP was formulated
based on the lowest responsiye bid for each element. The GMPwas then negotiated with the CMR to obtain the best possible price based on
the specified project scope.
Following a number of discussions, evaluation of value€ngineering (VE) options, anallsis of constructability recommendations, and
negoualions, QGS submitted the flnal negotiated GMP proposal in the amount of $4,227,898(ExhibitA). The GMPAmendment tto.1 (Exhibit 8)
reflects the proposed amount of $4.227,898, and a five percent owner's contingency in the amount of $211,395 for a tolal of $4,439,293.
ln order to oblain turlher assurance that lhe best value for this project had been negoliated, lhe City contracted CMS Estimaling Services
(CMS), a consultant retained under the CiVs Constructability, Cost & Value Engineering ReviewServices contract, to perfom an irdependent
conslruction cost estimate. The estimated construclion cost as submitled by CMS is $4,246,678 (Exhibit C).
This pm.iect was initially approved in the FY 2007/08 Capital Plan with a construcuon budget ol $2,954,000. The original scope ofwork included
the renovation of the existing goll course. greens,leesand bunkers as wellas irdgation and drainage systems. Asthe project progressed and
as requesled by lhe Commission, severalitems were added or rnoditied lrom thg originalscope. On June 9,2010 Resolution No.2010-27407
(Exhibit D) and on June 1, 2011, Resolution No.2011-27677 (Exhibit E) the City approved and adopted the linal scop€ of work as being, a I
hole Par 3 golf course and lake system; resfoom building a 2,000 square foot splash pad; a 6,000 square foot tot lot; four (4) asphaLtic
concrete tennis courts and nine (9) parting spaces. ln addition. lhe City requested that the project include a connection of lhe existing slorm
drainage located on PrairieAvenue and the Par 3 property to thelakesystem for emergency overflowi thatthe starter shack be included in the
approved GMP and not as an alternatei lhe three (3) month turf grow in period be performed by the CMR, and that a permanent fertigation
system be provided. This additional scope totals approxirnately $250,000.
The administration is of lhe opinion that based on the scope of ltprk identified in the documents the final negotialed GMP is a competitive,lair
and reasonable price.
The construction duration o, this project has been negotiated at 273 calendardays (approximately I months) and il is anticipated that this work
will commence in March 2014 (pending permit approvals).
Financial lnformation:
Source of
Funds:
Amount Account
1 $3.637.975 388-2627-069357- MCC CDT tNT-CDT RESORT TAX
2 $ '100,000 42*2730-069357 - STORMWATER LOC
3 s 211,395 388-2627-069357- MCC CDT tNT-CDT RESORT TAX
V' 6flJ" oBPI-
4 .. $ 489,923 306 - MID BEACH OUALITY OF LIFE - Subject to Future
aoorooriation
Total $4,439,293
Financial lmoact Summarv: No funds beino exoended at this time.
AGENDA lrEM r r"g MIAMIBEACH DATE71
g MIAMIBEACH
City of Micmi Beoch, I700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33 139. www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: January 15,2014
the City mtsston
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYORAND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAM] BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM
PRTCE (GMP) AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PRE-CONSTRUCTTON
SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH QGS DEVELOPMENT, INC., DATED
MARCH 20, 2012, FOR CONSTRUGTION MANAGEMENT AT RISK
SERVICES FOR THE PAR 3 GOLF COURSE PROJEGT, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $4,227,898 PLUS A FIVE PERCENT OWNER'S CONTINGENCY IN
THE AMOUNT OF $211,395; FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,439,293
WITH PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF
$3,637,975 FROM FUND 388 . MDC CDT INTERLOCAL.CDT/RESORT
FUND; $100,000 FROM FUND 429 - STORMWATER LOC - RESO 2009-
27076: $211,395 FROM FUND 388 - MDC cDT INTERLOCAL-
CDT/RESORT FUND; AND $489,923 FROM FUND 306 - MID BEACH
QUALIW OF LIFE, SUBJECT TO FUTURE APPROPRIATION THROUGH
A CAPITAL BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CAPITAL BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2013/14 TO BE PRESENTED AT THE JANUARY 15,2014
COMMISSION MEETING.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTEO
Ensure Value and Timely Delivery of Quality Capital Pro.lects.
FUNDING
$3,637,975 Account # 388-2627 -069357 (previously appropriated)
$ 211,395 Accounl # 388-2627-069357 (previously appropriated)
$ 100,000 Account # 429-2730-069357 (previously appropriated)
$3,949,370
$ 489,923 Account # 306 - Mid Beach Quality of life (subject to future appropriation)
$4,439,293
Funding for this amendment in the amount of $3,637,975 has been previously appropriated
from Fund 388 - MDC CDT lnterlocal-CDT/Resort Fund, and $100,000 from Fund 429 -
Stormwater LOC - Resolution 2009-27076; a five percent owner's contingency amount of
$211,395 from Fund 388 - MDC CDT lnterlocal-CDT/Resort Fund; and $489,923 from Fund
306 - Mid Beach Quality of life, subject to future appropriation through a budget amendment to
the FY 2013/14 Capltal Budget.
72
Commission Memorandum - QGS Development GMP for Par 3 Golf Course Project
January 15,2014
Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS
The Mayor and City Commission at its July 13, 2011 commission meeting authorized the
Administration to issue an RFQ for a Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) firm to provide pre-
construction services and construction phase services via a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP)
amendment for the Par 3 Golf Course Project.
RFQ No.41-10/1 1 was issued on July'19, 2011 and QGS Development (QGS) submitted their
proposal and were interviewed along with four (4) other CMR firms. On August 19, 201 1, the
selection committee unanimously ranked QGS as the top-ranked firm.
Pursuant to the former City Manager's recommendation, on October 19,2011 , the Mayor and
City Commission approved Resolution No. 201 1-27791, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to
execute a Pre-Construction Services Agreement with QGS. These services included: review of
project requirements, existing on-site conditions, preliminary budget, project scheduling and
phasing, value engineering; and submission of constructability recommendations to the
consultant.
Per the requirements of the contract, the CMR, coordinates with the ArchitecVEngineer team
and the City, the issuance of bid documents to a pre-approved list of subcontractors to obtain
the pricing in order to develop the GMP.
On September 27, 2013, QGS held their subcontractor bid opening at the Capital lmprovement
Projects (ClP) Office in the presence of representatives of the City's CIP office, and consultants,
McCumber Golf lnc. (McCumber) and Kobi Karp Architecture and lnterior Design (Kobi Karp).
The bids were evaluated and thoroughly reviewed to insure that they encompassed the full
scope of work. The GMP was formulated based on the lowest responsive bid for each element.
The GMP was then negotiated with the CMR to obtain the best possible price based on the
specified project scope.
Following a number of discussions, evaluation of value-engineering (VE) options, analysis of
constructability recommendalions, and negotiations, QGS submitted the final negotiated GMP
proposal in the amounl oI $4,227,898 (Exhibit A). The GMP Amendment No.1 (Exhibit B)
reflects the proposed amount of $4,227,898, and a five percent owner's contingency in the
amount of $21 1,395 for a total of $4,439,293.
ln order to obtain further assurance that the best value for this project had been negotiated, the
City contracted CMS Estimating Services (CMS), a consultant relained under the City's
Constructability, Cost & Value Engineering Review Services contract, to perform an
independent construction cost estimate. The estimated construction cost as submitted by CMS
is $4,246,678 (Exhibit C).
This project was initially approved in the FY 2007108 Capital Plan with a construction budget of
$2,954,000. The original scope of work included the renovation of the existing golf course,
greens, tees and bunkers as well as irrigation and drainage systems. As the prolect progressed
and as requested by the Commission, several items were added or modified from the original
scope. On June 9, 2010 Resolution No.2010-27407 (Exhibit D) and on June 1,2011,
Resolution No. 201 1-27677 (Exhibit E) the City approved and adopted the final scope of work
as being, a t hole Par 3 golf course and lake system; reslroom building; a 2,000 square foot
splash pad; a 6,000 square foot tot lol four (4) asphaltic concrete tennis courts and nine (9)
parking spaces. ln addition, the City requested that the project include a connection of the
existing storm drainage located on Prairie Avenue and the Par 3 property to the lake system for
emergency overflow; that the starter shack be included in the approved GMP and not as an
73
Commission Memorandum - QGS Development GMP for Par 3 Golf Course Project
January 15, 2014
Page 3 of 3
alternate; the three (3) month turf grow in period be performed by the CMR; and that a
permanentfertigation system be provided. This additional scope totals approximately $250,000.
The administration is of the opinion that based on the scope of work identified in the documents
the final negotiated GMP is a competitive, fair and reasonable price.
The construction duration of this project has been negotiated at 273 calendar days
(approximately 9 months) and it is anticipated that this work will commence in March 2014
(pending permit approvals). The anticipated Project Schedule for the construction of the Par 3
Golf Course is as follows:
Commission GMP Award:
Notice to Proceed Number One:
Notice to Proceed Number Two:
Project Completion:
January 15,2013
February 2014
March 2014
December 2014
Parks and Recreation Department has prepared a five (5) year projection of the expenses
associated with the operation and maintenance of the Par 3 Golf Course and its amenities. See
attached Exhibit F.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends the approval of the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor
and the City Clerk to execute Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Amendment No. 1 to the Pre-
Construction Services Agreement with QGS Development, dated March 20, 2012, for
Construction Management at Risk Services for the Par 3 Golf Course project, in the amount of
$4,227,898 and a five percent owner's contingency in the amount of $21 1,395, from previously
appropriated funding and future budget appropriation at the January 15, 2014 Commission
Meeting.
Atlachments:
Exhibit A - QGS Development - Construction Management at Risk GMP Proposal
Exhibit B - QGS Amendment # 1
Exhibit C - CMS - Third Party Estimate of Construction Costs
Exhibit D - Resolution No. 2010-27407
Exhibit E - Resolution No. 201 1-27677
Exhibit F - Par 3 Golf Course Operating & Maintenance Expenses
F1T_DrivelAGENDAU0'14\January\Par 3 Golf Course\Par 3 Goli Course - QGS GMP Approval
Memo.doc
MEMO 112613 Revised
74
EXHIBIT A
1.General Conditions
'17502 County Road 672 r P.O, Drawer 108 r Lithia, Florida 33547
Phone: (800) 44G3326 r (813) 63a-3326 I Fax (813) 634-1733
ESTIMATED SCIIEDT]LE OT VALUES
FOR
Miami Beach Par 3 - l00o/o
Bid #3 October 10,2013
Golf Course Plans dated - August 7, 2013 - 100%
Amenitles Plans dated - September 3rd, 2013 - Permit Set
Item Totel
1 Permit Expediting S ervice I ls $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500,00
2 Temporary Office Trailer Set-up & Breakdown I ls $ 4,509.09 $ 4,509.0e
3 Temporary Perimeter Fence Not in Plans $
4 Survey Layout I ls $ 39,53s.00 $ 39.535.00
5 Job Site Sien I ls s 700.00 S 700.00
6 Equipment MOB/DeMOB I ls s 20,509.09 s 20,509.09
7 Bonds & lnsurance Requirements I ls
8 City Permit Fees I ls $s
9 MOT I ls $ 10,909.09 s 10,909.09
10 Safety & First Aid 9 mth $$
11 Temporary Fence at Trailer & laydown Area 1 ls s 3.090.91 $ 3.090.91
t2 Power Company Charges - Set up FP&L I ls $ 2.2'72.'13 $ 2,272.73
13 Temp. Power Hookup & Removal I ls $ s,227.27 $ 5,227.27
t4 Phone Fax Service 9 mth s 90.91 $ 818.19
l5 Temp Trailer Rental 9 mth $ 457.27 $ 4.115.43
l6 Temp. Tmiler Electrical 9 mth s 113.64 $ 1,022.16
l7 TemD. Water Set-uD 1 ls s 2,168.18 $ 2.168.18
l8 Temp. Water Service 9 mth s 45.45 s 409.05
l9 Port-A-Pot 9 mth s 500.00 $ 4,s00.00
20 Progress Photos 9 mth s 136.36 $ 1.227.24
2L Office Supplies & Machines I mth s 90.91 $ 818.19
As-Built Plans I ls $ 18,950.00 s 18,950.00
23 C- P. M. Schedule 9 mth $ t,192.27 $ 10,730.43
24 Extra Plans I Is $$
25 Misc as Needed 9 mth $$
26 Dumpsters 30 lds $ 454.55 $ r3,636.s0
27 Proiect Manager 39 wks $ 1,454.55 $ s6,727.4s
28 Field Administration Assistant 39 wks $$
29 Site Superinteodent 39 wks $ 1,1i3.64 $ 43.431.96
Total $ 246,808.56
QGS Development, luc.Page 1 of 7 October 2, 2013
75
2. Site Work/Dcmo
Item Description Total
I Treo Protection Fence (6' CL)3,900 1f s 2.89 $ II,271.00
2 Tree Protection (Oranee Fence or Equal)2.055 If S 2.18 s 4,4?9.90
3
NPDES Compliance/S ilt Fence, Turbidity
Barrier& hlet Protection I ls $ 25,531.82 $ 25,531.82
Total s 4t,282.72
3. Potable Water
Item Description Unit Price Total
I 20" x 6" Tappilg Sleeve & Valve I ea $ 19,574.5s $ 19.574.55
z 6" DIP WM Wrapped & Restrafued 80 tf $ 78.45 $ 6,276.00
3 6'DDCVA i ea s 15,570.00 $ 15,570.00
4 6" Fittines I ls s 8,027.27 $ 8.027.21
5 6" Gate Valve I ea $$
6 Temporary Blow-offs I EA $ 1.009.09 $ 1,009.09
7 4" Irriqation Meter City Fees 1 $ 12,445.45 $ 12.{45.4s
I 8" x 2" Tap & Com Stop I ea s 5,230.00 $sr30.00
9 2" PolyM3" Casine I ea s 3,422.73 $ 3,422.73
10 2'' Meter & BFP w/City Fess I ea s 11,581.82 $ 11.581.82
l1 Cut and replace road I ea s $
12 Remove & Replace Sidewalk & Curb I ls s $
I3 Remove & Replace Sod I ls s $
l4 I ea $s
l5 I e {s
16 I ea $s
Total $ 83,136.91
4.Sewer
Item Ddscription . i, . r,',..i;.,'.,,..;;:'l.i,Quantity . . ', : .. Unit Pricq TotaI
I Pump Station as Designed 1 ea $ 71,570.91 $ 71,570.91
2 PS Valve Vault I ea s 2,143.64 $ 2,143.64
3 4" C-900 Gravity Sewsr t0I tf $ 39,21 $ 3,960.21
4 SS Clean-outs z ea $ 845.45 $1,690.90
5 Conrect to existinq 3" FM t ea $ 4,986.36 $4,986.36
6 3" Force Main t7 lf $ I l.l7 $ 189.89
7 Remove & Replace Sidewalk & Curb I 1s $$
8 Disassemble & reassemble Bus Stop I ls s $
Total $ 84.541.91
5, Streets
. Unit Price Total
I l/2' S-1 Asphalt - Parkine l-ot 4'15 SY $ 13.00 $ 6,175.00
2 8" LR Base - includes under curb 600 sy s 13.67 $ 8,202.00
3 12" Stabiiized Subgrade 637 sy $7.66 $ 4.879.42
4 Type D Curb 292 tf $ r s.98 $ 4,666.16
5 Gutter & Driveway 507 sf $ r 0.65 $ 5,399.55
6 4" Sidewalk color 3,8 r3 sf $2.77 $ 10.s62.0r
7 Truncated Domes 7 loc $ I s0.00 $ 1,0s0.00
QGS l)evelopment, Inc.Paga 2 oI 7 October 2,2013
76
Cont.
ftem 'Quantih Total
8 Sisnase & Striohq I ls s 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
9 Demolish Sidewalk & Curb I ls $ I,140.91 s 1,140.91
l0 1" S-3 Asphalt - Jogeing Trail 1,4t2 sy s 13.71 s 19,358.52
11 6" LR Base 1,883 sy s lr.u $ 20.920.13
t2 I2" Compacted Subgrade 2,118 sy S 6.95 $ 14,720.10
13 5' x 4" Sidewalk w/color 3,490 sf S s
t4 8' x 4" Sidewalk w/color 1,600 sf $3.86 s 6,176.00
r5 10' x 4'r Sidewalk dcolor 12,261 sf $3.86 $ 47,327.46
16 Sisnase & Stripins I ls $ 1,000-00 $ 1,000.00
17 Truncated Domes I loc s 320.00 $320.00
Total $ 152,897.26
ltem ,Unit Price Total
1 Lake Excavatiou 28,500 cy $2.14 $ 60.990.00
2 l,ake Baok Shaping I ls $ 9s4.ss S 954.s5
3 Spread FilL Roueh Grade I ls $ s,r8r.82 $ 5.181.82
4 Shallow Pipe Pad Allowance 500 sf $ I 1.90 $5,950.00
Total $ 73,076.37
Item Total
I 4U IIDPE 8l tf s 45.33 $ 3,671.73
2 6'HDPE 103 tf s 46.25 $ 4,763.7s
7 8'HDPE 57 rf s 47.98 $ 2,734.86
4 10'HDPE 59 lf s 49.53 $7,922.27
5 12'HDPE 3l lf s 64.68 $ 2.00s.08
6 15'HDPE 111 lf s 67.48 $ 7,490.28
7 18'HDPE 954 lf s 69.46 $ 66,264.84
8 24" HDPE 180 if $ 78.02 s 14,043.60
9 36" HDPE 119 lf s 101.14 $ 12,035.66
t0 Valley Inlet 2 ea s 8,772.73 $ u,s4s.46
II [2" Basin 6 ea $ s,400.00 $ 32.400.00
12 [5" Basin I ea $ 5.636.36 $5,'636.36
l3 18" Basin 2 ea s 8,9s4.55 $ r7J09.10
14 Construct New Inlet S- 15 1 ea $ 12,5'72.73 $ 12.s72.73
li Yard Drains 1 ea s 9,250.00 $ 64,750.00
16 Maahole I ea $ 7,840.91 $ 7,840.91
t7 Control Structure CS-l I 1 ea $ 13,804.5s $ 13.804.ss
l8 Control Struchue CS-05 I ea $ 13,645.45 $ 13,645.4s
t9 Rubber Check Valves ,ea $ 9,281.82 $ 27,845.46
20
Exfiltration Trench N,lfilter cloth, stone &
perforated 15'HDPE 48 tf s 225.45 $ 10,821.60
2l
Exfiltation Trench w/filter cloth, stone &
perforated l8' IIDPE 40 lf $ 257.27 $ 10,290.80
22 fupRap 8 loc q. ) 111 1'7 $ 21,818.16
7.Drainage (Cout.)
QGS Developmen! Inc.Page 3 of 7 October 2, 2013
77
Item Totrl
,1 Root Barrier 260 lf s 19.54 $ 5.080.40
24 Root Pnrne 200 lf $t7.71 $ 3,s46.00
,<Demo Drail Pipe 445 lf $ 7s.88 s 33,766.60
26 Demo Drain SEucture 3 ea s 4.000.00 $ 12.000,00
27 Temporary Pipe Plug I ea s 5,909.09 $ 5,909.09
28 Clean Existing 12' RCP I ls $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00
Total $ 437,114.74
8. Golf Course
Item TotaI
I Round-Up/lRotovate 20 ac s I,045.45 $ 20,909.00
2 Rough Shaping I ls s 23,390.91 $ 23,390.91
3 Greens Constructio n 4?,1t7 sf $3.29 $ 139,222.93
4 Tee Construction 45,850 sf b 0.14 $ 6.419.00
5 Bunker Construction I 1,750 sf $0.95 s 11.162.50
Drainage $
6 4' Perf 625 lf c 8,73 $ 5,4s6.25
7 4" Solid 845 tf $4.99 $ 4,216.5s
o 6" Solid 1,r77 lf s 13.16 $ 15,489.32
9 8" Solid 485 ea {15.81 $ ?.667.8s
l0 12" Solid 360 ea $22.85 $ 8.226.00
1l 12" In-line Drails 21 ea $ 540.91 $ 12,440.93
$
t2 Irrigation Pump Statioo/Wet Well/Intake/Slab I ls $ 248,076.36 s 248,076.36
t3 Pump House I ea $ 73,073.i8 s ?3.073.18
t4 Irrigatiou System Golfcourse & Landscape I ls $ 3 80,6s 1.14 s 380,651.14
l5 Fertigation System & Containrnent Area 1 ls s 22,310.00 $ 22.310.00
l6 Finish Shaping I 1s $ 22,735.00 s 22,735.00
Grassing & Amendments s
t7 Sprig Greens - Platinum Paspalum 42,317 sf s 0.37 s 15.657.29
l8 Spris Tees - Platinum Paspalum 45.850 sf $ 0.33 s 15,130.50
19 Sod - Platinum Paspalum 235.000 sf $0.56 $ 13l,600.00
20 Sod - St Augustine Palmetto 26,700 sf $0.s0 $ 13,3s0.00
2L Gmw-In J mth $ 20,000.00 $ 60,000.00
TotaI s r,47,r84.71
9.- Golf Course
Item . Quantity ,:: ' Urit Price Total
I Cabbage Palms 26 ea s 250.00 $ 6,500.00
2 Mahogany 2 ea $ 250.00 $500.00
3 Green Buttonwood 2l ea s 225.00 $ 4,725.00
4 Hons Kong Orchid 3 ea $ 200.00 $ 600.00
5 Orange Geiger 3 ea $ 200.00 $ 600.00
6 Frangipani J ea $ 300.00 $ 900.00
-7 Wild Tamarind 3 ea s 200.00 $600.00
8 Simson's Stopper 3 ea s 27s.00 s 825.00
9 Trumpet Tree 3 ea $ 200.00 s 600.00
9. Laudscape - GolI Course (Cont.)
QGS Development, Inc.Page 4 of 7 Ociober 2, Z0.lJ
78
Item Total
10 Paradise Tree 3 ea $ 250.00 s 7s0.00
Tree Total s 16.600.00 $
II Coontie 260 ea s 10.00 $2.600.00
t2 Red Tip Cocopium 345 ea $ 7.00 s 2,415.00
13 Sea Grape 95 ea $ 7.00 s 66s.00
l4 Drvarf Var. S ehefflera 195 ea $ 7.00 $ 1,36s.00
Shrub Total $ 7,045.00 $
15 Evergreen Giant Lirope 93s ea $ 4.00 $ 3,740-00
Ground Corer Total $ 3,740.00 $
l6 Muhly Grass 5.770 ea $ 2.00 s 11,540.00
t7 Faxahatchee Grass 520 ea $ 4.00 s 2,080,00
l8 Sand Cordtrass 5,s60 ea $ 2.00 $ 11,120.00
r9 Seashore Dropgrass 3,195 ea $2.00 $ 6,390.00
Gr*ss Total s 31.130.00 c
20 Mulch - Melaluca t,232 cy $ 28.00 s 34,496.00
Mulch Total s 34,496.00 $
2l Spike Rtsh 520 ea s 3.50 $ 1,820.00
22 Soft Rush 890 ea s 3.50 $ 3,1rs.00
Aquatic Total s 4,935.00 {
,1 Tree Relocate - Average 37 ea $ 586.74 s 21,?09.38
Tree Relocates Total $ 21,709.38
24 Tree Removal - Average 35 ea s 5s0.00 $ 19,250.00
Tree Removal Total s 19,250.00 $
Total $ 138,905.38
9.A - Amenities
Item . ... ,' .'.,rQuan-dtlr . - ..':.:' ..;,'UnitPrice'.Iotal
I Cabbage Palms 12 ea $ 250.00 s 3,000.00
Tree Total $ 3,000.00 $
')Coontie 80 $ 10.00 s 800.00
J Firebush 90 s 8.00 $720.00
4 Red Tip Cocoplum 300 $ 7.00 $ 2,100.00
5 Blue Plumbago 55 ea $ 8,00 $440.00
6 Horizontal Cocoplum 230 ea s 14.00 $3,220.00
Shrub Total $ 7.280.00 s
7 Blueberry Flax Lily 65 ea $ 4.00 $260.00
Ground Cover Total $260.00 $
8 Muhly Grass 60 s 2.00 $120.00
9 Faxahatchee Grass 50 ea s 4.00 $200.00
10 Sand Cordgrass 25 ea $ 2.00 $ 50.00
Grass Total $370.00 $
tl Mulch - Melaluca 80 cy $ 28.00 s 2,240.00
IVIulch Total $2,240.00 $
L2 Tree Relocate l3 s 400.00 $ 5,200.00
Trec Relocates Total $ s,200.00 U
Total $ 18.350.00
Amenities
QGS Development, [nc.
10.
Page 5 of 7 October 2, l0l3
79
To'tal
1 Tot Lot Wshade, benches, Etc
Plav Ground Eqpt and Related Work 1 1s $ 205,362 50 s 20sJ62.50
lox l0 Shade System 2 ea s 5,018.27 $ 10,036.54
21x28 Shade System I ea $ 12,132.i8 5 12,132.18
36x50 Shade System t ea $ 26,498.36 s 26398.36
Handicap Picnic Table I ea $ 1,859.20 $ r.859.20
Picnic Table I ea $ 1,733.07 $ 1.733.07
Trash Receptacle I ea $ I,858.46 $ r,858.46
Park Benches s ea s 1,676.57 $ 8,382.8s
Concrete area for entry/picnic area 500 sf $4.91 $ 2,455.00
Aluminum Fence and Gate 309 tf s 42.05 $ 12,993.45
2 Splash Pad rv/shade. benchcq Etc
Splash Pad and Equiement I ls $ 364,580.00 s 364,580.00
10x20 Shade System 2 ea $ 8,523.86 s 17.047.12
Trash Receptacle a ea s l,858.46 $ 3,716.92
Park Benches 5 ea s 1,676.57 $ 8.382.8s
Aluminum Fence and Gate 231 tf s 43.73 $ 10,10r.63
$
3 Resko om,lPump Room I ls $ 241,646.50 s 2,11,646.50
A Startcrs Shed I ls $ 43,32',1.27 s 41.327,27
5 Electrical c
Skeet iisht relocation (2)I ls $ 18,900.00 $ 18,900.00
Site Eiectrical I ls $ 99.502.00 s 99,502.00
6 Tennis Courts ls $ i45,751.76 $ u5,751.76
Total $ 7,236,268.26
SUIIIMARY
Page 6 of 7QGS Development, Inc.October 1, ?013
80
L.
)
3.
4.
5.
6.
8.
9.
9.A
10.
General Conditions
Site \York/Demo
Potable Water
Sanitary Sewer
Streets
Earthwork
Drdinage
CoIf Course
.Landscape - Golf Course.
'I.andscape. Amenities
Amenities
Pro.!ect Total
li. CM F'ce @ 9.00%
12. Allowance for Permit
13 Bond & [nsurance @1.00%
Subtotal with Fee, Bond, and Insurance
14, Owner's Contingency @5.00%
Estimate Grand Total
Deductive Alternates
s
$
$
$
$
$
$
s
s
s
s
$
$
s
s
$
$'
246,808.56
41,282,72
83,136.91
84,541.9t
152,897.26
73,016.37
437,114.74
7,237,I84,7t
138,905.38
18,350.00
7,236,268,26
3,749,566.82
337,461.01
100,000.00
40,870.00
4,22',7,897.83
211"394,89
4,439,292,.72
15.
16.
Starter Shack
Fipe/Structure ftom Prairie Ayenue
(PWD.Req.)
47,664,00
100,148.60
1.. [tems not included: permanent signs, golfcouise accessories and set up
1. This proposal is based on the existing TOPO on the plans beirg accurate within +/- 0.2 feet at any gven location. TOPO
be requiied prior to final contract.
. No 12" excavate and.mix added to.lardscape iueaS of golf
Splash Pad Equipmeut - Rain Drop
. SPECIAL NOTE: Perimeter White Decking is quoted rvith Original Mortex Kool Deck. If Tuff Coat is requir'ed, ADD
QGS Developnrent; Inc.Page 7 of 7 October 2, 2013
81
EXHIBIT B
GMP AMENDMENT NO.1
GUARANTEED MAXIMUL PRICE (GI'IP) AMENDilIENT NO.1 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR PRE.
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AND OGS
DEVELPOMENT, INC., FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK SERVICES PURSUANT TO
RESOLUTION NO. 201'I-27791 ENTITLED "CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AT RISK PRE.
CONSTRUCTIOI.I SERVICES FOR THE PAR 3 GOLF COURSE RENOVATION PROJECT.
THIS GillP AMENDMENT NO.'t, made and entered into as of lhis
-day
of.-, ("GMP
Amendment No 1") amends that certain Agreement between Owner, the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
(also, City) and Conskuctlon Manager, QGS DEVELPOIIIENT, lnc., (hereinafter Construction Manager or CM),
made as of the day oi_, for the following described Project:
Par 3 Golf Course
2500 Pinetree Drive
Miami Beach, FL, 33139
II/HEREAS, the Owner and the Ci\,4 have agreed to amend the Agreement in the manner set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained heretn, in the
Agreement and the other Contract Oocuments and for such other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and sufflciency ofvrhich is hereby acknovrlbdged, the Owner and the CM do hereby agree as fcllolvs:
'L This GM P Amendment No. 1 is executed in connection with, and .is deemed to be part of the
Agreement and the Contract Documents. Wherever the terms of this Gl!1P Amendment No. 1 and the terms of
the Contract Documents are in conflict, the terms of this GMP Amendment No. 't shall govern and control. The
lerms used hereln, unless otheMise defined in this GMP Amendment No. 1 shall have the meanings ascribed to
them in the ConVact Documenls.
2. The following are hereby incorporated into the Conkact Documents and made part thereof:
a. The construction documents listed on Attachment l, GMP Amendment No.'!, attached
hereto, which are made a part of the Contract Documents by this relerence (the
'Construction Documents"); and
b. The specifications listed on Attachrnent ll, GMP Amendment No.1, attached heraio,
which speciflcations are made a parl of the Contract Documents by this reference (the
"Specifications"); and
c. Those documents tisted on Attachrnent lll, Additional Contract Documents, refer to the
executed pre-construction services agreement, attached hereto, are rnade a part of the
Contract Documents by this reference; and
d. Those documents listed on Attachment lV GMP Amendment No.1, GMP Book
82
s
inclusive of Cl!l's Proposal, Qualifications and Assumptions attached hereto, are made a
part of the Contract Docurpents by this reference; and
Those documents listed on Attachrnent V, G IP Amendment No.1, the CM's Salary and
Wage Schedule attached hereto, are made part of the contract Documents by this
reference; and
The Scope of the Work for the Par 3 Project, contemplated in this GlllP Amendment
No.1, and as described in Attachment l, GMP Amendment No,f is hereby
incorporaled into the Work; and
The Project Schedule will be provided for this Project and is sel forth on Attachrnent VI-
GMP Amendment No.1, attached hereto, are rnade a pa( hereof by this Ieference; and
The CM's Onsite Management and Superuisory Personnel for this Project shall be set
fodh herein, and incorporated as Attachment Vll to thls Agreement.
The date of Commencemenl for the construction oF the Par 3 project in this GMP
Amendment No.1, shall commence upon the issuance of Notice To Proceed (NTP) # 2,
by the parties hereto (the "Date of Commencement"),
The CM shall achieve Substantial Completion of the Work for the Par 3 project as
contemplated in this GMP Amendment No.1, no later than 243 calendar days from the
issuance of NTP # 2, the Date of Commencement (the 'Contract Time"), and Final
Completion, not later than thirty (30) calendar days from the date of Substantia
Completion. Failure to meet either the Substantial Compleiion or Final Completion dates
shall be a malerial breach of this Agreement and liquidaied damages will be assessed
thereinafter.
Upon failur'e of the Ctul to substantially complete the Work contemplated in this GMP
Amendment No.1, within the specified period of time, plus any approved time
extensions, CM shall pay to the City the sum of S1,000 for each calendar day after the
time specified in subsection 20 of this Amendment.
The Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the Scope of Work contemplated in this G[lP
Amendment No.1, for the Par 3 project, is hereby guaranteed by the Cl'/l nol to exceed
the sum af 54,227,898. (GMP Amendment No.1), based upon the entire Scope of the
Work as described in the Contract Documents, as amendsd herein, and including, but not
limited to, the Construction Documents and the Specifications, subject only to additions
and deductions by Conkact Amendment(s) or Construction Change Directive, as
provided in the Contract Documents. The GMP for GMP Amendment No.1 is more
padicularly itemized in the Schedule of Values prepared in accordance with the terms of
the Agreernent, which Schedule of Values is attached hereto as Atlachment Vlll-GMP
Amendment No.1, and made a part oF the Contract Documents by this reference.
lncluded in the Schedule of Values and specifically identifled herein the Orvners'
h.
83
p.
q
Conlingency as defined in Article 1 .19 of the Pre-Construction Services Agreemenl is in
the amount of 5211,395.
Shoutd the Ctul realize any savings from the negotiated Schedule of Values, incorporated
as Atiachment Vlll, the City shall recerve 750/o ol said savings with no line item integrity.
The Cily reseryes the right to audit any and all contract related documents at any time
during the Project and at the end of the Project
The CM shail provide Commercial General Liability lnsurance, Automobile Liability
lnsurance, Worker's Compensation lnsurance, and Builder's Risk lnsurance, in
compliance with the provisions of Article ll, lnsurance and Bonds of the General
Conditions of the Contract for Construction.
The CM sfall provide the Public Construcrion Payment Bond and the Public Constructior
Performance and Guarantee Bond. in compliance with the provisions of Article ll,
lnsurance and Bonds of the General Conditions ofthe Contract for Construction'
By executing this GiltP Amendment No.1, the ClVl acknowledges that it has ascertained
and verifled all existing underground utilities and has coordinated all correct locations for
points of connection for all utilities, if any, raquired for this Project and has identified all
clarifications and qualiflcations for this Project, if any. Utility Localions shall be identifled
by the CM and all existing utility connections will be capped as needed, as noied in the
Qualificaiion and Assumptlons Statement.
To the extent ihat the Ovrner has authorized the CM, in writing, to perform the Work
contemplated ln this GI!1P Amendment No.1, for this Project rvith the.cM's ovrn forces,
the salary and wage schedule for the CM's personnel performing such potiion of the
Work, agreed upon by the City and the CM, shall be as set forth on Attachment V' GMP
Amendment No.1, attached heleto, and is made a part of the Contract Documents by
this reference. The CM warants and represents that the salary and wage schedule
includes the comparable market rates (including any and all benefits, contrlbutions and
insurance) charged by the CM for comparable contracls to other business and individuals
for similar services, and that such rates are not higher than the slandard paid for this
Project (Par 3) .
Except as expressly provided herein.above all of the terms, conditions, covenants,
agreements and understandings contained in the Pre-Construction Contract Documents
(and as may have been amended pursuant to GMP Amendment No.l), shall remain
unchanged and in full force and effect, and ihe same hereby expressly ratifled and
conflrmed by tha City and CM.
This GMP Amendment No.I may be executed in severat counterparts, each of which
shall be deemed an original but all ol lvhich shall constitute one and the same instrument.
84
ATTEST:
lN y/iTNESS VVi{EREOF, the panies have ser their hands and seals the oay and year first above wrrtten
THE CITY OF IIIIAMI BEACH
Rafael Granado, City Clerk . Philip Levine, Mayor
ATTEST:CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/
QGS Development , lnc.
1 7502 County Road 672,
(P.O. Drarver 108 Lithia, FL. 33547)
Lithia, Fl 33547
Jim Armstrong Assistant Vice President
Florida Contractor License: CGC 151241?
By:By:
Jacqui Gardner
Conlract Administrator
Jim Armstrong
Assistant Vice President
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
tL-\-\9
85
Par 3 Goll Course
2500 Pinetree Drive
Miami Beach, FL, 33139
GMP AMENDMENT NO.1
ATTACHMENT I CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - PIANS
DATED O8/7/2Ol 3 - par 3(Mccumber) and 9/3/2013 Par 3 Amenities(KobiKarp)
ATTACHMENT ll CONTMCT DOCUMENTS: THE SPECIFICATIONS
Par 3 Golf Course / Par 3 Amenities
ATTACHMENTIII CONTRACTDOCUMENTS:
EXECUTED PRE.CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AGREEMENT DATED IJTARCH 20,
2012 (INCLUSIVE OF GENERAL CONDITIoNS DATED MARCH 2011)'
ATTACHMENT IV CONTRACT DOCUMENTS:
GMP PACKAGE
ATTACHMENT V CONTRACT DOCUMENTS:
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER'S SALARY AND WAGE SCHEDULE
ATTACHMENTVI CONTRACTDOCUMENTS:
pRoJECT SCHEDULE (rO BE SUB[4ITTED FOR APPROVAL UPON ISSUANCE 0F
NOTTCE TO PROCEED NO. 1)
ATTACHMENTVII CONTRACTDOCUI\]IENTS:
ONSITE SITE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL
ATTACHMENTVIII CONTRACTDOCUMENTS:
SCHEDULE OF VALUES
\
86
EXHIBIT C
csNsrRUC?ISN ry{ANAGHMEN'T SEBWCES, trNC.
l0 Fairu.uv D \'g . Suitc 30i ' trcernelrl Beach, l'loridrt;Il{+l " gi}r+Sl.l6l I . FA,\ 95.1-d2?J 142
TUIAMI BEACH
CAFITAL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF lttllAl\fl| BEACI-I
PAR 3 GO!.F COURSE
TOO% SUBMITTAL
COST ESTIruIATE
October 1,2A13
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF MIAMI tsEACI-I
PREPARED BY:
CMS-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMEI{T SERVICES, INC.
cMs F]LE # 2126
Quantity Surv'eyors ' Construction Managers
87
CMS-ConstrucUon Nlanag€nqnt SENices, lnc.
10 Fai.way Drive, Sulie 301
Deerfield BEach, Fl 33441
95.t-l8i-161t
cMs F|LE t 2.t26
MIA]I'I BEACH
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF MIATUI BEACH
PAR 3 GOLf COURSE
1(}O7O SUBMITTAL
COSTESTIWI,{TE
October l,2013
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
MAIN SUMMARY
DIVISION DESCBIPTION AMOUNT 6/" of TOTAL
01000 GENERAL CONDITIONS $ 519.622.00 ' 12.24r/.
02000 SITE WORK / DEMOLITION 1 .540 .7 13 .12 1
s
471.99 1.54%
937%
-".--....9-.O7o/o
0.01%
P
09000
.00
7
_. _sAs%
-- - -0,!z%
-_ o.17%
0-000,4
10000
11000
/SIGNAGE
',3000 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
14000 ,CoNVEYTNG SYSTEMS (N/A)
,rooo IPLUtuTBrNG 60,672.40 : __ .!,43%
jsrs-q
. -?p9_0-q."
31C00
HVAC
ELECTRICAL -l-8!194-l --- .- . g.lj%
100,570.53 | ?.37%
EARTHWORK 0.00%
32000 :ExrERroR TMPROVEMENTS
33OOO ,UTILITIES
s _ 1,087.187.:!.1i ,_,__--_ zs.oo"z
S 325.435.33' 7.66Yc
SUBIOIAL I 3.840,074.70 90.430/o
3.00./6 G.C. OVERHEAD s 115,202.24 2.71V,)
5.00"/"
SUBTOTAL 5 3.955.276.94 93.14!.
G.C. PROFIT s 237.316.62 5.59%
1.29V1
i'EUEIoIA!"-_--.. i!_*_*_"4,1e2,5e1.56;BoND s 54,084-46
_, -9S-Z!:4
1.27'/a
TOTAL PROBABLE CONSTRUCTIO$I COST . S 4,246,678.02 100.00%
Prep3leC ay C Brt Wains!.i,l I O,'!lr2O1J Pagetdl
88
I
Ctos^CorEtrucdqn t4nnaqems nl Servlces, lfl c.
l0 F.krYsy D.ive, Slrjto 30l
Deerileld BeEch. Fl f,3.141
954{81.1611
cMs F|LE # ?126
IlIAMI BEACH
CA?ITAL IIUPROYEMENTS
CITY OF [,nAMl BEACH
PAR 3 GOLF COURSE
1O()% SUEMFTAL
€OSIESIIMATE
October l,201J
PREPARED FOR:
.ITY OF MAMI EEACH
SCHEDULE OF VALTJES
DfvtstoN DESCRIPTION
SITE RESIROOIU/PUMP ROOM STARTER SHACK
AlIIOUNT Yo or TOTAL AMOUNT
0t000 GENERAT CONOITJONS .478 3)3 65 12 74!/34.715.01 12.24ro -o,!lLt.!l-.12_24Pt
o?c00 S TE WORK,I OEIIOLITION I 510 ?t3. 12 39.4: c.4 0.00 0.00 0.0091
03000 CONCRETE 000 0-00d,0 s6 a48.05 19.97%--4_E_?!.94 16.580r
c4000 MASONRY 000 O ooYr t3 53S 53 2 368 00 4.450A
0s000 METALS 0c0 0.00%1.4e0.00 0 s1%. -. "- . -11-6,qgq
c5000 WOODAND PLASTICS 0 q"0"
0c0
.9_,90I
0_o0%
. -. _ _0,9q
50.938.46
o 0 0q9 -0 6a*
07600 THFPIIAI
'
MOISII IRtr FRffFC.I'ON 17.959e ..8,911,!!
I 655.00
.. _ i6,q5.1
tl tl+08000 DOORS AND IiIINOOWS 6tn 0 00%t 1.202 00 3 95%
09000 FINISHES oco 0.00y.25 881 t1 9.12.h 2.819.55 a s2:t
10000 slEgrA!r,!E_sll.ls!48E- . . .
FOIIIPIIFNT
0.c0 0-00"..7.20!.00 2.34%r50.00 0.29%
I t000 0c0 ,-_ 0_00%
o o0%
0.00 0.00%0.00 0.0c1
t?00n FI IRNISHINGS oco 000 0 00%0.0d 0.00?.
13000 IPECTAL C-ON,8-TR UOr l9N. -. _....,
CONVEYING SYSTEI!]S
Dan 0-00%000 0.00%200.00 0.-16%
r4000 0.c0 0.00si 000 0 000/:o.00 0.009t
tlaao PLUMBING 3t.860.00 0.8r%t0.07%230.00 0.43%
23000 HVAC _ -_.q.00
7t sls t3
0.00*2.266 90 0.8 r o,2,5,t 1.00
26000 ELECTRICAL 1.44%24 095.12 a 49./.a 659 EE a 76%
__3*!9-0-0 . .
.,_320Q0
33000
trARTHWORK 0c0 c 00!l 000 0.00%000 0.00*
ExlE3'o-B HrPBo]E!!E_!qs_, .- _
UTILITIES
r,087.181 lr 27_81ti .0 00 0.00!.4 0.00 p.0o!
_.9.2J.13!,11 . opq 0.o096 000 .., * 0.00%
SUBTOTAL 3.535.406 64 90.43%256.548.50 90.43%{q. -9.!t.s0.43%
!.00%G.C OVERHEAO ? "t1.1,7.695.,1i 'l 443 59 21t.t
SUATOTAL 3.64r.164 64 93 1:t.,,t 2A4 714 95 -, . .9.3*1."{%
5 SSqL
,_- !c593.l!-93..t1%
6.00%G C PEIOFIT 2t3.468 t3 5,51.n 15 &54 70 2 973.79 5.S9%
SI I FITOTAI 3,.q99.9ff. e7
49.7S3.44
98 7391 280 0s9-65 98.730ti 52.536-94 98.7lot
1_29./"BOND 1 27.t 3,613.29 Lz?rh
TOTAL PROAABLE CONSTRUCTIOH COST s3.909,750,41 100 00.1 5283.712.94 100.00%953,21.t.67 100,00'{
P al;.J, , l{ 6 a.y lvrls dr I lrEr:o il
89
CMs€onstruction Manaqement Sewices,
10 Faln uay D.iYe, Suite 301
Deerfield Beaeh, Fl 33441
954481-16.11
cMs FILE # 2126
lnc.
MIAMI BEACH
CAPITAL IMPROVEII,l ENTS
6ITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PAR 3 GOLF COURSE
lOO% SU8llRITTAL
GOST ESTIMATE
October l, 2013
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF MIAMI BEAGH
OUALIFICATIONS
ITEM
I THIS COST ESTIMATE IS BASED ON A STANDARD OPEN.BID PROCESS,
.-.2 _
1
4
G_E_NERAL_CONptTtONS tS BASED ON A 9-MONTH CONTIRAqT.,-.-.........____*"._
THIS ESTIMATE IS BASED ON CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS
AND SPECIFICATION DATED 8I ?8'?0.I3.
iDue to the prEsent volatile nature of the construction mad(et, constru6tion materbl
cost could to construction.
6
of 00 rs
Impact ,ees or oiher UljIiV companv charqes are NOT included.
7
-r-
10:
-1-t_
12
ls NOT
contaminate abalement,l removal is NOT included.
Sec!Ii9.g,t?t3_"s,9f rjce!-efe_N"Q-T*USl_u-.-d9d,_...*-*..
:Off-site storage is NOT induded-
13 Niqht shifi / cvertimBWork is NOT included.
14 Phasing costs associated yJith the work are included
15 Costs are based on work beinq performed durinq normal hours.
16 :Testinq is NOT induded-
L7.._
-18_
19
lmpact fees or,othe-r u-tiltly !g!Ilp?!y gllsrSe"s_are Nqll!!!tq!!:
gignalization is NOT included.
Concrete slab over water rnain per note 3 on PD-03 is not included. (quantily unk!o./vn).
20
?1
22
iNo nre alarm.lqggitul]lggbllle_leelion gysl9grlqre hgludrg. (none shown). _
:Uo l!S.h.!n!.rS pJg!q{l_o,l 9y$eln 'S.!llqlud..9g.-
(none shown) _.--... _._ ---
FPL meter and v/ater meter are not included.
Page 1 ol I
Prcpa(sd Df Gar, Yicinslsin , c€I201 3 Pagc r of 1
90
ffiwtuffi@hBi!6mIM@EAt&ffi(JEE!!!U4MffiTMwgSiETMffi91
GENERAL CONDITIONS cMs-coNSTRUCnON MANAGEMENT S€RVIOES, Il.lc. oonlidential
CMS-Construction Managemeflt Seryicrs, Inc.
l0 Faimeay D.ive. Sirite 301
Deerfield Beach, Fl 33,141
954-4E1.16fl
CMS FILE * 2126
Pago I
MIAMI BEACH
CAPITAL IMPROVEMEIITS
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PAR 3 GOLF COURSE
IOO% SUBMITTAL
COST ESTIMATE
October {, 2013
GENERAL CONDITIONS
CONSTRUCNON DURATION
COIISTRU CTION UABIL'TY
lTemporary Water Met3rs & Connect to Exislinq Service I 1.00ils-
99,0!:Y!ts.
?,tqq,pq
3,456.70
l
PreparBd by Gary Wcinstein 10r8r20t3 Pago 1ol2
92
GENERAL CONDrIIONS CMS-CONSTRUCTION MANAGEIIIENTSER$CES, lNC. Contidefltial
CMS-Constructlon Managerfledt Sef,vices, lnc.
10 Falrway O.ive, S,lrite 301
Oeerfl eld Eleach, Fl 33{41
954.481-1611
CMS FILE # 2126
Page 2
T1IIIAMI BEACH
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF MIAMI BEACI.I
PAR 3 GOLF COURSE
IOO% S{JBMTTAL
COST ESIIMATE
October 1, 2013
GENERAL COND.ITIONS
$11 13.00
Temor Corstruction
, g.rlragl_8_emCyal _grgpgers
JSUB.TOTAL
- Lease
11.160.00
s9,958.81
l_.i$
Prepared by Ganr Weinstein l 0/8/20 1 3 Page 2 ol 2
93
rffif'"llMffi94
Ptepared by Gary Weinste;n 10/8/2013 Pags I of7
95
P.Epared by Gary Weinsteiir 10i8r2013 Pa96 2 of7
96
Prepale{, by Gary W.inslerd l0/8/2013 PaEe 3 oi7
97
Frepared by Gary Weinsleifl 10/6/2013 Page 4 oI7
98
o-oECL99
Prepared by Gap/ lveinst.to 10/e,2013 Page 6 o{7
100
P.eFared by Gary la/einsleln 10/9i2013 Page 7 oF7
101
AEiErrir6lrttffim,ffituE!!@EE@rlrlqLd&@@#ffiffiffihe4TMffi102
Prapared by Gary Weinstein 10/82013 P3ga 1 ol 5
103
o.b,!I'oo-104
Prepared by Gary Weinstein 1 0/8120'13 Page 3 ol 5
105
Prapsred by Gary Weinsteiq 10i82013 Page 4 ct 5
106
RESTROOM,/ PUMP ROorVr (27' X 28'l
DlvrsroN I OESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT -s/uNlT AM OUNT
26n426 GROUNOING
t12 210 LF 0.56 117.50
110 EO LF 0.69 5 62.1
30 1.35 !s-__ 40.50
?5 267 s 66.75
? 83 g 28.30l3/o 10 F
z EA - s8-00 . 9_Js6.0o
'|5,{!2,5_0_, I _ _s,llzlg_
ITVSS 'I 57s-00 s 675.00
A 12Cn08.100A 3P. ,rW. lerCB,N3
1
3,725 0o
LITE FIXTURES
AE IX4 EMER 2 EA 225.00 S 452.00
B 1X4 ,l EA 't E7.197.00
1X4 EMER EA 4
EXTER UIES (NOT LISTED)3 EA 2s0.00
Prepared by Gary Weinstein I 0181201 3 Page 5 cl5
107
\/&(,J4-PfrtuiGffiffidffiJf,"'*M4F*(ffi108
CMS-construclion Management Services, lnc.
l0 FaiF ray Drive, Suhe 301
Deerfield Beach, Fl 334{l
954-t181-1511
cMs F|LE # ?126
MIAMI BEACH
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PAR 3 6OLF COURSE
'r00% suBrulTTAL
COST ESTIMATE
Oclobe.l, 2013
STARTER SHACX (8' X 3l
tq. : Lr | 1q,09.s._ __-iqg!!.
rG srRtp j r , EA i 75,C0: s 75.00
oeo'a conNens - a--'-, e.q I 2so30l 5-' T,qdoros . --: .!9 - '-!f.-,- -,----nc-sl s
c- -- -. _.-_ &--_ _ u - .1-t.0!i 9 _3j0.!9tE AT a0RBS - t4.r sF ls,oor 5 2,160.00roruean"-- o , [r, 'liool 5 - - -
Preparcd by Gary Weiastein l0i8/2013 Page 1 of3
109
Prcpared by Gary Weinslein l0/8/2013 Page 2 ol 3
110
.9=c111
Matti Herreia Bowel
Exhibit D
ASTO
Ma[&RM&LANGUAGE
'il
.t
RESOLUTTON NO.r 2010-27407
iL-
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EiECUtE AN AGREEMENT
.W|THMCCUMBER GOLF,.lNC.; FORDESIGN, BID AND AWARD, ANO
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES, IN THE NEGOTIATED LUMP. suru FEE.oF $294,500, PLUS AN ADDTTTONAL NOT-TO.EXCEED AMOUNT
OF $92,600 FOR APPROVED REIMBURSABLES, FOR THE PAR 3 GOLF
COURSE, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR QUALIFTCATIONS (RFO) NO, 07"
os/10; WTH FUNDING TO BE APPROPRIATED FROM THE MIDDLE
BEACH]OUALIW OF LIFE RESORT T4,X FUND 161.
WHEREAS, on November 2,2OOg, the Procurement Division issued RFe No. 07-' 09/10 for Design Bid and,Award, and Constiuction Management Services, in the negotiated
lump'sum fee of $294.500, plus an additional not to exceed.amount of $92,600 for afproved ,
reimbursables for the Par 3 Golf Course; and
WHEREAS, at its February 3,2010 meeting, the City Commission approved Resolution
No. 2010-27324, accepting the recommendation of the City Minager pertaining to the ranking of
.proposals pursuant lto RFQ No. 07-09/10, and authorizing the Administration to enter hto
negotiatibns with the top-ranked firm of McCumber Golf, lnc.: and should the Administration not
be. able to negotiate with the top-ranked firm, authorizing the Administraiion to negotiale with the
second-ranked firm, Bates Design Group, lnc.; and should the Administration not be abie to
.negotiate with the second-rahked firm, authorizing the Administration to negotiate with the third-
. r€nked firm, Signature Design Services: Inc.; and
WHEREAS, following nedotiations, the City was able to reach an agreement .with
Mccumber,Golfr'lnc., in the negotiated lump sum amount of g294,500; ,nd-an additronal' amouht of $92.,600, for approved reimbursables. ,2-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION, oF THE clw oF MIAMI BEACH, FLoRtoA, that.the Mayor and city commission hereby
approve and authorize ah Agreement with Mccumber Golf, lnc. for Design, Bid and Award, andconstruction Management services, in the hegotiated lump s'um feJof $294,500, plusran. additional not to exceed amount of $92,600 for approved ieimbursables, for the pa; 3 Golf' Course Project, with funding to be appropriated from the Middle Beach euality of Lifej Resort
DAY OF .Juru 2010.PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS
& FOR
112
Exhibit E
RESOLUTION NO.2011-27577
A RESOLUT]ON OF THE tt[AYOR AND C]TY COMMISSION OF THE CTTY OF MIAII|I
BEACH, FLORIDA PERTAINI},IG TO THE PAR 3 GOLF COURSE PROJECTAO{D THE
FI.AI'IINGO PARK PROJECT (AIIID, IH PART]CULA& TTIE TENNIS CEHTER), AiID
RAT]FYING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESOLUTION HO. ?o1$-2740i1, WHICH
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THE RE.DESIGI OF THE PAR 3 GOLF COURSE,
rNcLuDrNG THE CONSTRUGTTON OF FOUR (a) HARD SURFACE TENt{rS GOURTS,
TOT LOT, AIID SPLASH PAD, AI{D RATIFYIIIG PREI'IOUSLY APPROVED
RESOLUTDN NO. 2OOq,27I$, WH]CH APPROVEO THE FLAMTNGO PARK MASTER
PLAN, OPTION "L", AS AIT'ENDED, INCLUDING THE COT{STRUCTION OF
SB/ENTEEI{ (14 HYDRO COURTS AT THE PROPOSED TENNIS CENTER.
WHEREASi, on March 31, 2009, the City held a publicly adverlised meeling at Miami Beach
Senior High School where three (3) options for the newly proposed Par 3 Golf Course were presented and
explained in detail; and
WHEREAS, after a thorough explanation of each altemative, the community favored the
'Refurbished Nine (9) Hole Par 3 Golf Coursel, which would retain a full nine-hole golf course, as it exists
today; and
. WHEREAS, following the input and recommendalions ftom residenls, including the Bayshore
Homeowners Association (BHA), at the city commission meeting of october 14, 2009, th6 Malor and
CityCommission, authorized the Adminisfation to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)for design, bid
and award, and const uction administration services, for the redesign of the Par 3 Golf Course (the Par 3
Golf Course Project); and
WHEREAII, on JunE 9, 2010, pursuant to Resolution No. 2010-27407, the City Commission
aPProved and aulhorized the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a professional services agreement Mth
McCumber Golf, lnc. for d€sign, bid and award, and construction managemont seruices fdr the redesign
of the Par 3 Golf Course, including four (4) hard surface tennis courts, tot lot and splash pad, pubiic
restooms, a iogging trailaround the perimeter of the site, a grove of floreringlfruit lreei, as well as lakes
wtrich would act as natural habitat reservoir and as a drainage basin and inigation sysiem; and
WHEREAS, on March 28,2011, a public meeting with BHA residents was held at the Miami
Beach Golf Cf ub,-and the primary goal of thb meetlng was to gesent the com munity with the final conc€pt
plan for the Par 3 Gotf Course Project, which encompassed all the etements ttrai McCumber Gotf had
been commissioned to provide in accordance with the approved scope of work; and
.. WHEFE4S, folloving McCumbe/s presentation, members of lhe community expressed qoncems
regarding the implemontation of a proposed plan wilh a splash pad and a tot tot, thai mijht anract children
onto th€ Par 3 faimra)rs; and
WHEREAS, BHA later presented a proposed plan thal was indicative of the elements lhat theresidents lvould accspt as part of the par 3 Golf Course projec! and
. WHEREAS, the BHA plan suggested a similar layout of the Par 3, inclusive of the lakes, jogging
Path and fout (4) tennis courts, as wpll as 26 parking spaces along the front of the Heurew ncaaiiniifai
area; and
. WHEREA{i, the proposed BHA plan did not include lhe incorporation of a tot lot, splash pad, andassociated resfoom facillties; and
WHEREAS' at the May 11,2011 CityCommission meeting, ihe CityCommission was receptive to
113
relocating the four (4) hard surface tennis courts further w6st, adjacent to Pinetree Drive, as well as
lncorporaling thc tot lot and waler splash pad; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted a subsequent analysis of the polenlial relocation of these
amenities, and concluded that these modmcations might b€ feasibls, but not wilhout changes t0 lhe
cunent Project design, as well as the potential of impacting the existing trees; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the inmease in the size of the tot lot and splash pad could
potentially increaso th6 Project budgei by $250,000; and
WHEREAS, on March 27,2008, Wollberg Alvarez and Parlners (WA) was retained to prepare a
Masier Plan for the Flamingo Park Project, including the proposed Tennis Center (the Flamingo Part Project);
and
WHEREAS, the Master Plan Option "L', as approved and amended by the City Commission on
September 9, 2009, pursuant to Resolution No. 200927190, recommended the demolilion of the €xisting
Flamingo Park Tennis Center and construction of a new 5,000SF Tennis Center, with seventeen (17) hydro
courts; and
WHEREAS, during the Fekuary 3, 2010, City Commission meeting, Dr. Rosann Sidener, the
principal of Miami Beach High School, as well as a number of parents of Miami Beach High School strJdsnts, a
representative the Miami Beach High PTA, and residonts of the community, spoke and issued a unified
request to lnclude Iive (5) hard surface courts in the new Flamingo Tennis C€nterforuse bythe High School's
tennis team; and
WHEREAS, City staff has, since then, met with Dr. Sidener, who has been receptive to the
inclusion of four (4) hard surface courts at th€ Par 3 Golf Course instead; and
WHEREAS, the High School's receptivity to the construction of the hard surface courts at the Par3
Golf Course would allow the City to proceed with the design development phase of the Par 3 Golf Course
Project, and with lhe consbuction of the Flamingo Park Tennis Center, as per adopted Flamingo Park Project
Master Plan, and Permit Number 81003093, which includes the construclion of the seventeen (17) hydro
courts.
NOw' THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR ANO CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF lrlAMl BEACH, FLORIDA that the Mayor and City Commission hereby ratifo the previously
approved Resolution No.2010-27407, which approved and adopted the re-design of the Par 3 Golf Coursi
Project, lncluding the construction of four (4) hard surfac€ tennis courts, tot lot, and splash pad, and ratifo the
previously approv8d Resolutjon No. 200$27190, which approved the Flamingo Park Master Plan, Option "U,
as amended, including the construclion of seventeen (17) hydro courts at the proposed Tennis Center.
PASSEoANDAooFTED loiis /t* aayr* Jan<- .2s11-
Robert E. Parcher
APPROVEDASTO
FOBM & I-ANGUAGE
Mafti Henera Bower
r:\AGENDA!2o1 l\O.0l-l 1\Flamlngo Park i/hste.ptan RESO.doc
FARE)(ECUT]ON
114
City of Miami Beach Parks & Recreation Dept.
Par 3 Golf - 5 YEAR PROJECTION
A,Ilanities/Recrealion Operating Expenses
Total AmantlleslRec. Expdns*
Perlmeter Properly Expenses
Pe.imeter Property
(to lnclud€ water)
Yerr 1 \(ear z Y6ar 3
12,000
Yr.r4 Ye.r 5 YOTAL
Exhibit F
FY 14-18
61,830
i
26,500
6,000
23,000
2,500
Yoar I
50,000
Year 2
50
Year 4
52.500;
Yoar 5
55,1
Golf op:r1hs fry€n:es
Golf Cou.se Maintenance Salanles & Benefits
Maint€nanc6 PeGonnel, Overtim€, Taxes,lEmployee Benellis & Uniforms
Yoar 1 Year 2 Year 3
95,036, s6,937i 98,87s.
:il
Ya.r 4 Year 5 TOTAL
494,571
Golf Course {\,4aintenance Ooerational Exoenses
Fe(ilizer, Equipment Lease, Chemicals, Gas & Oil, Supplies, Sod. Soil, Sand,
Top Dressing, Repai.s, Roads, Grounds and Landscape, Stationary and Printing,
Dues & Memberships, etc.
90,100 99,081 ,00.072 l0't,073 102,083
Golf Course Maintenance Profussiooal Servlces
Lake Management, Security Servic€s, Podable Restioom Rentals, Tree Pruning.
Elc.
3.600 3,636 3,672 3.709 3,746 18,364
I
Goll Course Maintenance lntemal SeNices
Water. Sewer, Telephone, Storm Water, Electricity and Propedy ManaEement
Expenses
57,792 58,370 58.954 59,543 60,13€294,197
Pro Shoo Salades & Benoflls
Pro Shop Personnel, Overtime, Tares/Employee Benelits & Uniforms 97,900 '101,855 '103,892 105,970 509,,{76'
PlD Shoo Oo€rational Exoenses
Marketing & Advertising, Stationery & Printing, Supplies, Repairs & l\4aintenance
and misc. opeaaling expenses
14,400 14,544 't4,836 14,985 73,454
Credit Card Cosls, Security System, Computer Services (POS/ Reservation
Management)
8.076 8,157 6,32'l 8,404 +r,tgo.
elephone, waste Removal, wale. and Sewer, Electricity, Computers/ll
ervices/ Phone System and Property i,'lanagemenl Erpenses
3,000 3.030 3.060 3.091 15,303.
i
Total Goll Course & Pro Shop Expanses 177,SO4 38s.612 389,416 395,318 40r,31S 1,947,569
Parks & Recreation Dept
11212014
Prepared by:
115
(nFzUJI(JF116
After Action January 15, 2014 Commission Meeting City of Miami Beach
10:23:19 a.m.
R7B A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And The City Clerk To Execute Guaranteed
Maximum Price (GMP) Amendment No. 1 To The Pre-Construction Services Agreement With
QGS Development, lnc., Dated March 20,2012, For Construction Management At Risk Services
For The Par 3 Golf Course Project, ln The AmountOf $4,227,898 Plus A Five Percent Owner's
Contingency ln The Amount Of $211,395; ForA Total Amount Of $4,439,293 With Previously
Appropriated Funding ln The Amount Of $3,637,975 From Fund 388 - MDC CDT lnterlocal-
CDT/Resort Fund; $100,000 From Fund 429 - Stormwater LOC - Reso 20Q9-27076: $211,395
From Fund 388 - MDC CDT lnterlocal-CDT/Resort Fund; And $489,923 From Fund 306 - Mid
Beach Quality Of Life, Subject To Future Appropriation Through A Capital Budget Amendment To
The Capital Budget For Fiscal Year 2013114 To Be Presented At The January 15, 2014
Commission Meeting.
(Capital lmprovement Projects)
(Deferred on December 11,2013)
ACTION: Resolution No. 2014-28468 adopted. Commissioner Steinberg suggested moving
forward but to be mindful of future conflicts, and made a motion to approve the item; seconded by
Commissioner Wolfson; Voice-vote: 7-0. David Martinez to handle.
Commissioner Wolfson explained that this is something that began with the previous
Administratlon and there is an anticipated maintenance of $375,000 per year, and that decision-
making needs to happen at the front site. He understands that the maintenance for the golf
course is going to cost money, and he thinks they should go forward with this.
Vice-Mayor Weithorn was not prepared for the $125,000 for pro shop; she does not recall ever
approving a pro shop in that piece. To run a shop without revenue is something that she has
trouble with.
John Rebar, Parks and Recreation Department Director, explained that a "pro shop" is the one
person that will staff the golf course, greet the customer, take the fee, monitor the play, it is really
a one-person sun up to sun down, seven days a week, 12 hours a day,7 days a week.
Commissioner Tobin explained that this is interesting in its history; the Par 3 was donated for golf
course and the City did a land trade and expanded Public Works Department; neighbors went
mad and filed a lawsuit against the City. When they discussed what to do in Par 3, he suggested
a passive green space, and over the years has not been well used. Neighbors want a golf course
across the street and they believe it has an impact on the cost of their homes. He does not think
they need full staffing of this pro shop. He thinks it is important to know the history of it.
Commissioner Steinberg thinks they need to move forward and be mindful for future conflicts.
She made a motion to move item; seconded by Commissioner Wolfson; Voice-vote: 7-0.
44-
Prepared by the City of Miami Beach - City Clerk's Office
M:\$CMB\CIWCLER\AFTEMCT\2014\01 1 52014\Aa01 1 5201 4.Docx
117
sfFzUJ=(JE118
# /\AIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
No. LTC # /08'2o/(/
To: Mayor Philip Levine and Members
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DArE: April 3, 2014
TO COMMISSION
suBJEcr:PARKS & RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ADVISORY BOARD MOTION
The Parks and Recreational Facilities Advisory Board passed a motion at their meeting held on
April2,2014.
MOTION: The Parks & Recreational Facilities Advisory Board, atter giving careful
consideration, unanimously requesls that the space currently designaled as the Par 3
putting green, and that the space which includes the open space adjacent to the Scott
Rakow Youth Center bullding, pool and parking lot, be fully considered as an open play area
for the children of Miami Beach.
Members Present: Harriet Halpryn, Jonathan Groff, Leslie Graff, Lori Nieder, Paul Stein and
Samantha Bratter
Motion Made By: Paul Stein
Motion Seconded By: Jonathan Groff
Motion Passed: Votes 6-0
The Board recognizes and is aware thal a Settlement Agreement between the City and the
neighboring residents was previously agreed to. lt also understands that this is a modification to
that agreement and requires Commission action.
The Board members, as understood by staff, will be reaching out to their respective
Commissioners in order to find a sponsor for lheir motion and request a refenal to the
Neighborhoods Community Affairs Committee, or Land Use, whichever the Commission deems
appropriate.
JLM/JMT/JR/JM/tb
J. Mark Taxis, Assistant City Manager a.--)
John Rebar, Parks & Recreltion Di"rector -'l(-
Julio Magrisso, Parks & Recreation, Assist-ant Director
119
tnFzlrlIIE120
E MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF IHE CITY MANAGER
No.LTC* /25-;o,y'
TO:Mayor Philip Levine and Members the City m rsston
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: April '16,2014
SUBJECT:PARKS & RECREATIONAL FACI TIES ADVISORY BOARD REVISED MOTION
On the Letter to Commission "LTC" dated April 3, 2014, the Parks and Recreation Department
Administration prepared a motion based on the meeting held on April 2, 2014. The motion read as
follows:
MOTTON: The Parks & Recrealional Facilities Advisory Board, after giving careful
consideration, unanimously reguests that the space currently designated as the Par 3
putling green, and that the space which includes the open space adjacent to the Scott
Rakow Youth Center building, pool and parking lot, be fully considerd as an open play area
for the children of Miami Beach-
Members Present: Haniet Halpryn, Jonathan Groff, Leslie Graff, Lori Nieder, Paul Stein and
Samantha Bratter
Motion Made By: Paul Stein
Motion Seconded By: Jonathan Groff
Motion Passed: Votes 64
After the LTC was published, the Parks and Recreational Facilities Advisory Board Chairperson,
Jonathan Groff requested that the Administration review the audio to make clarifications on the
intent of the Board if the audio supports the modification. After careful review the Department
would like to clarify the intent of the Motion to the following (modifications are underlined):
MOTION: The Parks & Recreational Facilities Advisory Board, after giving careful
consideration, unanimously requests that the space eurrently designated as the Par 3
putting gr*n, and that the space which includes the open space adjacent fo the Scoft
Rakow Youth Center building, pool and parking lot, be fully considered as an oPen
recreational and play area for the children of Miami Beach and specificallv. for activities and
oroorammino af the Scoft Rakow Youth Center.
As previously stated in the LTC dated April 3, 2014, the Board recognizes and is aware that a
Settlement Agreement between the City and the neighboring residents was previously agreed to.
It also understands that this is a modification to that agreement and requires Commission action.
The Board members, as understood by staff, will be reaching out to their respective
Commissioners in order to find a sponsor for their motion and request a refenal to the
Neighborhoods Community Affairs Committee, or Land Use, whichever the Commission deems
appropriate.
JLM:rfirtkc/il
c: J. frark Taxis, Assistant Crty Manager
John Rebar, Parks & Recreation Director
Carla Gomez, Parks & Recreation, Assistant Direclor
Elizabeth Valera, Parks & Recreation, Acting Assistant Director
i;rFIlri\.Ff)
201\ ApR lE pil t; 15
LEFIER,T"o,CQAAIvII SSI O N
121
Recommendation of Miami Beach Parks and Recreational Facilities Board:
The Parks & Recreational Facilities Advisory Board, after giving careful
consideration, unanimouslyrequesfs thatthe space currentlydesignated asthe Par
3 putting green, and that the space which includes the open space adjacent to the
Scoft Rakow Youth Center building, pool and parking lot, be fully considered as an
open [recreationaland]* play area forthe children of MiamiBeach fand specifically,
for activities and programming at the Scott Rakow Youth Centerl*.
* Language added by Jonathan Groff
To accomplish this. we Respectfully request,
The Mayor and Commission instruct City administration to hold off on f,rnal approval and
implementation/Construction of the Par-3 Golf Course, with referral to either the
Neighborhoods Committee, or Land Use for consideration of our recommendation, and,/or
such other modifications as deemed appropriate and just by the City.
Respectfully submitted by,
Jonathan H. Groff
Chair, Miami Beach Parks and Recreational Facilities Board
122
Location of Fenced Recreational Area160' x 60o,*'1kPlan KeySt'nbol ller.a- fr5l ng IresI P'or:sed ltee-!It Joqq,oq Tldrl123
Scott Rakow Youth CenterOutdoor Recreational Area(160' x 60')Par-3 Golf CourseWith Putting Green, Two Acre Lake& Jogging TrailFence to be moved based on homeowner coryp!4!q[q. Residents determine\ .r'the recreational area is approximatly 5 -7 feet to far to the west. Aftermeeting with City staff, they requested it be taken down and moved.124
ApproximateLocation of PuttingG reenBlue Outline RepresentsApproximate Area Available ForOutdoor Recreational UseLocation of CurrentFenced Plav Area.. ?.J,.f,''' ,sM,125
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
126
g MIAMIBEACH
City of Miomi Beach, I /00 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 331 39, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Philip Levine and Members of the City Commission
FRoM: Jose Smith, CitV AttlneV
cc: Jimmy Morales, City Ma
DATE: April 30, 2014
SUBJECT: Amend Single Family Development Regulations Applicability
REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE
MAYOR AND CIry COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE
CITY CODE, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ORDINANCE 2014-3835, WHICH
REVISED THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES IN THE RS-1, RS-2, RS-3 AND RS-4 ZONING DISTRICTS, WHICH
AMENDED SECTIONS 142-105 AND 142-106 OF THE GITY CODE, BY
AMENDING THE ORDINANCE'S APPLICABILIry SECTION 3,
"EXCEPTIONS," TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL EXGEPTIONS FOR
PERSONS WHO HAD APPLIED FOR LAND USE BOARD APPROVAL OR
PERMITS PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE, PROVIDING FOR
REPEALER; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The attached ordinance was prepared and placed on the agenda at the request of
Commissioner Wolfson. Since the item amends the applicability of an ordinance in the
Land Development Regulations, it should be referred to the Planning Board for hearing
and recommendation. Ordinance 2014-3835 is attached for your convenient reference.
Please advise if you need anything further.
ht
JS/GMH/s
Agenda ttem R4B
T:\AGENDA\20'14\April\Oversized SF Homes - Revised Applicabilily MEM.docx
Dalr- r-30- /r127
APPLICABILITY CLAUSE TO ORDINANCE 2014-3835
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CITY CODE, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING ORDINANCE
2014-3835, WHICH REVISED THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE RS-1, RS.2, RS.3 AND RS-.4 ZONING
DISTRICTS, WHICH AMENDED SECTIONS 142.105 AND 142-106 OF THE
CITY CODE, BY AMENDING THE ORDINANCE'S APPLICABILITY SECTION
3, "EXCEPTIONS," TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS FOR
PERSONS WHO HAD APPLIED FOR LAND USE BOARD APPROVAL OR
PERMITS PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE, PROVIDING FOR
REPEALER; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the regulation of additlons and new construction in single family districts
was necessary in order to ensure compatible development within the bullt character of the
single-famlly neighborhoods in the City; and
WHEREAS, new homes and additions that are compatible with the prevailing character
of existing residential neighborhoods should be encouraged and promoted; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission recognizes that persons who had relied on the existing
regulations prior to the adoption of Ordinance 2014-3835, which reliance is indicated by their
preparing and filing applications for land use board approval or building permits prior to the
adoption of Ordinance 2014-3835, should be provided some relief based on such filings; and
WHEREAS, this amendment accomplishes the above objective.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEAGH, FLORIDA:
SECTION l. That Section 3, "Exceptions," of Ordinance 2014-3835, adopted February 12,
2014, is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 3. EXCEPTIONS.
This ordinance shall not apply to:1. Anyone who filed an application for Land Use Board Approval with the Planning
Department on or before September 24,2013: or2. Anyone who obtained a Building Permit Process Number from the Building Department
on or before September 24,2013', or3. Anyone who establishes equitable estoppel as provided in City Code Section 1 18-168,
by obtaining a building permit or Design Review Board approval prior to zoning in progress or
City Commission adoption of this Ordinance; or4. Anvone who filed an application for Land Use Board Approval on or before Februarv 12,
2014, provided the proposed new home is consistent with all of the requirements set forth in the
Ordinance recommended bv the Planninq Board on September 24, 2013;or
128
5. Anvone who filed an aoplication for permit with the Buildinq Department and received a
Buildinq Permit Process Number on or before Februarv 12, 2014. provided:
a. The proposed new home is consistent with all of the requirements set forth in the
Ordinance recommended bv the Plannino Board on September 24. 2013: and
b. The followino drawinqs. which are siqned and sealed bv a Reqistered Architect, are
included as part of the aoplication to the Buildinq Department:i. Site Plan:
ii. Floor Plans
iii Exterior Elevations
iv. All reouired Electrical, Plumbinq. Mechanical and Structural Drawinqs.
SECTION 2. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. SEVEMBILITY.
lf any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder
shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of 2014.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Verified:
Planning Director Date
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
City Attorney Date
First Reading: ,2014
Second Reading: ,2014
T:\AGENDA\2014\April\Oversized SF Homes - Revised Applicability ORD.docx
129
SINGLE FAIT'IILY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
oRDINANCE NO.2014-383s
AN oRDINANcE oF THE MAYORAND CIilCOMMISSION OF THE CIlrOF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
BY AMENDING CHAPTER 142, "ZONING DISTRJCTS AND REGULATIONS,"
DIVISION 2, "RS-l, RS-2, RS€, RS4 SINGLE.FAMILY RESIOENTIAL
OISTRICTS," BY AMENDING THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SINGLE.FAi'ILY RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION, BY REPLACING THE SINGLE.FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
REVTEW PANEL, BY CLARIFYING AND AITENDING THE STANDARDS AtlD
PROCURES FOR REV]EWING NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONS IN
SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS, INCLUDING MODIFICATIONS TO LOT
COVERAGE, UNIT SIZE AND OVERALL HEIGHT, BY CLARIFYING THE
BELOW FLOOD LEVEL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFECTED
PROPERTIES IN HIGH FLOOD ZONES, AND BY CLARIFYING SETBACK
AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING CODIFICATION;
REPEALER; SEVERABILITY; Al,lD AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the regulation of additions and new construGlion in single family districts is
necessary in order to ensure compatible development within the built character of the single-
family neighborhoods in the City; and
WHEREAS, new homes and additions that are compatible with the prevailing character
of existing residential neighborhoods should be encouraged and promoted; and
WHEREAS, the identity, image and environmental quality of the City should be
preserved and protected; and
WHEREAS, the privacy, attractive pedestrian streetscapes and human scale and
character of the City's single-family neighborhoods, are important qualities to protect; and
WHEREAS, these regulations will accomplish these goals and ensure that the public
health, safety and welfare will be preserved in the City's single-family districts.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND C]TY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAIJ|I BEACH, ELORIDA:
SECTION 1. That Section 142-105, "Development regulations and area requirements", is
hereby amended as follovrrs:
Sec. 142-105, Development regulations and area requirements.
(a) ffihe review criteria and aoo/ication reouirements
C€velepm€nH€gslati€ne-for the RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS4 single-family residential
districts are as follows:
(1) Comptiance with regulations and review citeria.
130
Permits for new construction, alterations or additions to existing structures
shall be subject to administrative (staff level) review by the planning
director or designee
the lesion review board
(DRB). or historic oreservation board (HPB) as aoolicable, in order to
determine consistency with the review criterh listed in this section.
b. ln complying with the review criteria located in this section, the applicant
may choose either to adhere to the development regulations identified in
sections 142-105 and 142-106 administratively through staff level review
or seek enhancements of the applicable development regulations as
specified thereinglgrryigS| through approval from the SFf;ftB
historic preservation board or design review board, as-<ppt*nbtg_iq
accordance with the applicable desion review or aoorooriateness criteria.
ln the event the SFRFIP deee net eenvene due te laek ef a qsersm; tho
d€Eign review b€ard
jurisdi€tien=
in
feund-*t*in+he+ubeestiea*
*c-Notwithstanding the foregoing, for those structures located within a l@l!y
designated historic sile_g!g[ig!, or individually designated as an historic
structure or site, enlyfhe review and approval oJ the historic preservation
board (HPB)s'hall qlgllbe required.
ed-Notwithstanding the foregoing, for those structures constructed prior to
1942 and determined to be architecturally significant, in accordance with
section 142-108 herein, efilfthe review and approval of the design review
(2) *rr,, *?ir:1,m',:X'l f#lH;$-r"vi ew s h a r r e nco m pa s s th e exa m i natio n or
architectural drawings for consistency with the review crjteria a€C- j*f€',Emati€f,
reqleste.liete4.below:
a. The existing conditions of the lot, including but not limited to topography,
vegetation, trees, drainage, and waterways shall be considered in
evaluating the proposed site improvements.
The design and layout of the proposed site plan inclusive of the location of
all existing and proposed buildings shall be reviewed with particular
attention to the relationship to the surrounding neighborhood, impact on
contiguous and adjacent buildings and lands, and view corridors. ln this
regard, additional photographic, and contextual studies that delineate the
location of adjacent buildings and struc'tures mrygf3llbe required in
evaluating mmpliance with this criterion.
The selection of landscape materials, landscaping structures and paving
materials shall be reviewed to ensure a compatible relationship with and
enhancement of the overall site plan design and the surrounding
neighborhood.
131
The dimensions of all buildings, structures, setbacks, height, lot coverage
and any other information that may be reasonably necessary to determine
compliance with the requirements of the underlying zoning district.
The design and construction of the proposed structure, and/or additions or
modifications to an existing structure, indicates sensitivity to and
compatibility with the environment and adjacent slructures and enhances
the appearance of the surrounding neighborhood..
f. The proposed structure is located in a manner that is responsive to
adjacent structures and the established pattern of volumetric massing
along the street with regard to siting, setbacks and the placement of the
upper floor
context within the nelqhborhood.
S. The construction of an addition to a6 maln existing structure shall be
architecturally appropriate to the original desQn and scale of the main
existinq structurebsikliFg; the
architectural lanouaoe or stvle than the main existino structure buildifi€
erueture may Ue arenite but in a manner that is
comoatible with the scale and massinq of the erieinal-main existino
structure buildin'e.
h, trxt€rier harE en €
frent end eide elevatiene whieh faee a street er right ef way,
rEsireC siCe yard area fa€ing a etreet ehall be eed€led er lande€eped
Berviese epen spaee, With the exeeptien ef driveways anC Bath+l€aCing
te the building; paving may net extend any €leser thaa five feet te the frent
eflh€+uilCiF+
half the differenee between graCe; as defineC in seetbr 111 1; anC the
@kfl_The construction shall be in conformance with the requirements of article
lV, division 7 of this chapter with respect to exterior facade paint and
material colors.
(3) Application requirements for DRB or HPB review.
n*{nd-€lhe+|jn€l{J€|€
the{eua#in$
@M
ies'
'1, eeneeptual design drawingE ts sGalein€ludiflg but rl€t limited ls a
drawinge €llall b€ submitt
elevetien€"
6, Ceneral zening ealeulatiens and data suffisient te determine
132
I
I
@i+
@pplicationsshall @
and review criteria. soecified in Chaoter 118 Article Vl - Desion Review
Procedures or Article X. - Historic Preservation. of these land
develooment requlations (as apolicable). board bv-laws. or as determined
bv the Dlannino director, or desionee. However. the fee for aoolications to
the DRB for non-architecturallv sionificant homes constructed orior to
1942 and all hbmes constructed after 1942 shall be $150.00.require
tnre+eepie+'
ing
three memberc; tw€ ef whem shall he ar€hiteot€ and/er eth€r registered
fer a term ef ene year, Pafi€l members shall net deliberat€ in mere than
feur rneefnge per ealendar year unleee reqsireC due !e inability te setisfy
the{seH#+eqt+ir€meF+
b, Membershrp and qgalifreafr'en, Panel rn€Fnbere €hell-be ehesen by the eity
well €c s li6t ef re6iC€nE ef th€ 6iry, h develeBing th€ li€t ef r€giEtered
iea+
1, Ameri6an lnstitute ef nrchiteetcr l66al €h€pter,
ien'
'1, The Miami Beeign Preserva$en teagse
@e, iifE'en'fy fe appreve p/ane The quersm fer the SFRRP ehall be all three
rnembers and a simple majeriB will be neeeesary te ^ppreve any
net eenvene due te leek €f a querum; the eppli€atien may be r€direetedr at
the eleetien ef the applicant, t€ the deeign revi€w hearC er the hieterie
previde-l6ge+€€+rn€€t
+, tvleettngs and nef/aing req
detgrmined by the planning Cireeter, The heari{€-b€fere the SFRRP ehell
the planning direelor; er designee; prior t+th€ EsbmisEier} ef a requeEt er
ing
dale and shall be by mail netiee and pesting ef the BreBerty that ,is the
ing
133
lanC fl+lese ttran 100 feet te either siCe' rear ar€ aerees a ekeet er alley
frem th€ exterier preperty besn€lari€s ef thal subjeGt prep€rty, AE an
phnning and -ening webpage,
Sfqng ehall be te a in
ies
fer writ ef eertierari te the eireuit seurt,
iene
te the SFRRP shall be $150,00,(bl The develooment reoulations for the RS-1 . RS-2. RS-3. RS-4 sinole familv residential
districG are as follows:
1S){lLLot_ercZJ! width, lot coveraoe, unil size. and buildino hei
requirements. The lot area, lot width, lot coveraqe. and buildino heiqht unit+iae
ane-OuflginC+eigh+-requirements for the RS-1 , RS.2, RS-3, RS-4 single.family
residential districts are as follows:
5
134
-,I*l1itlI -trEXtt:iit$s*$$filttrr$$*,$$j*${$*s}iltt$*1$drt;tx$$$$$$lt*tr*,$tr$$tilI$fl*II$,135
2oninq
Disrict
!4idu
Lot Ar.a
(souare
feetl
Minimum Lot
E!E-(EI'
Maximum Lot
Coveraee for
a 2-storv
home (% of
lot areal*t
Maximum Unit Size
(% of Lot Areal
Marimum Euildine Heiqht.
which shall not exce€d two
stories above the minimum
flood elevation in all districts
at*
R5-1 30.0m 100
30%SOYo
28 feet - flat roofs.
31 feet - sloped roofs.
RS.2 18.000
30%so%
RS-3 10.000
5o-Oceanfront lots.
6GAll others
30%50%
24 feet - flat roofs.
27 feet - slooed roofs.
Mav be increased uo to 28
feet for flat rooA and 31 feet
for sloped roofs. when
aooroved bv the DRB or HPB
in accordance with the
aoolicable design review or
aoorooriateness criteria.
RS4 6.000 s0
30%50%
24 feet - flat roofs.
27 feet - slooed roofs.
rExceot those lots
fronting on a cul de
sac or circular
street as defined in
lot width.
+rSinsle storv
homes shall
follow the
reouirements
of Section
t42-
10s{b}(4)b
'*+ Heisht shall be measured
from the minimum reouired
flood elevation for the lot.
measured to the too of the
structural slab for a flat roof
and to the mid-ooint of the
slooe for a sloped roof. SinEle
Storv homes shall follow the
requirements of Section 142-
105(b)(4)b
136
(2) Maximum number of stories. The maximum number of stories shall not exceed
two above the minimum flood elevation.
followinq:
a Lot aooreoation for the ouroose of exoanded vards. or for the construction
of accessorv oools. cabanas. tennis courts. and similar accessorv
slructures. when detached from the main home with a minimum
seoaralion of 15 feet, which mav be aqoreqated to no more than three
contiouous lots; gI
b. Lot aoqreoation for the construction of a new home located in the middle
of a site consistinq of 3 lots. orovided the sum of the side vard setbacks of
the main structure are equivalent to the width of the smallest of the 3
aooreoated lots. and the overall unit size and lot coveraoe of the main
home shall be based uoon the combined size of the largest 2lots.(4) Unit size reouirements.
a. Minimum unit size: 1.800 souare feet.
+.b. For ourooses of
horizontal areas of the floqrs of a sinqle familv home. measured from the
exterior faces of exterior walls. However. the unit size of a sinqle family
home shall not include the followino. unless otherwise orovided for in
these land develooment reoulations
'1 . Uncovered steos.
2. Attic soace. orovidino structural headroom of less than seven feet
six inches.
3. Terraces. breezewavs. or ooen oorches. orovided anv such
covered spaces do not proiect more than ten feet from the buildino.
4. Enclosed floor soace used for required off-street oarkino soaces
{maximum 500 souare feet).
5. Exterior unenclosed orivate balconies. orovided anv such balconv
does nol oroiect more than six feet from the buildino.
c. For two storv homes with an overall lot coveraoe of 25% or oreater. the
ohvsical volume of the second floor shall not exceed 70% of the first floor
of the main home. exclusive of anv enclosed reouired oarkino area. The
DRB or HPB mav foreoo this requirement. in accordance with the
aoolicable desiqn review or aoorooriateness criteria.
d. Non-airconditioned soace located below minimum flood elevation.
Notwithstandino the above. for those orooerties located in the RS-1. RS-2.
RS-3. RS-4 sinole-familv residential districts, where the first habitable floor
is reouired to be located six (6') feet or more above orade in order to meet
minimum flood elevation reouirements. the followino shall aoolv:' '1. The heioht of the area under the maih structure mav have a
maximum floor to ceilino clearance of 7'-6" from orade. Exceot
that in the event that the minimum flood elevation reouires the
underside of the slab of the first habitable floor to exceed 7'-6"
from qrade. such slab shall not exceed the minimum flood
elevation as measured from qrade.
I
137
2. Uo to. but not exceedino. 600 souare feet of seoreoated oarkino
oaraqe area mav be oermitted under the main struclure.
3. The area under the first habitable floor of the main structure shall
consisl of non-airconditioned soace. which is at least 50% ooen.
Such area shall not be subdivided into different rooms. with the
, exceotion of the oarkinq oaraoe area. and reouired stairs and/or
elevators.
soace located directlv below the first habitable floor. shall not
count in the unit size calculations. orovided it remains ooen in
oerDetuitv.
(blclLtof coveE,ge (buitding footprint).pSa. General.
Ll . For lots aqqreqaled after September 24. 2013, when a third lot is
aooreoated, as limited bv Section 142-105(b)(3). the calculation of
lot coveraoe shall be determined bv the two lots on which the
house is located.@ e€€spy-€:sardm{#R
ing
ign-review
.
(3)!--One-story structures. One-story structures may eiceed the maximum 35
p€{€ont-lot coverage@ through staff
level review and shall be subject to the setback regulations outlined in
section 142-106, but in no instance shall the building footprint exceed 50
percent of the lot area. For purposes of this section, a one-story structure
shall not exceed 18 feet in height for flat roof structures and 21 feet for
as
measured from grade-.the minimum flood e
lot coveraoe. the heioht mav be increased up to 24 feet for a sinole flat
roof structure or 27 feet for a sinqle slooed roof structure (measured to the
mid-poinl of the slope). The lenoth of anv wall associated with this hioher
heioht shall not exceed 25 feet.
(3)4Ca/c ulating lot coverage- For purposes of calculating lot coverage, the
footprint shall be calculated from the exterior face of exterior walls and the
exterior face of exterior columns on the ground floor of all principal and
accessory buildings, or portions thereof. lnternal Courtvards. which are
open to the skv. bnt which are substantiallv enclosed bv the structure on
three or more sides. shall be included in the lot coveraoe calculation.
Cotrr€.r€+r-€9utdoor covered areas, such as, but not limited to, loggias,
covered patios, pergolas, etc., that are open on at least two sides, and not
covered by an enclosed floor above, shall not be included in the lot
coverage calculation.
(4d. Ganages. A maximum of 500 square feet of garage space shall not be
counted in lot coverage if the area is limited to garage, storage and other
non-habitable uses as-previ@nd the
garage conforms to the following criteria:
I
138
+.L_The garage is one story in height and not covered by any portion
of enclosed floor area above. Enclosed floor area shall be as
deflned in section 1 14-1
F.LThe vehicular entrance(s) of the garage is not part of the principal
facade of the main house.
+.3. The garage is constructed with a vehicular entrance(s)
perpendicular to and not visible from the right-of-way, or the
entrance(s) is set back a minimum of five feet from the principal
facade of the main house when facing a right-of-way.
(6)e. Nonconforming strucfures. Existing single-family structures
nonconforming with respect to sections 142;105 and 142-106, may be
repaired, renovated, rehabilitated regardless of the cost of such repair,
renovation or rehabilitation, notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 118,
article lX, 'Nonconformance." Should such an existing structure
constructed prior to October 1,1971, be completely destroyed due to fire
or other catastrophic event, through no fault of the owner, such slructure
may be replaced regardless of the above noted regulations existing at the
time of destruction.
f. Demolition of architecturaily significant single-family homes. Proposed
new construction that exceeds the original building footprint of a
demolished architecturally significant single-family home shall follow the
provisions of section 142-1OB(6) Roof decks. Roof decks shall not exceed six inches above the main roofline and
shall not exceed a mmbined deck area of 25 oercent of the enclosed floor area
immediatelv one floor below. reoardless of deck heioht. Roof decks shall be
setback a minimum of '10 feet from each side of the exterior outer walls. when
located alonq a front or side elevation. and from the rear elevation for non-
waterfront lots. The DRB or HPB mav foreoo the required rear deck sethack. in
accordance with the aoolicable desion review or aoorooriateness criteria.
(e)fZt fArott rcst+ieieaqeeplioos 'fhe height regulation exceptions contained in
section 142-1 161 shall not apply to the RS-1,2, 3 and 4 zoning districts. The
following exceptions shall apply, and unless otheruise specified in terms of
height and location, shall not exceed ten feet above the roofline of the structure.
ln general, height exceptions that have not been developed integral to the design
intent of a structure shall be located in a manner to have a minimal visual impact
on predominant nelghborhood view coridors as viewed from public rights-of-way
and waterways.
(1'1. Chimneys and air vents, not to exceed five feet in height.
@(3)2. Decorative structures used only for ornamental or aesthetic purposes
such as spires, domes, belfries, and covered structures, which are open
on all sides, and are not intended for habitation or to eltend interior
habitable space. Such structures shall not exceed a combined area of 20
percent of the enclosed floor area immediately one floor below4g!g!4[
10
139
be setback a minimum of '10 feet from the oerimeter of the enclosed floor
below.
(4)3. Radio and television antennas.
4. .Paraget walls, not to
exceed three and one-half feet above the @
roof deck height-andselLack a minimum of '10 feet from.the oerimeter of
the enclosed floor below.
(6)6. S+aiF,vetl€nd-eElevator bulkheads ie3eneralshall be located as close to
the center of the roof as oossible and t+be visually recessive such that
they do not become vertical extensions of exterior building elevations.
leealael- diredly aleng reqgired eetbaek linee, SFRRP; hieterie
preservation ^eard er design review b€ard; as a^plicable; shell ^e
125 ^ereentefthedepth efthe neareet sethaek, Depth shall he rneasureC
@ine.
F)LSkylights, not to exceed five feet above the main roofline.
(8)8. Air conditioning and mechanical equipment not lo exceed five feel above
the main roofline and malt-g@[!_be required to be screened in order to
ensure minimal visual impact as identified in the general section
description above.
{9)g._Rooftop wind turbines, not to exceed ten feet above the main roofline.(8) Exterior buildino and lot standards, The followino shall aoolv to all buildinos and
orooerties in the RS-1. RS-2. R$3. RS-4 sinole-familv residential districts:
a. Exterior bars on entrvwavs. doors and windows shall be orohibited on
front and side elevations. which face a Skeet or riqht-of-wav.
b. Adiusted orade. ln no instance shall the elevation of anv reouired vard be
hioher than one-half the difference between orade, as defined in section
114-1. and the minimum required flood elevation.
inc
let pur€uant te seEtien 112 103 shall be 6ubje6t te th€ fellgwing reguirern€nte:
(1) Only an et graCe; osrfe€€d parking let Ehall be pennitteC fursuant te thi€
the landeeape requirementb and eriteria ae set fefth ifl €ha-ter 118; artiele
Vl; and reetien 13'l 6; re'peetively, These revbw eriteria ere in additien te
118r artiele lV,
(3) Fer purpeses ef thie eubseeti$ enly; a Barking l€t within the RS 'l dietrist
iw
@('l) Permanent surfa€€s ef a parking let reviewed pursuanlte thie eubeeetien
@
11
140
@
@
ie+
SECTION 2. That Section 142-106,'Setback requirements for a single-family detached
dwelling", is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 142-106. Setback requirements for a single-family detached dwelling.
The setback requirements.for a single-family detached dwelling in the RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, RS4
single-family residential districts are as follows:
(1) Front yards: The minimum front yard setback requirement for these districts shall
be 20 feet.
a. One-story structures may be located at the minimum front yard setback
line.
b. The second floor of llwo-story structures eF-tho-6€€eHC4eoF-shall be set
back a minimum of ten additional feet from the required front yard setback
line.
c. Up to 50 percent of the developable width of the second floor may
encroach foruard to the 2o-foot setback line through staff level review.
Portions that encroach fomrard in excess of 50 percent shall require
SFRRPT-historic preservation board;3; design review board approval, ae
aoorooriateness criteria.
landscaoed oervious ooen soa_ce. With the exceotion of drivewavs and
oaths leadinq to the buildino. oavino mav not extend anv closer than five
feet to the front of the buildinq.(2\ Side yards:
The sum of the required side yards shall be at least 25 percent of the lot .
width.
Side, facing a street. Each required side yard facing a street shall be no
less than ten percent of the lot width or 15 feet, whichever is greaterJlJsg
at least 35 oercent of the reauired side vard area facino a street shall be
sodded or landscaDed oervious ooen soace. With the exceotion of
drivewavs and oaths leadino to the buildino. oavino mav not extend anv
closer than five feet to the front of the buildinq.
lnterior sides. Any one interior side yard shall have a minimum of ten
percent of the lot width or seven and one-half feet, whichever is greater.
Two-story side elevations located in-pexim*y#gllg!!9-g_side
property line shall not exceed 50 percent of the lot depth, or 8@feet,
whichever is less, without incorporating additional open space. in excess
of the minimum required side vard. directly adjacent to the required side
yard. The additional open space shall be regular in shape._goen.!c..,]!he,
skv from orade, and at least eight feet in depth, measured perpendicular
d.
12
141
from the minimum required side setback line. The square footage of the
additional open space shall not be less than one percent of the lot area.
The thresheld ef the preldmity shall be equal te er leee than 150 Perc€nt
he intent of this regulation
shall be to break up long expanses of uninterrupted two-story volume at
or near the required side yard setback line and exception from this
provision may be granted only through-€FRRP, historic preservation
boar4.gdesign review board approval, @
the aDplicable desion review or aopropriateness criteria.
e. Nonconformino vards.
1 . lf th,+x single-family structure is renovated in excess of 50 percent
of the value determination, as determined by the building official
pursuant to the standards set forth in the Florida Building Code,
any new construction in connection with the renovation shall meet
S+Allsetback regulations existin g at the time,glggljlhryiE
exempted under chaoter 118. article lX of these Land
Develooment Reoulations..
2. When an existino sinole-familv structure is beino renovated less
than 50 oercent of the value determination. as prescribed bv the
buildino official oursuant to the standards set forth in the Florida
Buildino Code. and the sum of the side vards is less than 25
percent of the lot width. anv new construction. whether attached or
detached. includinq additions. mav retain the existino sum of the
side vards. orovided that the sum of the side vards is not
decreased.
Lf,When an existing single-family structure is being renovated less than
50 percent of the value determination, as prescribed by the building
official pursuant to the standards set forth in the Florida Building Code,
and has a nonconforming jglgglglside yard setback of at least five feet,
the interior sidevard setback of new construction in connection with
the existlng building may be allowed to follow the existing building
lines. The maintenance of th+1[l5-nonconforming lq@flqside yard
setback shall apply to the construction of a second floor addition to
sinole-farnilv homes constructed orior to Seotember 6. 2006. and to
the linear extension of a single story building, as long as the addltion
does not exceed 18 feet in height for a flat roof structure and 21 feet
s
measured from the minimum flood elevation gred+-lf the linear
extension is two-stories. the second floor shall meet the minimum
reouired vards and the recessed area created bv this setback shall
not be accessible or habitable. Notwithstandinq the foreooino. if an
existino interior side vard is less than five feet. the minimum side vard
for anv new construction or addition on that side shall be ten oercent
of the lot width or seven and one-half feet. whichever is qreater.+hi6
family hemes eenetrusteC as ef (the effeetive dat€ ef thie erCinan€€),
13
142
The eenetruetien ef a greund fleer additien ef mere than ene etery
@.(3) Rear The rear setback requirement shall be 15 percent of the lot depth, 20 feet
minimum, 50 feet maximum.
be sodded or landscaoed Dervious ooen soace: the water oortion of a swimmino
oool mav count toward this reouirement.
SECTION 3. EXCEPTIONS.
This ordinance shall not apply to:
1. Anyone who filed an application for Land Use Board Approval with the Planning
Department on or before September 24,2013; or
2. Anyone who obtained a Building Permit Process Number from lhe Building
Department on or before September 24,2013; or
3. Anyone who establishes equitable esloppel as provided in City Code Section 1 18-
168, by obtaining a building permit or Design Review Board approval prior to
zoning in progress or City Commission adoption of this Ordinance.
sEcTroN 4. coDtFtcATtoN.. lt 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 5. REPEALER.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby
repealed.
SECTION6. SEVERABILIW.
lf any section, subsec'tion, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the
remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall take effect ten days following adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTEOtnis /Jl+ aay ot Febr.aqr
14
143
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
144
E MIAMIBEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, I700 Conveniion Cenler Drive, Miqmi Beoch, Floridq 33139, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISS N MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Philip Levlne and Members the City mtsston
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: April 30, 2014
SUBIECT: UPDATE ON THE AUDIBLE TRIAN SIGNAL PROGMM
BACKGROUND
ln 2009, the City coordinated with the Disability Access Committee (DAC) and Miami Dade
County Public Works Department's Traffic Signals and Signs Division (County) for the locations
and installation of nine (9) Audible Pedestrian Signals (APS) in South Beach.
Following the City's installations ot APS signals, staff and the DAC have taken a proactive step
in reviewing upcoming projects by State and County agencies to ensure that APS signals are
included along corridors with high pedestrian activity. As a result, recently completed Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) projects have added 14 APS signals along Collins
Avenue (between Lincoln Road and 26th Street) and 41"t Street (between Alton Road and
Collins Avenue). Current FDOT construction projects, Alton Road from Sth Street to Michigan
Avenue (expected completion in December 2014) and Collins Avenue from Sth Street to
Lincoln Road (expected completion in August 2014), will be adding a total of 14 additional APS
signals to the pedestrian network.
The APS Program is not based on installation at pre-selected locations but rather based upon
requests. On local roads, the City has worked with the DAC to install APS signals at locations
requested by the committee. Since the system's maintenance falls solely under the jurisdiction
of the County, APS signals are only approved when they are requested by a visually impaired
person or group. To supplement the APS signal installation effort on State projects, the City has
engaged an engineering design consultant to complete plans for six (6) additional APS signals
to be installed on local roadways as requested by the DAC. The design is currently at g0
percent and under review by the County. Once approval is granted by the County, the City will
engage a contractor for the installation of the APS signals.
ANALYSIS
There are currently 240 signalized intersections in the City of Miami Beach. Once the FDOT and
City projects are completed and the aforementioned APS signals have been installed,
approximately 195 intersections would need APS signal installation to have citywide coverage.
At this point, the installation of APS signals for all the intersections in Miami Beach may not be
appropriate due to capital costs, index of usage, noise pollution, and maintenance costs. The
current cost of APS signal installation for a typical intersection is approximately $13,000. To
pursue a citywide installation of APS signals, the City would need approximately 2.5 million
dollars to cover capital costs. Given the current maintenance staff constraints the County
Agenda ltem B?C
oate 4-.30-lv
145
Commission Memorandum
Update on the Audible Pedestrian Signal Program
April 30,2014 Page 2 of 2
endures, the City would need to assist with the majority of the maintenance of the APS signals.
Preliminary maintenance figures submitted by the County indicate that each APS signal
maintenance visit incurs an average cost of one-thousand dollars ($1OOO1 in staff hours and
equipment. Another aspect to keep in mind when pursuing citywide installation is that the
current County approved product requires regular use. When the existing APS signals are not
used regularly, the system goes dormant and the county has to send a technician to reprogram
the audible feature. As part of the current APS Signal lnspection Program implemented by the
City, described herein, staff will determine the exact maintenance requirements for the system,
particularly in Miami Beach's environment.
ln the City's experience, and as corroborated by the County and its manufacturer, APS signals
are best suited for high pedestrian traffic areas where the added noise pollution would not
present a problem for adjacent residents. Various APS signals in the City of Miami Beach have
been subject of vandalism due to their negative effect in the quality of life of those residents
adjacent to them, particularly at night.
APS Siqnal lnspection Proqram
Upon receiving a request for a malfunctioning APS signal, staff immediately forwards the
request to County engineers for repair. County engineers have to physically visit the intersection
because the current APS signal infrastructure does not remotely communicate with the County's
Traffic Control Center. To ensure that APS signals are being regularly maintained by the
County, staff has developed an inspection program in coordination with the DAC. The program
will include the inspection of all APS signals on a quarterly basis, the immediate notification of
the malfunctioning signal to the County, advising DAC members of the signal malfunction, and
timeline for repair(s).
CONCLUS!ON
Staff will work with the DAC to determine additional intersections where APS signals may be
warranted and submit as part of the FY2014l15 proposed budget request. The City and the
DAC will also work together prior to the submittal for approval to the County in drafting a letter of
reqyest, describing the need for the new locations.er
KgB/JRG/JFD
T:lAGENDAUol 4\April\Update On The Audible Pedeslrian Signal Program.docx
146
@ MIAMIBEACH
TO:
FROM:
CC:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Pleose ploce this item on the April 30, 2014 Commission Meeting Agendo.
I wish to reconsider my vote on the Alton rood buffer overloy R5J; I wos on the prevoiling
side.
The reconsiderotion hos to do with odding conditionol use. Pleqse see the suggested
wording from Tom Mooney below:
Section 142-859
(e) Land Use: Main permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses shall be permissible
as set forth in the CD-2 district regulations, with the following exceptions:
(1) Restaurants, bars, entertainment establishments and similar uses shall not be
permitted at any level above the ground floor, except that a loft or mezzanine
containing these uses may be permitted within the interior of a ground floor
commercial space. This subsection shall not apply to existing and proposed retail
uses in buildings classified as 'contributing' and existing in this district as of the
effective date ofthis ordinance.
(4)
Retail uses at any level above the ground or first floor shall not exceed 2,500
square feet per tenant. This subsection shall not apply to buildings classified as
'contributing' and existing in this district as of the effective date of this
ordinance.
Any individual retail, restaurant, bar, entertainment establishment or similar
establishment in excess of 10,000 square feet, inclusive ofoutdoor seating areas,
shall require conditional use approval. This subsection shall not apply to
properties containing buildings classified as 'contributing' and existing in this
district as ofthe effective date ofthis ordinance, provided such property has not
been combined or aggregated with adjacent properties. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the regulations in Chapter 742, Article V, Division 6, Entertainment
Establishments, shall continue to apply to uses in this overlay district.
No alcoholic beverage establishment, entertainment establishment or restaurant
may be licensed as a main permitted or accessory use in any open area above the
Agenda ltem
Date
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Jimmy L. Moroles, City Monoger
Joy V. W. Molokoff, Commissioner
Rofoel Gronodo, Jose Smith, Jose Jimenez, Roul Aguilo, Thomos Mooney
April 21 , 2O14
Alton Rood Bulfer Overloy
(2)
(3)
147
ground floor (any area that is not included in the FAR calculations) or at ground
level in any open area within 125 feet of a residential district, except that
residents of a multifamily (apartment or condominium) building or hotel guests
may use the se areas, which may include a pool or other recreational amenities, for
their individual, personal use with appropriate buffering as determined by the
Planning Department or applicable land use board with jurisdiction. This
subsection shall not apply to properties containing buildings classified as
'contributing' and existing in this district as of the effective date of this
ordinance, provided such property has not been combined or aggregated with
adjacent properties, and Conditional Use Approval is obtained from the
Plannine Board.
The only chonge is in (4) Conditionol Use Approvol must be obtoined from the Plonning
Boqrd.
I believe this protection is needed to protect residentiol oreos in close proximity to the
Alton Rood buildings.
Thonk you very much.
lf you hove ony questions, pleose contoct me ol extension 6622.
JWVM
148