20140910 SM1MIAMIBEACH
City Commission Meeting
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 1
City Hall, Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, 1700 Convention Center Drive
September 10,2014
Mayor Philip Levine
Vice-Mayor Michael Grieco
Com m issioner Joy Malakoff
Com m issioner Micky Steinberg
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
City Manager Jimmy L. Morales
City Attorney Raul Aguila
City Clerk Rafael E. Granado
Vrsft 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 !obbyists with the Gity Clerk priorto engaging in any lobbying activitywith the City
Commission, any Gity 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 Code should be directed to the Office of the City Attorney.
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA
C4 - Gommission Committee Assiqnments
C4L Referral To The Land Use & Development Committee - Revise Proposed Amendment To The
Land Development Regulations To Establish Demolition Procedures ForAll Properties ln The
City.
(Requested by Commissioner Deede Weithorn)
(Superseding Memorandum)
1
Supplemental Agenda, September 10, 2014
R7 - Resolutions
R7E A Resolution Acknowledging Mayor Philip Levine's Decision To Voluntarily Forego The FullAnnual
Salary And Other Compensation And Benefits Afforded To The Office Of Mayor, As Hereinafter Set
Forth ln This Resolution (The "Mayor's Compensation"); And Further Accepting The Mayor's
Recommendation Urging That Such Compensation Be Allocated By The City Commission To Offset
Any Shortfalls And/Or Funding Gaps, As A Result Of Federal Sequestration Cuts To The City's Elder
Meal Programs.
(Requested by Mayor Philip Levine)
(Resolution)
R7F Term Sheet And Vacation Of 87th Terrace East Of Collins Avenue1. A Resolution Approving The Term Sheet, Attached And lncorporated As Exhibit "A" To This
Resolution, And Authorizing The CityAdministration And CityAttorney's Office To Negotiate A
Purchase And Sale Agreement (PSA) With 8701 Collins Development, LLC ("8701") For Sale
Of The City Property Located At226 87th Terrace; For 8701's Development Of A Mixed Use
Residential And Commercial Parking Garage (The "Project") On The City Parcel And 8701's
Adjacent Property, Located A17925 Collins Avenue ("8701 Parcel"), Which Project Will
Provide The City With 120 Dedicated Public Parking Spaces.
2. A Resolution Approving The Vacation And Abandonment Of That Portion Of 87th Terrace East
Of Collins Avenue, Consisting Of A 50 Foot Right-Of-Way (ROW) Containing Approximately
18,042 Square Feet ln Total LotArea, As Shown On The Plat Of Altos Del MarSubdivision
No. 2, Recorded ln Plat Book 4, Page 1 62 Of The Public Records Of Miami-Dade County, ln
Favor Of 8701 Collins Development, LLC (The "Applicant"); With Such Vacation Subject To
And Contingent Upon The City's Approval, And The City And Applicant's Execution, Of A
Development Agreement Which, Among Other Terms And Conditions (1 ) Grants To The City
A Perpetual Pedestrian Access Easement Across A Portion Of The Vacated City ROW, And
(2) Ensures Applicant's Payment Of A Voluntary Monetary Contribution, ln The Amount Of
$10.5 Million Dollars, To Be Used By The City For Public Purposes; And With Such Vacation
Further Subject To And Contingent Upon Applicant's Satisfaction Of The Conditions Set Forth
ln This Resolution. First Readinq
(Public Works/City Attorney's Office)
(Deferred from July 23,2014 - R7E)
(Memorandum & Resolution)
A Resolution Approving The Term Sheet Attached And lncorporated As Exhibit "A" To This
Resolution, And Authorizing The City Administration And City Attorney's Office To Negotiate A
Development Agreement Between The City And Miami Beach Port, LLC ("MBP') For The
Redevelopment Of The MBP Parcel, Located At 120 MacArthur Causeway (The "MBP Parcel") And
The City Parcel, Located At 140 MacArthur Causeway (The "City Parcel") Under A Unified
Development Project; Which Agreement Will lnclude (l) A New 20+/- Story Tower For 60 +/-
Residential Units, Related ResidentialAmenities, Parking, And The Creation Of A Deep-Water Large-
Yacht Marina (The "MBP Facilities"), (ll) The Reconstruction And Expansion Of The Existing City-
Owned Facilities Yard And Offices, lncluding Approximately 40,600 Square Feet Of Administrative
Offices, Service Bays, Vehicle Maintenance And Warehousing Facilities And Other Related Facilities
For City Operations (The "City Facilities"), (lll) 240+l- Parking Spaces For The City's Sole, Permanent
And Exclusive Use (The "City Parking Spaces"); And (lV) Payment Of Fair Market Value To The City
For The Use Of The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) From The City Parcel Toward The MPB Parcel
Development.
(City Manager's Office)
(Resolution & Term Sheet)
R7t
2
Supplemental Agenda, September 10, 2014
R7 - Resolutions (Continued)
R7J A Resolution Approving The Term Sheet, Attached And lncorporated As Exhibit "A" To This
Resolution, And Authorizing The City Administration And City Attorney's Office To Negotiate A
Purchase And Sale Agreement (PSA) With 8701 Collins Development, LLC ("8701") For Sale Of
The City Property Located A1226 87th Terrace; For 8701's Development Of A Mixed Use Residential
And Commercial Parking Garage (The "Project") On The City ParcelAnd 8701's Adjacent Property,
Located At7925 Collins Avenue ("8701's Parcel"), Which Project Will Provide The City With 120
Dedicated Public Parking Spaces.
( City M a na g e r's Offi ce/City Attorney's Offi ce )
(Resolution)
R7N A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager Pertaining To The Ranking Of
Proposals, Pursuant To Request For Proposals No. 2014-051-SR (The RFP), For Design/Build
Services For Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset lslands 3 & 4 Right-Of-Way lnfrastructure lmprovements.
(Capital lmprovement Projects/Procurement)
(Memorandum)
3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4
g MIAMIBEACH
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Jimmy L. Moroles, City Monoger
Deede Weithorn, Commissioner
September 5,2014
SUPERSEDING MEMORANDUM: Referrol To The Lond Use &
Development Committee - Revise Proposed Amendment To The Lond
Development Regulotions To Estoblish Demolition Procedures For All
Properties ln The City.
Pleose ploce this item on the September 10,2014 consent ogendo:
On July 23, 2Ol4 the Moyor ond City Commission, through item C4A, outhorized the
submittol of on opplicotion for the Plonning Boord to review o proposed Ordinonce to
omend the City's lond development regulotions by estoblishing demolition procedures
outside of historic districts. The opplicotion wos ossigned File No. 2199 ond is scheduled
to be reviewed by the Plonning Boord on September 23,2014.
However, the proposed Ordinonce conflicts with Phosed Permitting procedures os
estoblished by the building deportment. Accordingly, pleose withdrow the opplicotion
ossigned File No. 2199 from considerotion by the Plonning Boord, ond refer the
proposed Ordinonce to the Lond Use & Development Committee for further discussion
ond clorificotion.
lf you hove ony questions pleose contoct Louren Corro ot extension 6528 or
Lo urenCo rro@m io m i beochfl. gov.
Weorecammitedopr6"ii;ngexcellentpublicseryiceondsofe\tooll whaltve work.ondployinourvibronr.tropicol.hi ,^''..nmnttnitt
Agenda ttem Cl/ L
Date ?{O-/q5
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
6
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACKNOWLEDGING MAYOR PHILIP LEVINE'S
DECISION TO VOLUNTARILY FOREGO THE FULL ANNUAL SALARY AND
OTHER COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS AFFORDED TO THE OFFICE OF
MAYOR, AS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH IN THIS RESOLUTION (THE
"MAYOR'S COMPENSATION"); AND FURTHER ACCEPTING THE MAYOR'S
REGOMMENDATION URGING THAT SUCH COMPENSATION BE
ALLOCATED BY THE CITY COMMISSION TO OFFSET ANY SHORTFALLS
AND/OR FUNDING GAPS, AS A RESULT OF FEDERAL SEQUESTRATION
CUTS TO THE CITY'S ELDER MEAL PROGRAMS.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.02 of the City Charter, the annual compensation
(i.e., salary) for the Office of Mayor is $10,000; and
WHEREAS, in addition, the Mayor is also entitled to pension benefits (similar to those
available to Unclassified City employees), a car allowance, life insurance coverage, and a
monthly office stipend for travel and other expenses related to his public duties (hereinafter, the
Mayor's salary and the preceding benefits are collectively referred to as the "Mayor's
Compensation"); and
WHEREAS, for Fiscal Year 2014-2015, the Mayor's Compensation is approximately
$43,384; and
WHEREAS, in his inaugural address to the City on November 25,2013, Mayor Levine
stated that he intended to discharge the duties of his office for the minimum consideration of $1
per year, and voluntarily forego the full annual salary and other benefits that he would othenrvise
be entitled to as Mayor; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the monies totaling the Mayor's Compensation will remain
unspent in the Mayor's Office budget, and may be allocated by the City Commission for such
other purposes as the Mayor and City Commission deems in the best interest of the public; and
WHEREAS, in light of budget cuts to the City's Elder Meal programs (the "Programs") as
a result of the Federal Sequestration, the Mayor urges that the City Commission allocate the
annual amount of the Mayor's Compensation to offset the impact of lost funds to those
Programs; and
WHEREAS, currently, the Programs are operated by 1) Little Havana Activities and
Nutrition Centers (Little Havana), and 2) Jewish Community Services of South Florida (JCS),
and the recommendation would be that the Mayor's Compensation be allocated between these
two providers, in amounts proportionate to the total meals served by each organization.
Agenda ttem R7 E
Date Q-/0-/U7
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission
acknowledge Mayor Philip Levine's decision to voluntarily forego the full annual salary and
other compensation and benefits, as set forth in this Resolution, afforded to the Office of Mayor
(the "Mayor's Compensation"), and also accept the Mayor's recommendation that such
Compensation be allocated by the City Commission to offset any shortfalls and/or funding gaps,
as a result of Federal Sequestration cuts to the City's Elder Meal Programs.
PASSED and ADOPTED this _day of
ATTEST:
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
f :\atto\turn\resos\Mayor's Compensatio n 201 4
2014.
Philip Levine, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
1-5- 14
-a
Dote
8
g MIAMI BEACH
Gity of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive,
www.miamibeachfl.gov
Miami Beach, Florida 33139,
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members the y Commission
FIRST READING
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
Raul Aguila, City Attorney2 J Cs,,
DATE: September 10,2014
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEAGH, APPROVING THE VACATION AND
ABANDONMENT OF THAT PORTION OF 87TH TERRACE EAST OF
COLLINS AVENUE, CONSISTING OF A 50 FOOT RIGHT.OF-WAY
(ROW) CONTATNING APPROXTMATELY 18,042 SQUARE FEET lN
TOTAL LOT AREA, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF ALTOS DEL MAR
SUBDIVISION NO. 2, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 162 OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI.DADE COUNTY, !N FAVOR OF
8701 GOLLINS DEVELOPMENT, LLC (THE "APPLICANT"); WITH
SUCH VACATION SUBJECT TO AND CONTINGENT UPON THE
CITY'S APPROVAL, AND THE CITY AND APPLICANT'S EXECUTION,
OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH, AMONG OTHER TERMS
AND CONDTilONS (1) GRANTS TO THE GrrY A PERPETUAL
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS A PORTION OF THE
VACATED CITY ROW, AND (2) ENSURES APPLICANT'S PAYMENT
OF A VOLUNTARY MONETARY CONTRIBUTION, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$10.5 MILLION DOLLARS, TO BE USED BY THE CITY FOR PUBLIC
PURPOSES; AND WITH SUCH VACATION FURTHER SUBJECT TO
AND CONTINGENT UPON APPLICANT'S SATISFACTION OF THE
CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS RESOLUTION.
The City of Miami Beach holds a right-of-way dedication to a 50 foot wide road,
running from Collins Avenue, east 360 feet to Tract "A", as set forth in the sketch
attached as Exhibit "A" to the resolution (hereinafter "City Right-of-Way"). The City
Right-of-Way, known as BTth Terrace, originated when the Plat of Altos Del Mar
Subdivision Number 2 was platted in 1920 (Exhibit A). 8701 Collins Avenue, LLC,
(hereinafter "Applicant") owns the property to the South of and adjacent to the City's
Right-of-Way. The Applicant's property, the Biltmore Terrace Hotel, formerly known as
the "Dezerland" Hotel, is located at 8701 Collins Avenue (hereinafter the "Property").
Agenda ltem
Date9
Vacation of 87h Terrace east of Co//rns Ave- Memo
September 10, 2014 Page 2 ot 10
The Applicant intends to redevelop the Property, together with the parking lot located on
the north half of the Property, and portions of the City Right-of-Way into a hotel, condo-
hotel and residential condominium (hereinafter the "Project).
The Project was approved by the Design Review Board ("DRB") on May 6,2014
(DRB File Numbers 23046 and 23047), which may be modified. ln contemplation of this
Project, the Applicant will be seeking to enter into a Development Agreement with the
City to memorialize the conditions imposed by the City Commission. As a first step in
effectuating the Development Agreement, Applicant has requested that the City vacate
the City Right-of-Way and has submitted its vacation application to the City's Public
Works Department.
This item was heard during the July 18th,2014 Finance and CityWide Projects
Committee meeting. No action was taken at that time and the discussion item was
deferred. During the July 23'd City Commission meeting counsel for Applicant, Mr.
Jeffrey Bercow of Bercow Radell & Fernandez, confirmed the offer of his client the Terra
Group, and proffered a voluntary contribution of $10.S million dollars, should the
vacation proceed. This item was then heard on July 30th Special Finance and City Wide
Projects Committee meeting, and the Committee recommended that the item proceed
to the City Commission with a positive recommendation, and a proposed term sheet for
the September 10,2014 City Commission meeting.
The Proposed Development Agreement:
The proposed underlying Development Agreement contemplates the following
terms:
1. The Project entails redeveloping the property located at 8701 Collins
Avenue and the parking lot located on the north half of the property into a hotel,
condo-hotel, accessory uses, and residential condominium.
2. The City, upon execution of the Development Agreement, would vacate
the City Right-of-Way in favor of Applicant.
3. The Applicant would voluntarily pay a contribution of $10.5 million dollars
to the City, which funds are to be used by the City for public purposes as the City
may deem in the best interest of its residents and visitors.
4. The Property is adjacent to the North Beach Open Space Park. The
voluntary contribution received from the Applicant would possibly allow the City
to improve the park, including the installation of landscaping, hardscaping and
pedestrian access improvements for the entirety of the Park. The City may also
use the funds towards implementing a trolley for North Beach, and/or such other
public purposes as the City may deem in the best interest of its residents and
visitors.
5. The Applicant would also provide the City a ten foot (10') wide perpetual
10
Vacation of 8y'h Terrace east of Collins Ave- Memo
September 10, 2014 Page 3 o'f 10
pedestrian access easement across the vacated City Right-of-Way. The
Applicant would construct and maintain the pedestrian access easement area.
6. As part of the Project, the Applicant may seek an BTth Street easement for
balconies over the City's right-of-way.
Proposed Conditions to Vacation:
The first step toward effectuating the Development Agreement is the vacation of
the City Right-of-Way. The following conditions to the vacation are expected to occur
following approval of the Development Agreement and execution by City and Applicant:
a. the Applicant has offered a voluntary public contribution (hereinafter the
"Voluntary Contribution") of $10.5 Million to the City in connection with the
vacation of the City Parcel. All funds shall be allocated to public projects in North
Beach, as shall be determined by the City Commission, in its sole and
reasonable d iscretion.
b. the Applicant will make the first payment, in the amount of $1,000,000,
within ten (10) business daysfollowing the City Commission's (i) approval of the
City Resolution authorizing the vacation of the City Parcel (the "Vacation
Resolution") and (ii) final approval of the Development Agreement. This payment
will be non-refundable.
c. the Applicant will apply for a full building permit for the Project, using
commercially reasonable efforts, no later than February 19,2016.
d. the Applicant will pay the City $4.5 million on the earlier of: (i) within ten
(10) business days of the issuance of a full building permit for the Project, or (ii)
November 19,2016. The actual vacation of the City Parcel shall be effective as
of the date the Applicant makes the $4.5 million payment. The $4.5 million
payment shall be non-refundable.
e. the Applicant will pay the remaining $5 million in four (4) equal payments
of $1.25 million every six (6) months starting on the earlier of: (i) six (6) months
after the City's issuance of the full building permit for the Project, or (ii) May 19,
2017; provided, however, that the entire amount remaining to be paid shall be
paid ten (10) days priorto the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy
(TCO) or certificate of occupancy (CO), whichever comes first, for the Project.
The City may condition and withhold the issuance of the TCO or CO for the
Project upon full and final payment of the remaining balance of the Voluntary
Contribution. The $5 million payment shall also be non-refundable.
f . the Applicant shall develop and construct the Project consistent with the
RM-2 zoning regulations and the terms of the Development Agreement;
g. no later than ten business days following the City Commission's final
11
Vacation of By'h Terrace east of Cottins Ave- Memo
September 10, 2014 Page 4 o'f 10
approval of the Development Agreement, Applicant shall transfer to the City a
perpetual public pedestrian access easement over a portion of the City Parcel,
subject to the review and approval of City staff, not to be unreasonably withheld,
in order to provide beach access to the public (the "City Easement");
h. the City Easement shall be improved as part of the Project and shall be
open to the public and no later than the date a TCO or CO (whichever comes
first) is issued for the Pro1ect. Applicant shall be solely responsible for all costs
and work associated with the improvement (including, without limitation, the
planning, permitting or construction) of the vacated City Right-of-Way, as part of
the Project including, but not limited to resurfacing, drainage, landscaping,
hardscaping, sidewalks, irrigation, signage, beach access signage, lighting,
design and construction of the City Easement;
i. the Applicant shall be responsible for the safety, security and maintenance
of the City Easement;
j. the Applicant will enter into a Management Agreement for the 87th Street
City righlof-way, allowing Applicant to develop, maintain, pave, drain, light,
landscape and install street furniture along this right-of-way in order to open the
road to pedestrian traffic.
k. Applicant may seek from the City development approvals and an
easement agreement with the City in order to install balconies over the City's
BTth Street right-of-way;
l. Applicant will be responsible for submitting and obtaining any and all final,
non-appealable development approvals for the Project (i.e. Design Review
Board, Planning Board, Board of Adjustment. Applicant agrees and
acknowledges that any such development approvals are subject to, and
conditioned upon, approval by applicable development boards, in their sole and
reasonable discretion ;
m. Except as to involuntary transfers (as shall be defined in the Development
Agreement and which will include, without limitation, foreclosure transfers and
transfers in lieu of foreclosure), Applicant shall not be entitled to assign or
transfer its rights under the Development Agreement until after the earlier of (i)
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy ('CO") for the Project, or (ii) the payment
of all of the Voluntary Contribution. Any such transferee shall assume all
remaining obligations of Applicant under the Development Agreement including,
without limitation, (i) Applicant's obligation to grant and improve the City
Easement and (ii) to improve the BTth Street right-of-way; provided, however,
that as to subsection (ii) the City may, at its sole discretion, elect not to proceed
with, or terminate (as the case may be) the Management Agreement for the BTth
Street right-of-way. The provisions of Subsection n, below, will not apply to this
Subsection.
12
Vacation of B7n Terrace east of Collins Ave- Memo
September 10, 2014 Page 5 o'f 10
n. Except as to Applicant's obligation to make the Voluntary Contribution
payments in accordance with Section lll, above, time periods will be tolled due to
force majeure (strikes, lockouts, acts of God, and other causes beyond the
control of either party); appeals or other judicial or administrative challenges to
project approvals; and delays in obtaining permits from other governmental
agencies. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that, a third party
(unrelated or unaffiliated with the City or Applicant) institutes a legal proceeding
in a court of competent jurisdiction (the "Law Suit") challenging the validity of the
Vacation Resolution or the Development Agreement, then Applicant shall not be
required to make further Voluntary Contribution payments (under condition d. or
e., above), and the City shall not be required to effectuate the vacation of the City
Parcel, until thirty (30) days after the lawsuit has been completed and finally
disposed of; and provided further that if the Law Suit is still pending for more than
eighteen (18) months after the approval of the Development Agreement, then (i)
the City, at its option, may elect to rescind the Vacation Resolution and terminate
the Development Agreement, without cause; (ii) no further payment of the
Voluntary Contribution shall be due and City shall return to Applicant any
Voluntary Contribution payment received after the initial one (1) Million dollar
payment required under condition (b) above; (iii) the vacation of the City Parcel
shall not be effectuated; and (iv) the City and Applicant shall have no further
obligation and/or liability to each other.
o. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold
the City harmless should any Law Suit be filed.
p. Applicant agrees to reimburse the City for any attorney's fees incurred by
the City for outside counsel's review and negotiation of the Development
Agreement, and related agreements, not to exceed reasonable amounts, as
mutually agreed upon by the Parties (which counsel shall be selected and
approved by the City Attorney).
Gity Right-of-Way Plat History:
On June 12, 1920, a platwas recorded at Plat Book4, page 162, designated as
"Altos Del Mar Subdivision Number 2." The plat dedicated seven (7) rights of way for
the perpetual use of the public for the specific purpose of "public highways and
thoroughfares." One of the dedicated thoroughfares was for Nasturtium Street, now
named 87th Terrace. 87th Terrace is currently developed with a public street, including
parking. Another right-of-way dedicated under the plat was Marigold Street, now known
as 87th Street. At one time 87th Street was an improved street, but those improvements
were later removed and the land is now maintained with landscaping. BTth Street is the
subject of the Management Agreement and balcony easement agreement contemplated
as part of the Applicant's Development Agreement. The plat was "accepted" by Miami-
Dade County in 1963.
The plat also created, between the easternmost roadway ends of the six (6)
dedicated thoroughfares and the public beach, six (6) tracts entitled "A". One of the six
13
Vacation of ?y'h Terrace east of Collins Ave- Memo
September 10,2014 Page 6 o'f 10
"A" tracts is located east of the street end of the City Right-of-Way (87th Terrace). The
"A" tracts were reserved to the ownership of the subdivider of the plat. The plat
provides as to these tracts:
And that the tracts marked thereon and designated by the Letter "A",
together with all riparian rights and submerged lands adjacent and
appurtenant to said tracts so marked "A" are hereby granted, reserved,
and limited to the private use only of the present or future owner or owners
of said Altos Del Mar Subdivision Number 2, or any part thereof.
**
It is hereby expressly declared that no part of ... said tract so marked "A"
now is or has been dedicated or granted to the public use for any purpose,
in any way, form or manner whatsoever. [Emphasis added].
Charter Analysis:
Any time the City contemplates the disposition of City land, the transaction must
be analyzed to ensure compliance with Section 1.03 of the City's Charter. The Charter
is reviewed in order to determine whether a supermajority vote of the City Commission
or a voter referendum is required prior to vacation of the City's Right-of-Way. The
following is an analysis of the relevant provisions of Section 1.03 of the City Charter.
1. ls the City's Right-of-Way vacation a "sale, exchange, conveyance or
lease or any other transfer of any City interest in a public beach right-of-way (extending
eastward from Collins Avenue/Ocean Drive to the erosion control line)" which would
require a majority vote of the voters in a citywide referendum, as contemplated in
Section 1.03(d) of the City's Charter?
Answer: No. The City Right-of-Way is East of Collins Avenue but does not
extend to the erosion control line. Further, the 50-foot roadway was platted west of the
intervening property marked tract "A" on the plat. The Altos Del Mar Subdivision
Number 2 Plal dedicated the roadway Nasturlium (87th Terrace), and created the
intervening tract "A" east of Nasturtium. Based upon the express language of the plat,
the subdivider's action was not to extend the roadways to the public beach, but instead
to provide a private space for the use of private owners in the subdivision, between the
end of the road and the beach. The current owner of Tract "A" at the street end of 87th
Terrace is Miami-Dade County.
2. ls the City Right-of-Way vacation a "sale, exchange, conveyance, lease,
or any other transfer of any City interest in any public street-end bordering on land
14
Vacation of Blh Terrace east of Collins Ave- Memo
September 10, 2014 Page 7 o'f 10
designated "Government Use", ... or "Waterfront land,"'which would require eitherthe
unanimous approval of those members of the City Commission with power to vote or
approval by a majority vote of the voters in a Citywide referendum as contemplated in
Section 1.03(e) of the City Charter?
Answer: No. The intervening tract "A" is zoned RM-2, not GU. The City's Righl
of-Way is not "Waterfront land."
As indicated above, Miami-Dade County, through a foreclosure, obtained title to
Tract "A". Section 142-421, of the City's Code provides that "[a]ny land ... owned by ...
the City or other governmental agency for no less than an initial term of 20 years shall
automatically convert to a GU government use districf." Section 142-421 would appear
to require the County's Tract "A" to be zoned GU. However, the City's Official Zoning
Map specifically designates Tract "A", as being zoned RM-2. The City Commission
under Ordinance 98-3151, specifically downzoned Tract A, and the surrounding parcels
to RM-2. As the Zoning Map and Section 142-421 directly conflict an analysis must be
done to reconcile the two provisions.
Where two provisions of an ordinance are in conflict and must be reconciled,
resort is made to statutory construction, and to look to their "plain meaning." Moonlit
Water Apts. v. Cauley,666 So. 2d 898, 900 (Fla. 1996). Moreover, regulations that limit
the use of property must be read in favor of private property rights where possible. See
Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of North Miami,286 So. 2d 552, 553 (Fla. 1973). When
statutes conflict, it is often impossible to harmonize the conflicting provisions and to
determine the legislative intent. Agency for Health Care Admin. v. ln re Estate of
Johnson,743 So. 2d 83,86-87 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1999). As a result, rules of statutory
construction then require a determination as to which provision is more specific, as that
provision would control. The goal of statutory construction is to "provide a field of
operation to all rather than construe one statute as being meaningless or repealed by
implication." ld. at 86-87. This statutory construction analysis is also utilized by the
City. Section 114-2(b), of the City Code entitled "lnterpretations, purpose and conflict,"
provides, in relevant part:
When there are different regulations, one general and one more specific,
both of which may apply to a given subject, the more specific one shall
govern, regardless of whether it be part of the City Code or this subpart
and regardless of the date of enactmenf. (Emphasis added).
ln this instance, the general provision is found in Section 142-421, which
designates all City and government agency owned land in the City as GU, Government
Use district. The specific provision is found on the zoning map, designating the parcel
as RM-2, which is the direct result of a downzoning of the property by action of the City
Commission. This treatment of Tract "A" as other than GU is similarly found in the
action of the City Commission in specifically designating the Miami Beach Convention
Center and property immediately surrounding it as a new zoning district, the CCC Civic
and Convention Center district, by Ordinance No. 81-2286.
15
Vacation of 8/h Terrace east of Collins Ave- Memo
September 10, 2014 Page I o'f 10
ln light of the clear statutory requirement that conflicting provisions in the City
Code be reconciled by the direction in City Code Section 114-2(b), that the specific
provision control over the general provision, and that the tract labeled "A" on the plat
was specifically rezoned RM-2 by action of the City Commission, the parcels are
properly designated RM-2 on the zoning map, and the provisions of Section 1.03(e) are
not triggered.
Additionally, the City Right-of-Way is not "Waterfront Land." The Altos Del Mar
Subdivision Number 2plal created Tract "A" at each street end. This intervening tract
between the City's Right-of-Way and the beach precludes a finding that the City's Right-
of-Way is "Waterfront land'." Waterfront land is not defined in the Charter. Therefore,
in order to determine the legislative intent of the provision, statutory construction
requires us to use the ordinary, plain and obvious meaning when attempting to interpret
the word in question. Knowles v. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, /nc., B9B So. 2d 1, 5 (Fla.
2004). A clear, ordinary and obvious meaning is found in the dictionary. As such,
Random House Dictionary defines waterfront as "land on the edge of a body of water."
As the City's interest ends at Tract "A", the City's Right-of-Way does not qualify as
"Waterfront Land."
3. Does the vacation of the City Right-of-Way result in an increase in the
current floor area ratio "by zoning, transfer, or any other means" of a street end or
property? lf triggered, a referendum vote of the electors, as contemplated under
Section 1.03(c) of the City's Charter would be required.
Answer:No, Section 1.03(e) of the Charter is not triggered by the vacation.
The surrounding parcels to the City Right-of-Way are zoned RM-2. Upon
vacation the City Right-of-Way would retain the zoning designation of the adjacent
parcels. Therefore, there will be no zoning change.
The City's resolution will relinquish the City's interest in the Right-of-Way. As the
Applicant's Project includes the vacated Right-of-Way, Applicant will be required to
execute a Unity of Title or Covenant in Lieu of Unity of Title, as required by Section 118-
5, of the City Code. The Execution of either document shall aggregate Applicant's
development rights on the "unified abutting parcels." This action is consistent with
Section 1.03(e) of the Charter, which specifically states: "The provision shall not
preclude or otherurise affect the division of lots, or the aggregation of development
rights on unified abutting parcels."
Applicant's aggregation of rights shall not increase by zoning, transfer, or any
other means the current, existing floor area ratio of the vacated Rightof-Way or
Applicant's Property. Based upon the foregoing, the referendum requirement of Section
1.03(e) is not triggered.
t Charter provision 1.03(d) specifically addresses City owned "Beach access rights of way." Section 1.03(e) appears to be a
companion amendment to 1.03(d), and seeks to capture all other water bodies that are not considered City owned "Beach access
rights of way."
16
Vacation of 8/h Terrace east of Collins Ave- Memo
September 10,2014 Page 9 of 10
4. ls the vacation a "sale, exchange, conveyance or lease of ten years or
longer of all remaining City-owned property (other than public beach rights-of-way)" that
would require approval by a majority 4l7rh vote of all members of the Planning Board
and 6/7th vote of the City Commission as contemplated by Section 1.03(bX4) of the City
Charter?
Answer: No. Although in past years the City has issued a quit claim deed when
vacating a right-of-way, the City is not required to do so. Local governments do not
"o\Mn" dedicated streets and roads. 1978 Fla. Op. Atty. Gen. 289 (1978). The City has
a perpetual right to use the right-of-way for the public purpose for which the land was
dedicated. The City could not use the land for any other purpose. As such, the legal
title to the land remains in the grantor, and its successors in interest. Upon the vacation
of the roadway, the public's interest is extinguished and the abutting landowner(s)
continue to hold fee simple interest in the land. 1978 Fla. Op. Atty. Gen.309 (1978).
The City may vacate a right-of-way "when the vacation is in the public interest or when it
is no longer required for public use and convenience. The issuance of the resolution
would extinguish the City's interest in the right-of-way. Section 177.085, Florida Statute.
Thus, the City's resolution would not be considered a "conveyance" that would require
the enhanced voting requirements delineated in Section 1.03(bX4) of the Charter.
Gompliance with Ghapter 82 of the City's Code:
The City must comply with the requirements of Chapter 82, of the City Code,
which requires certain actions prior to effectuating a vacation. Section 82-37 requires
the City Manager to transmit the item to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee.
The Committee heard this item on May 16,2014, July 18, 2014, and on July 30,2014.
On May 21, 2014, pursuant to Resolution No. 201 4-28608, the City set the public
hearing for the vacation, and the City Commission resolved by 5/7th" vote to waive the
public bidding requirements of Section 82-39, and found a public purpose in so doing.
On July 23rd, 2014, the City Commission directed that the Resolution authorizing the
vacation of the City's ROW be placed on the September 1Oth Commission agenda, and
on the September 17lh City Commission agenda, for second and final reading, and
public hearing. On July 30th, the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee directed
that a term sheet be negotiated and placed on the September 1Oth City Commission
agenda.
The City has also obtained an appraisal of the City Right-of-Way. The Code also
requires the Resolution to be read during two meetings of the City Commission, with the
second reading being accompanied by a public hearing. ln compliance with Section 82-
38, the Planning Department prepared its analysis of the vacation. A copy of the
planning analysis is attached as Exhibit B. The Planning Department reviewed the six
(6) criteria elements for vacating City Property and found these requirements to have
been satisfied. The criteria of Section 82-38 of the City Code require, prior to
proceeding with the vacation, the City Commission make a finding that a public purpose
is served by the vacation.
Recommendation:
17
Vacation of Blh Terrace east of Cottins Ave- Memo
September 10, 2014 Page 10o'f 10
a. The Administration recommends that the City Commission find that the vacation
serves a public purpose due to the following:
1. The Applicant's Project would provide enhanced pedestrian access to the
public beach and shoreline.2. The City may decide to use the Voluntary Contribution towards the
renovation and beautification of the northern end of North Shore Open Space Park.3. The Project is anticipated to create a significant North Beach destination
to the Applicant's Hotel, which Project may serve as a catalyst to a revival of the area.4. Applicant's project would serve a public purpose in expanding the City's
revenue base, reducing the City's costs, and improve the community's overall quality of
life. The impact on adjacent properties would be positive, as the access easement
along the proposed vacated City Right-of-Way would be improved, maintained, and
secured by the Applicant.5. The Project would reduce the City's Costs in maintaining the vacated City
Right-of-Way. Additionally the Applicant would maintain and secure the perpetual
easement area.6. The Applicant's Project would create jobs.
7. The Project would be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood, will
not block views or create other environmental intrusions.B. The Project is anticipated to enhance the aesthetics of the community and
adjacent park land.
b. The City Manager recommends approval of the vacation and
abandonment of that portion of 87th Terrace east of Collins Avenue, consisting of a 50
foot right-of-way (ROW) containing approximately 18,042 square feet in total lot area, as
shown on the Plat Of Altos Del Mar Subdivision No. 2, recorded in Plat Book 4, Page
162 of the Public Records of Miami-Dade County, in favor of 8701 Collins Avenue, LLC
(the "Applicant"); with such vacation subject to and contingent upon the City's approval,
and the City and Applicant's execution of a Development Agreement with the City
which, among otherterms and conditions (1) grants to the City of a perpetual access
easement across the vacated City ROW and (2) ensures Applicant's payment of a
voluntary monetary contribution in the amount of $10.5 million dollars, to be used by the
City for public purposes as the City may deem in the best interest of its residents and
visitors; with such vacation further subject to and contingent upon Applicant's
satisfaction of the conditions (b), (c), and (d) set forth in the resolution.
Exhibits:
A. Plat Map
B. Planning Analysis
18
,ALL I'li[]tJ ,?y THtS[ J'ft[5[l\l T5, rr]Ar- TATLTM'; Ccr^r" pnnx (lo,unaruy, o,
r Ftar.l Da, ln5 Si6ceiif:, A pi.,lr c i: pAr\i oi CcL,;ri^iii,N? ioT wtla,16en cnefi), o; Stc"rtoN NuMtjEE
.{sriF Frr,ry- ?-#(6e (.t-, Sr' !r-il, &iAt{aiF I0l?rY -twta i+2) fns4 s truArE;r.r J)n$r Cr;upTy t
arl,.r1 T &.1s li:iN t,uLy ,tFe.RilEc r,t PLar Bo"x 1'- , ai PaG n fL;;; oF TNE PtBt,",trro,cas or D^t,E
\: Tt41\\' 5Atc P/ A'T t3
'r5!c,tua'r€'
i s 'Alro5 oEL l'nAR 5L,{1 0}v/-.to^l rvuMB LR }-, e SuBprvtstcN AF PART AF
stc A, -r,5\j s, R.t,z.E,"; rH*r salD LANb ,\s s4a*,N!,^^A't/<Fo A'!D 065/CilA).D a.l SAto pLAr /.' dtuO
+rErtFr€i? As All-tisrfL MAIt 6o3r/irr,srcN NrM6En A' TH;\T TtE 7RA.,,'5 ShoLI/M) A4AR&e S AN., DdSl6NrrEc
:ltuJ,4 v*,", "Jab*,n,8 Sl'."'Nror,, Sr,","l-tre'taxs| Sr'.',"l./on,"oto S-.,','orr"'lrlorrt)RT/ilM 51,, oo,
:a To i:1E fsrPiTL,AL U:;i 0F Ptt,LlC AS PUSLtC ul6itL4'AY.S A^t0 -rHARcd6,{r:Air?AJ, T}tr'\T 14E rf ac7 Epc!i./v.
/GH{rt'0..^J SAr 0 sli\T r,S "A,tRt,3"Lt/a't,'t: NFD€AY 4riANltD, RESt,\nED An,o LtM!Ti'u ro -r. r pntyaTt us.
gE.\ll',rA,07ltfrE ot4/f/Fr< oA cvlL,tRs oF sAi? ALl0s DrLl\,4A1\ Su6Dlvi5toN ;r111s1l6rR 2. cR cr Afiy
PaevtDE c iHA..- SAl,b 4IROSa Wl,V, cri Ar!v At|cr; 7,|FrirrF, M,4Y BF CrcSf D AN, l./..+cATFC , UPaN
:r1.,srtu? cl ALL l-ilF clr'''A/ti9 oF 'f HE Lr7*. ASuTr/Ne o\- !4AT FARr oF SArO A tnCSA vy'.aY So ro r7E
?C\-ttrFO F,r^ide R 7;iAT N, PART Or SAtO Ainbsr W.qV STIALL 6r"- eids ED ()R vacATFD uNTIL 7pF
/Vo/irr+ !Nc Sor,f * Eltos oF InE Oiucr.5 BJfn,rril trrrrlt T'f',5 DsStREO 'Tc c.Lobt at\ vAt|a!- A FARI
c \NAY, sflnLi- e a r24vEt)] !?t:4Dy ,At!o opl:N F0R uSF .A^/o74AVtsL GBTr.Jsr,v C tctllvJ AVg, arrO Sut0
T,'Y EXP,IE'3|.f Y I'T<OV!DEO TT} T\1 Ti4E TRAE. T MANI<EO ANC S#i,Wl\/ OTJ gA] O PL/.T BY OCTTEO LlTJES
, o5 "7-.n itc*aRY RC*y', /t Nn-r ANp 5ftALL Nor 8F tft ANy (:ASE OFptcA\sp FdR S,rHSfi ' ulLtc eR
Ailf KIND ol\ C#Afi ACT€;r<! 411 g THAI rHE SAMF SH{LL Bt cLCSE0 A-oR UiF of ANf r{,NO on cHAalAcTA*R
'rFn :pL. T&.r.(7 ,l)f,9tc NA'rra, as"carrtos^ Avt* o^, s4tt pLA\ $jlAt-L g€ PAv,€Dr !1;/.ri,v AiJD IPF N p44 tlJF
nD 7fii1' rHt Tit/.iTs r"aAnx$D iHFnDN Ai\it.i titstel|&'rto B? lrtlE LFTTFR A, ,,ir,.rrHt R wt rk ALL nlpAniil,,
AERcED LANPS Arl^.f,5.A/r ANA ApPUA/€NAtiT 7a s/\1 O ?,,?^rIS So tiARxe7 /\. tar i+ERFAy ?RANTEOT
I^i,TFD r0 llit PRt V4li uss oNly oF r,{F PeasFA, T ofi f aTURE owvsR oR cw^tFns oF SAtD ALToS DE L
ExpRrsSLY DtcLAIia-fr T.qAl.to*ARTiFso,o AtnoSoWnv,''NoR AttyPiRT ttFSA!D7l'hcTM*RkEO"TsnpaR;ny
tf $,4rtl TfiA.Y t{ lvl/-RF.E0 ",4" nrr* lS o8 h/\5 Ettr DtDttATI: IJ cR Gf r,r'rED To -fH, FttBLtt uJE FaR ANy PrrRpost,
A an v{AA,t,,Fn t!RniSoSVFC,
,rVr+a,tsrF r-flE slrD |a7ururs O.a^^ Ponx ConnrANyt By aAotl aF rrJ EoeRo ot,Drarcrol$t By
rTs Pnrsrar'Nr A^' a -BB IttuM/ /rJ Sr"Rs TAR1) H^5./rftt:uNT0 c/rtrsaD rrJ aoRpoRAT6-y',rAME
SFr- AND AFFi\EL\t -7a,3 /f)!s,ey ar [ui'te, /?/7,
,:',:,-?.:n''untno
JL{rr-:=- -- - _
,/)
-4d-s{3*
rr oR/D$ -^.DADE I".
r A4F, ,4 fuc r*ay Pusr-tc //v A N, FoR. SAlo
, 5r,q-rE/ t'HlS DAV pa/tS0t,Arry {ppEA{tED
ruc B B. Tat Lt N, ntspEc rIvELy PessrDrNT' oF r.HE T{ruu's ?crnaPtnx CanpANY,
(F I:LaRiDAI ANa A<ITNowLFOcEo BFFoRFAnE
'CuT ED 7rF FoFS'COlNc /N.5rRyM r.iJT FAn
I oF SAiO cr.,r,nfANfi AS S{/eH OFF/c6RS/AoR
PURpatts TkEh,E /N FxpIiF.'Sf D, r\Np Uy17u
TY sa Tc D0,
t91q
-rA r.uv;.OCEA,ru PARH COMPANY.
I 15 P,?fs I oI' Al f.
i:,:.r,,:r Crli:rl*l ii1!i I.rit- l'::
' I '. ). ' I..- '. :..:
. ra r.i. ': '''"'
:::r: r i, !i. I-r,-r[:r:::rr:, i].:r. ."' i.
r-.. d* ,4n'
:'- . r.. \ .d\ '.
Ylt " c t'ool
6y
tq *t€P*Hraj***
S ray t,+,vp AND fiFFtttAL -qEAL Tt]$1+*
lr?.
/r,Wr*
'r/,\l t e ::)
,,1#,:*#"il;"., o, Ft, o, o, e
ttt>5toN -cxp/AI l{.u"t 1;ffi_*
EXHIBIT A19
#- /62
A.U,.
I
I
Ii'\< Lr
,o s( (
:.a
I
. t !;:' r 2 J". t.
- * ' - '' ,_' .. ._( a.rJ.,,i r:^_i {;j & e-"J__ v.i,at G)t.7:tf.,., t.: q.c IURTit,M
ill
It1
Irl
lll"ili
iii^)
il i l.--il'" r
qJ
t4
,F,
.( lc(;<*R
Ltica'
*|\
fc
<i
ti-
ei>llo
ui\- lcD)i'"\il
Sl*t.J ]AtrI""ia
u)
iii<
iiitsl,^
i;irlitJ
It n
i!,"'
iiln
lii"
It, rlllrll1|l!
,'i!,d
li6
F
a
*l
I ,,1
\\
ot\(5t,
20
g MIAMIBEACH
PIANNING DEPARTMENT
Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
Thomas R. Mooney, AICP
Planning Director
September 5,2014
SUBJECT: Anatysis of Proposed Right of Way (ROW) Vacation - 87th Terrace
BACKGROUND
Section 82-38 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach requires that any proposed sale or lease
of City-owned land be analyzed from a planning perspective so that the City Commission and
the public are fully apprised of all conditions relating to the proposed sale or lease.
The proposal is to vacate 87th Terrace east of Collins Avenue. The right of way contains
approximately 18,042 square feet in total lot area. The following is an analysis based on the
criteria delineated in the Code.
ANALYSIS
1. Whether or not the proposed use is in keeping with city goals and objectives and
conforms to the city comprehensive plan.
Gonsistent - The vacated ROW will continue to be used in a similar fashion as it is
used today. lt will continue to provide public access to the beach and pedestrian
facilities will be greatly enhanced, improving the linkages between existing and proposed
parking facilities on the west side of Collins Avenue and the beach through a parcel
owned by Miami-Dade County. This is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
Conservation/Coastal Zone Management Element Objective 10, which states the
following:
Objective 1 0: PUBLIC SHOREL/NEACCESS
lncrease the amount of public access to the beach or shoreline consistent with
the estimated public need.
2. The impact on adjacent property, including the potential positive or negative
impacts such as diminution of open space, increased traffic, noise !eve! or
enhanced property values, improved development patterns and provision of
necessary services. Based on the proposed use of the propefi, the city shall
determine the potential impact of the project on caty utilities and other
infrastructure needs and the magnitude of costs associated with needed
infrastructure improvements. Should it become apparentthatfurtherevaluation of
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
EXHIBIT B21
Anatysis of Proposed Right of Way Vacation - 8l' Terrace
September 5,2014
Page 2 of 3
traffic impact is needed, the proponent shal! be responsible for obtaining a traffic
impact analysis from a reputable traffic engineer.
Gonsistent - No negative impacts are anticipated by the proposal. The property being
vacated by the City is within the Medium Density Multifamily Residential (RM-2) future
land use category. This category allows for a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0.
Vacation of the ROW will allow approximately 36,084 additional square feet to be
developed within a unified development site with the parcel to the south.
. Though a ROW is proposed to be vacated, no construction is being proposed
within the vacated ROW; therefore there will be no diminution of open space.
o Vacation of the ROW will not affect the transportation network, as the street
presently dead ends at a waterfront parcel owned by Miami-Dade County, and
vehicular access will be maintained. The use of the floor area that is made
available from the vacation of the ROW could potentially generate up to
approximately 19 peak hour trips if used for residential purposes. This does not
represent a significant increase in peak hour volumes, and the level of service
adopted in the Comprehensive Plan will continue to be maintained along Collins
Avenue within the North Beach Transportation Concurrency ManagementArea.
o No noise level impacts are anticipated from the vacation, as the use of the
property will remain similar in nature.
o The appearance of the property will improve with the proposed vacation, as the
approved development proposal includes pavers, landscaping, wider pedestrian
paths, and other enhancements. These improvements should enhance
surrounding property values.
o Vacation of the ROW will allow for improved utilization of the adjacent parcel,
and lead to improved development patterns throughout the North Beach area,
which is in need of economic redevelopment.o Vacation of the ROW way will not impact adopted levels of service for public
infrastructure. Compliance with parks and transportation concurrency for
utilization of the floor area that maybe utilized to the south will be determined and
mitigated in conjunction with the building permit process; however no additional
utilities or infrastructure are expected to be necessary.
3. A determination as to whether or not the proposed use is in keeping with a public
purpose and community needs, such as expanding the city's revenue base,
creating jobs, creating a significant revenue stream, and improving the
community's overall quality of life.
Gonsistent - This proposal expands the City's revenue base by adding untaxed public
property to the tax rolls. The additional floor area that is made available to the property
to the south will create additional taxable value. ln addition, the City will generate
revenue from the sale of the ROW.
The new development will create temporary construction jobs. lt will also bring additional
residents to the North Beach area. lt is expected that the residents will patron local
businesses in the North Beach area, which is need of economic development.
We ore committed to providing excellent public se,vice ond sofery- o oll who live, work, ond ploy in our vibronl, tropicol, historic comnunify'
22
4.
Analysis of Proposed Right of Way Vacation - 8/h Terrace
September 5, 2014
Page 3 of 3
A determination as to whether or not the development is in keeping with the
surrounding neighborhood, wil! block views or create environmental intrusions,
and evaluation of the design and aesthetic considerations of the project.
Consistent - The surrounding neighborhood will not be negatively affected. The site is
adjacent to a surface parking lot to the west and a hotel to the south owned by the
applicant that will not be negatively impacted by the ROW vacation. The parcel to the
north of the ROW is outside of the City limits; however, there is sufficient separation
between that parcel and any proposed development so as to not significantly obstruct
any views. ln addition, that parcel does not utilize this ROW for access or any other
purposes. The parcel to the northwest is also outside the City limits, and contains a
public park that will not be impacted by the proposed ROW vacation. No environmental
intrusions will be created by the proposed ROW vacation.
The impact on adjacent properties, whether or not there is adequate parking,
street and infrastructure needs.
Consistent - Vacation of this ROW will not affect the parking or infrastructure needs of
adjacent properties. Surrounding properties are not dependent on the parking provided
within this ROW should it be removed in the future. lt is expected that public parking will
be provided immediately to the west of the proposed vacation.
Such other issues as the city manager or his authorized designee, who shall be
the city's planning director, may deem appropriate in analysis of the proposed
disposition.
Not applicable - The Planning Department has no other issues it deems appropriate to
analyze for this proposal.
TRM/RAM
T:\AGENDA\2014\September\87 Terrace Planning Analysis.doc
5.
6.
CONCLUSION
Vacation of the public ROW is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies based on the
approved proposals forthe property. The vacation of the 87th Terrace public ROWwill generate
no negative impacts for the surrounding area. The property would continue to serve in much the
same manner, as public access to the beach will continue to be provided.
We ore committed to providing excellent publtc service ond sofery o oll who live, wcrk, ond ploy in our vibronl, tropicol, historic cammunify'
23
T.
8701 Collins Development, LLC - Proposed Vacation of 87th Terrace Road
Right-of-Way (ROW) East of Collins Avenue
Recitals.
8701 Collins Development, LLC ("8701") is owner of that certain parcel of land
located at 8701 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida (Folio # 02-3202-006-
0010), which includes the "Dezedand Hotel" and parking lot and which is
approximately 73,675 square feet (the "8701 Parcel").
The City of Miami Beach ("City'') holds a righfof-way dedication to a 50 foot
wide road, running from Collins Avenue, east 360 feet to Tract "A", which is
approximately 18,042 square feet (the "City Parcel").
8701 has requested that the City vacate the City Parcel in order to incorporate the
City Parcel, including, without limitation, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) attributable
to the City Parcel into 8701's proposed Project (as defined below).
Upon vacation, the City Parcel collectively with the 8701 Parcel shall be known
as the "Property".
8701 intends to develop the Property as a hotel, condo-hotel and/or residential
condominium, consistent with the RM-2 zoning regulations (hereinafter, the
"Project"), and as shall be further delineated in a Florida Statutes Chapter 163
development agreement, to be negotiated between the City and 8701 (the
"Development Agreement"), and pursuant to applicable land use approvals.
Voluntary Contribution.
8701 has offered a voluntary public contribution (hereinafter the "Voluntary
Contribution") of $10.5 Million to the City in connection with the vacation of the
City Parcel. All funds shall be allocated to public projects in North Beach, as
shall be determined by the City Commission, in its sole and reasonable discretion.
Pavments and Timins. The Voluntary Contribution shall be paid by 8701 to the
City as follows:,
8701 will make the first payment, in the amount of $1,000,000, within ten (10)
business days following the City Commission's (i) approval of the City
Resolution authorizing the vacation of the City Parcel (the "Vacation Resolution")
and (ii) final approval of the Development Agreement. This payment will be non-
refundable.
8701 will apply for a full building permit for the Project, using commercially
reasonable efforts, no later than February 19,2016.
C.
D.
E.
A.
B.
A.
II.
A.
III.
B.
Page 1 of4
24
C.8701 will pay the City $4.5 million on the earlier of: (i) within ten (10) business
days of the issuance of a full building permit for the Project, or (ii) November
19,2016. The actual vacation of the City Parcel shall be effective as of the date
8701 makes the $4.5 million payment. The $4.5 million payment shall be non-
refundable.
8701 will pay the remaining $5 million in four (4) equal paSrments of $1.25
million every six (6) months starting on the earlier of: (i) six (6) months after the
City's issuance of the full building permit for the Project, or (ii) May 19, 2017,
provided, however, that the entire amount remaining to be paid shall be paid ten
(10) days prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) or
certificate of occupancy (CO), whichever comes first, for the Project. The City
may condition and withhold the issuance of the TCO or CO for the Project upon
fulI and final payment of the remaining balance of the Voluntary Contribution.
The $5 million payment shall also be non-refundable.
City Easement.
No later than ten (10) business days following the City Commission's final
approval of the Development Agreement, 8701 shall transfer to the City a
perpetual public pedestrian access easement over a portion of the City Parcel,
subject to the review and approval of City stafl not to be unreasonably withheld,
in order to provide beach access to the public (the "City Easement"). The City
Easement shall be improved as part of the Project and shall be open to the public
no later than the date a TCO or CO (whichever comes first) is issued for the
Project.
8701 shall be solely responsible for all costs and work associated with the
improvements to the City Easement (including, without limitation, the design,
permitting and construction), which improvements shall include, but not be
limited to, resurfacing, drainage, landscaping, hardscaping, sidewalks, irrigation,
signage, beach access signage, and lighting.
IV.
C. 8701 shall be responsible for the safety, security and maintenance of the City
Easement.
V. Development Agreement. The above terms and other matters will be
incorporated into the Development Agreement, which will also include, at a
minimum, the following additional terms:
A. In addition to the City Easement, the parties will enter into a Management
Agreement for the 87th Street City right-of-way, allowing 8701 to develop,
maintain, pave, drain, light, landscape, and install street furniture along this right-
of-way in order to open the road to pedestrian traffic.
D.
A.
B.
PageZ of 4
25
B.
C.
8701 may seek from the City development approvals and an easement agreement
along 87th Street in order to install balconies over the 87th Street right-of-way.
8701 will be responsible for submitting and obtaining any and all final, non-
appealable development approvals for the Project (i.e. Design Review Board,
Planning Board, Board of Adjustment). 8701 agrees and acknowledges that any
such development approvals are subject to, and conditioned upon, approval by
applicable development boards, in their sole and reasonable discretion.
Except as to involuntary transfers (as shall be defined in the Development
Agreement and which will include, without limitation, foreclosure transfers and
transfers in lieu of foreclosure), 8701 shall not be entitled to assign or transfer its
rights under the Development Agreement until after the earlier of (i) issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy ("CO") for the Project, or (ii) the payment of all of the
Voluntary Contribution. Any such transferee shall assume all remaining
obligations of 8701 under the Development Agreement including, without
limitation, (i) 8701's obligation to grant and improve the City Easement and (ii) to
improve the 87th Street right-of-way; provided, however, that as to subsection (ii)
the City may, at its sole discretion, elect not to proceed with, or terminate (as the
case may be) the Management Agreement for the 87th Street righfof-way. The
provisions of Subsection V.E., below, will not apply to this Subsection.
Except as to 8701's obligation to make the Voluntary Contribution payments in
accordance with Section III, above, time periods will be tolled due to force
majeure (strikes, lockouts, acts of God, and other causes beyond the control of
either party); appeals or other judicial or administrative challenges to project
approvals; and delays in obtaining permits from other govefilmental agencies.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that, a third party (unrelated or
unaffiliated with the City or 8701) institutes a legal proceeding in a court of
competent jurisdiction (the "Law Suit") challenging the validity of the Vacation
Resolution or the Development Agreement, then 8701 shall not be required to
make further Voluntary Contribution payments (under Subsection III.C, or III.D.),
and the City shall not be required to effectuate the vacation of the City Parcel,
until thirty (30) days after the lawsuit has been completed and finally disposed of;
and provided further that if the Law Suit is still pending for more than eighteen
(18) months after approval of the Development Agreement, f then (i) the City, at
its option, may elect to rescind the Vacation Resolution and terminate the
Development Agreement, without cause; (ii) no further pa5rment of the Voluntary
Contribution shall be due and City shall return to Applicant any Voluntary
Contribution payment received after the initial one (1) Million dollar payment
required under Subsection III.A., above; (iii) the vacation of the City Parcel shall
not be effectuated; and (iv) the City and 8701 shall have no further obligation
andlor liability to each other.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, 8701 shall defend, indemnify, and hold the City
harmless should any Law Suit be filed.
D.
E.
F.
Page 3 of4
26
VI.Outside Counsel Review. 8701 agrees to reimburse the City for any attorney's
fees incurred by the City for outside counsel's review and negotiation of the
Development Agteement, and related agreements, not to exceed reasonable
amounts, as mutually agreed upon by the Parties (which counsel shall be selected
and approved by the City Attorney).
Page 4 of 4
27
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, APPROVING THE VACATION AND
ABANDONMENT OF THAT PORTION OF 87TH TERRACE EAST OF
COLLINS AVENUE, GONSISTING OF A 50 FOOT RIGHT.OF.WAY
(ROW) CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 18,042 SQUARE FEET lN
TOTAL LOT AREA, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF ALTOS DEL MAR
SUBDIVISION NO. 2, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE '162 OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MIAMI.DADE COUNTY, IN FAVOR OF
8701 COLLINS DEVELOPMENT, LLC (THE "APPLICANT"); WITH
SUCH VACATION SUBJECT TO AND CONTINGENT UPON THE
CIry'S APPROVAL, AND THE CITY AND APPLIGANT'S EXECUTION,
OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH, AMONG OTHER TERMS
AND CONDTTTONS (1) GRANTS TO THE ClrY A PERPETUAL
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS A PORTION OF THE
VACATED CITY ROW, AND (2) ENSURES APPLICANT'S PAYMENT
OF A VOLUNTARY MONETARY CONTRIBUTION, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$10.5 MILLION DOLLARS, TO BE USED BY THE CITY FOR PUBLIC
PURPOSES; AND WITH SUCH VACATION FURTHER SUBJECT TO
AND CONTINGENT UPON APPLICANT'S SATISFACTION OF THE
CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS RESOLUTION.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach holds a right-of-way dedication to a 50 foot
wide road, running from Collins Avenue, east 360 feet to Tract "A", currently known as
87th Terrace (hereinafter "City Right-of-Way"); and
WHEREAS, the legal description of the City Right-of-Way is as follows:
That portion of 87th Terrace (Nasturtium Street per Plat) as shown on the
Plat of ALTOS DEL MAR SUBDIVISION NUMBER 2, according to the plat
thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 162 of the Public Records of
Miami-Dade County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows:
Begin at the Southeast corner of said BTth Terrace, said Southeast corner
also being the Southwest corner of Tract "A" as shown on said Plat Book 4
at Page 162; thence South 86"54'22" West along the South Right-of-Way
line of said BTth Terrace (Nasturtium Street) for 360.48 feet to the
Northwest corner of Lot 1 , Block 10 of said Plat Book 4 al Page 162;
thence North 04"31'52" West along the East Right-of-Way line of Collins
Avenue, also known as State Road No. A-1-A and the Northerly extension
of the West line of said Block 10 for 25.76 feet to a point of curvature;
thence Northerly along a 328.27 foot radius curve, leading to the right,
through a central angle of 04"14'00" for an arc distance of 24.25 feet;
28
thence North 86"54'22" East along the North Right-of-Way line of said 87th
Terrace (Nasturtium Street) also being the South line and Westerly
extension thereof of Block 4 of SECOND AMENDED PLAT OF
NORMANDY BEACH, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat
Book 16 at Page 44 of said Public Records of Miami-Dade County,
Florida, for 360.84 feet to the Northwest corner of said Tract "A"; thence
South 03'05'38' East along the West line of said Tract "A" for 50.00 feet to
the Point of Beginning.
The above described parcel of land lying and being in the City of Miami
Beach, County of Miami-Dade, State of Florida; and
WHEREAS, 8701 Collins Development, LLC (hereinafter "Applicant") owns the
Dezerland Hotel, located at 8701 Collins Avenue (hereinafter the "Property"), which is
located to the south of and adjacent to the City Right-of-Way; and
WHEREAS, Applicant intends to redevelop the Propedy, together with the
parking lot located on the north half of the Property and portions of the City Right-of-
Way, into a hotel, condo-hotel, and/or residential condominium (hereinafter the
"Project); and
WHEREAS, in contemplation of this Project, the Applicant will be seeking to
enter into a Florida Statute Chapter '163 development agreement ("Development
Agreement") with the City to memorialize the terms and conditions of the Project,
including the vacation of the City Right-of-Way, and any other conditions imposed by
the City Commission; and
WHEREAS, as a preliminary step in effectuating the Development Agreement,
Applicant has requested that the City approve the vacation of the City Right-of-Way and
has submitted its vacation application to the City's Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS, the Administration recommends approval of the vacation and
abandonment ("vacation") of the City Right-of-Way, subject to and conditioned upon the
following conditions:
a. the Applicant has offered a voluntary public contribution (hereinafter the
"Voluntary Contribution") of $10.5 Million to the City in connection with the
vacation of the City Parcel. All funds shall be allocated to public projects
in North Beach, as shall be determined by the City Commission, in its sole
and reasonable discretion.
b. the Applicant will make the first payment, in the amount of $1,000,000,
within ten (10) business days following the City Commission's (i) approval
of the City Resolution authorizing the vacation of the City Parcel (the
"Vacation Resolution") and (ii) final approval of the Development
Agreement. This payment will be non-refundable.
29
d.
e.
the Applicant will apply for a full building permit for the Project, using
commercially reasonable efforts, no later than February 19,2016.
the Applicant will pay the City $4.S million on the earlier of: (i) within ten
(10) business days of the issuance of a full building permit for the Project,
or (ii) November 19,2016. The actual vacation of the City Parcel shall be
effective as of the date the Applicant makes the $4.5 million payment. The
$4.5 million payment shall be non-refundable.
the Applicant will pay the remaining $5 million in four (4) equal payments
of $1.25 million every six (6) months starting on the earlier of: (i) six (6)
months after the City's issuance of the full building permit for the Project,
or (ii) May 19,2017; provided, however, that the entire amount remaining
to be paid shall be paid ten (10) days prior to the issuance of a temporary
certificate of occupancy (TCO) or certificate of occupancy (CO), whichever
comes first, for the Project. The City may condition and withhold the
issuance of the TCO or CO for the Project upon full and final payment of
the remaining balance of the Voluntary Contribution. The $S million
payment shall also be non-refundable.
the Applicant shall develop and construct the Project consistent with the
RM-2 zoning regulations and the terms of the Development Agreement;
no later than ten business days following the City Commission's final
approval of the Development Agreement, Applicant shall transfer to the
City a perpetual public pedestrian access easement over a portion of the
City Parcel, subject to the review and approval of City staff, not to be
unreasonably withheld, in order to provide beach access to the public (the
"City Easement");
the City Easement shall be improved as part of the Project and shall be
open to the public and no later than the date a TCO or CO (whichever
comes first) is issued for the Project. Applicant shall be solely responsible
for all costs and work associated with the improvement (including, without
limitation, the planning, permitting or construction) of the vacated City
Right-of-Way, as part of the Project including, but not limited to
resurfacing, drainage, landscaping, hardscaping, sidewalks, irrigation,
signage, beach access signage, lighting, design and construction of the
City Easement;
the Applicant shall be responsible for the safety, security and maintenance
of the City Easement;
j the Applicant will enter into a Management Agreement for the 87th Street
City right-of-way, allowing Applicant to develop, maintain, pave, drain,
f.
g.
h.
30
k.
light, landscape and install street furniture along this right-of-way in order
to open the road to pedestrian traffic.
Applicant may seek from the City development approvals and an
easement agreement with the City in order to install balconies over the
City's BTth Street right-of-way;
Applicant will be responsible for submitting and obtaining any and all final,
non-appealable development approvals for the Project (i.e. Design Review
Board, Planning Board, Board of Adjustment. Applicant agrees and
acknowledges that any such development approvals are subject to, and
conditioned upon, approval by applicable development boards, in their
sole and reasonable discretion;
Except as to involuntary transfers (as shall be defined in the Development
Agreement and which will include, without limitation, foreclosure transfers
and transfers in lieu of foreclosure), Applicant shall not be entitled to
assign or transfer its rights under the Development Agreement until after
the earlier of (i) issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy ("CO") for the
Project, or (ii) the payment of all of the Voluntary Contribution. Any such
transferee shall assume all remaining obligations of Applicant under the
Development Agreement including, without limitation, (i) Applicant's
obligation to grant and improve the City Easement and (ii) to improve the
87th Street right-of-way; provided, however, that as to subsection (ii) the
City may, at its sole discretion, elect not to proceed with, or terminate (as
the case may be) the Management Agreement for the 87th Street rightof-
way. The provisions of Subsection n, below, will not apply to this
Subsection.
Except as to Applicant's obligation to make the Voluntary Contribution
payments in accordance with Section lll, above, time periods will be tolled
due to force majeure (strikes, lockouts, acts of God, and other causes
beyond the control of either party); appeals or other judicial or
administrative challenges to project approvals; and delays in obtaining
permits from other governmental agencies. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, in the event that, a third party (unrelated or unaffiliated with the
City or Applicant) institutes a legal proceeding in a court of competent
jurisdiction (the "Law Suit") challenging the validity of the Vacation
Resolution or the Development Agreement, then Applicant shall not be
required to make further Voluntary Contribution payments (under
conditions (d) or (e), above), and the City shall not be required to
effectuate the vacation of the City Parcel, until thirty (30) days after the
lawsuit has been completed and finally disposed of; and provided further
that if the Law Suit is still pending for more than eighteen (18) months
after the approval of the Development Agreement, then (i) the City, at its
option, may elect to rescind the Vacation Resolution and terminate the
t.
m.
31
Development Agreement, without cause; (ii) no further payment of the
Voluntary Contribution shall be due and City shall return to Applicant any
Voluntary Contribution payment received after the initial one (1) Million
dollar payment required under condition (b) above; (iii) the vacation of the
City Parcel shall not be effectuated; and (iv) the City and Applicant shall
have no further obligation and/or liability to each other.
o. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold
the City harmless should any Law Suit be filed.
p. Applicant agrees to reimburse the City for any attorney's fees incurred by
the City for outside counsel's review and negotiation of the Development
Agreement, and related agreements, not to exceed reasonable amounts,
as mutually agreed upon by the Parties (which counsel shall be selected
and approved by the City Attorney).
WHEREAS, the vacation of the City Right-of-Way seryes a public purpose, in
that, it would provide enhanced pedestrian access ways to the public beach; would
increase property taxes; possibly renovate and beautify the northern end of North Shore
Open Space Park; serve as a catalyst to revitalize the North Beach area; and increase
jobs as a result of the development and construction of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City advertised and held a public hearing as required by all
applicable laws and code provisions.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, to approve the vacation
and abandonment of the City's interest in the City Right-of-Way, in favor of Applicant;
with such vacation subject to and contingent upon the City's approval, and the City and
Applicant's execution, of a Development Agreement with the City which, among other
terms and conditions (1) grants to the City of a perpetual pedestrian access easement
across a portion of the vacated City ROW, and (2) ensures Applicant's payment of a
Voluntary Monetary Contribution, in the amount of $t0.5 million dollars, to be used by
the City for public purposes as the City may deem in the best interest of its residents
and visitors; and with such vacation further subject to and contingent upon Applicant's
satisfaction of conditions (b),(c),and (d) set forth in this resolution.
PASSED and ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
day of September,2014.
Rafael E. Granado, Gity Clerk
Philip Levine, Mayor
32
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, APPROVING THE TERM SHEET ATTACHED
AND INCORPORATED AS EXHIBIT "A" TO THIS RESOLUTION, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION AND CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE TO NEGOTIATE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE C|TY AND MIAMT BEACH PORT, LLC ("MBp") FOR THE
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE MBP PARCEL, LOCATED AT 120
MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY (THE "MBp PARCEL") AND THE C|TY
PARCEL, LOGATED AT 140 MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY (THE ,,CtTy
PARCEL") UNDER A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT; WHICH
AGREEMENT WILL INCLUDE (l) A NEW 20+l- STORY TOWER FOR 60
+1. RESIDENTIAL UNITS, RELATED RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES,
PARKING, AND THE CREATION OF A DEEP.WATER LARGE-YACHT
MARTNA (THE "MBp FAC!L|T!ES"), (il) THE RECONSTRUCTTON AND
EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING CITY.OWNED FACILITIES YARD AND
OFFICES, INCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 40,600 SQUARE FEET OF
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, SERVICE BAYS, VEHICLE
MAINTENANCE AND WAREHOUSING FACILITIES AND OTHER
RELATED FACILITIES FOR CtTy OPERATTONS (THE ,,CtTy
FACILITIES"), (III) 240+h PARKING SPACES FOR THE CITY'S SOLE,
PERMANENT AND EXCLUSTVE USE (THE "CtTy PARKING
SPACES"); AND (lV) PAYMENT OF FAIR MARKET VALUE TO THE
crTY FOR THE USE OF THE FLOOR AREA RATTO (FAR) FROM THE
CITY PARCEL TOWARD THE MPB PARCEL DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the City owns the parcel of land known as 140 MacArthur
Causeway, Miami Beach, Florida (Folio #02-4204-000-0010), which is approximately
2.16 acres (94,090 Sq. Ft.), which serves as the City's Maintenance Facility and which
property is zoned lndustrial (the "City Parcel"); and
WHEREAS, Miami Beach Port, LLC ("MBP") is the owner of that certain parcel of
land located at 120 MacArthur Causeway, Miami Beach, Florida (Folio #02-4204-000-
0060), which is approximately 3.71 acres (161,716 Sq. Ft.) (the "MBP Parcel"); and
WHEREAS, the two adjoining parcels are proposed to be developed as a unified
development site; and
WHEREAS, the City and MBP have negotiated a Term Sheet, attached and
incorporated as Exhibit "A" hereto, setting forth material business terms, for MBP's
proposed development which shall include: a new 20+/- story tower for 60 +/- residential
units, above related residential amenities, parking, and the creation of a deep-water
large-yacht marina (the "MBP Facilities"), the reconstruction and expansion of the
Agenda ttem R1Z
oate (-1041/33
existing City-owned facilities yard and offices, including approximately 40,600 square
feet of administrative offices, seryice bays, vehicle maintenance and warehousing
facilities and other related facilities for City operations (the "City Facilities"), 240+l-
parking spaces (approximately 95 surface spaces on the City parcel and 145
designated covered spaces on the MBP Parcel) for the City's sole, permanent and
exclusive use (the "City Parking Spaces"); and the payment of fair market value to the
City for the use of the floor area ration (FAR) from City's Parcel toward the MBP Parcel
development; and
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to the attached Term Sheet, which
document is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and is incorporated by reference herein;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends that the Mayor and City Commission
hereby approve the attached Term Sheet and authorize the City Administration and City
Attorney's office to negotiate a Development Agreement with MBP based on such
terms; with such Development Agreement subject to final consideration and approval by
the City Commission at a future date.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
GOMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and
Commission hereby approve the Term Sheet attached and incorporated as Exhibit "A"
to this Resolution, and authorize the City Administration and City Attorney's office to
negotiate a development agreement between the City and Miami Beach Port, LLC
("MBP") for the redevelopment of the MBP Parcel, located at 120 Macarthur Causeway,
(the "MBP Parcel") and the City Parcel, located at 140 Macarthur Causeway under a
unified development project; which agreement will include (i) a new 20+l- story tower for
60 +/- residential units, related residential amenities, parking, and the creation of a
deep-water large-yacht marina (the "MBP facilities"), (ii) the reconstruction and
expansion of the existing City-owned facilities yard and offices, including approximately
40,600 square feet of administrative offices, service bays, vehicle maintenance and
warehousing facilities and other related facilities for City operations (the "City
Facilities"), (iii) 240+/- parking spaces for the City's sole, permanent and exclusive use
(the "City Parking Spaces"); and (iv) payment of fair market value to the City for the use
of the floor area ratio (FAR) from the City Parcel toward the MBP Parcel development.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of September,2014.
ATTEST:
Philip Levine, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION-)/rnr-
-*.,u-- Vd"
-
Attorney&?
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
qls ( rk{EdE-
34
1.
2.
Terminal Island Development Agreement
Term Sheet
Parties. The City of Miami Beach ("City") and Miami Beach Port, LLC ("MBP") intend to
enter into a F.S. Ch. 163 development agreement (the "Development Agreement") for the
joint redevelopment of the "Property".
Property Subject to Development Aereement.
a. MBP is owner of that certain parcel of land located at 120 MacArthur Causeway,
Miami Beach, Florida (Folio #02-4204-000-0060), which is approximately 3.71 acres
(161,716 Sq. Ft.) (the "MBP Parcel").
b. City is owner of that certain parcel of land located at 140 MacArthur Causeway,
Miami Beach, Florida (Folio #02-4204-000-0010), which is approximately 2.16 acres
(94,090 Sq. Ft.) (the "City Parcel", which collectively with the MBP Parcel is the
"Property").
Scope ofProject.
a. City and MBP intend to enter into the Development Agreement for the redevelopment
of the MBP Parcel and City Parcel to include (i) a new 20+l- story tower for 60 +/-
residential units (the "Tower"), above related residential amenities, parking, and the
creation of a deep-water large-yacht marina, consistent with the Conceptual Plan
prepared by Foster * Partners, dated I|l4ay 9, 2014 (the "MBP Facilities"), (ii) the
reconstruction and expansion of the existing City-owned facilities yard and offices,
including approximately 40,600 square feet of administrative offices, service bays,
vehicle maintenance and warehousing facilities and other related facilities for City
operations (the "City Facilities"), and (iii) 240+l- parking spaces (approximately 95
surface spaces (including tandem, mechanical) on the City Parcel and 145 designated
covered spaces on the MBP parcel) for the City's sole, permanent and exclusive use
(the "City Parking Spaces"). The MBP Facilities, City Facilities and City Parking
Spaces (collectively referred to as the "Project") will be designed, permitted and
constructed by MBP.
b. The MBP Facilities will include ancillary support facilities typically associated with
multifamily residential and marina, but with the following limitations, which shall be
memorialized as covenants running with the land in the Declaration (or Declarations,
in the event that there is more than one) of Condominium for the MBP Facilities:
i. any restaurant located within the MBP Facilities shall be limited to 1.25 seats
per unit and open only to Tower residents and their guests.
ii. any snack bar, coffee house, sundry shop, or food market (or combination)
located within the MBP Facilities as an accessory to the marina shall be
limited to employees, Tower residents, marina tenants and their guests.
Page I of4
35
iii. neither the MBP Facilities nor the Project shall include any dance halls,
entertainment establishments, neighborhood impact establishments, outdoor
entertainment establishments, or open air entertainment establishments, as
defined in the City's Land Development Regulations.
iv. The establishments listed in subsection iii above shall not request special
event permits from the City.
4. Key Terms & Provisions.
a. The Property, in total 5.87 acres (255,806 Sq. Ft.), will be a unified development site,
joined together under a covenant in lieu of unity of title entered into by City and
MBP. Based on the existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0, the Property is permitted
to be developed up to a maximum of 255,806 square feet of total Floor Area, as
defined in Chapter 114, of the City's Land Development Regulations.
b. The intention is that the Property may be expanded to potentially include other
adjacent property on Terminal Island owned by private parties (each a "Third Party")
upon agreement by MBP, City and said Third Party.
c. MBP will design and construct all improvements on the Property, including the City
Facilities and City Parking Spaces provided, however, that the City shall have review
over, and final approval of, the design and construction plans and specifications for
the City Facilities to ensure that each is designed to meet the City's needs and
construction standards.
MBP shall bear the cost for design and construction of the physical improvements
associated with MBP's deep water marina, and shall extend such construction
standards solely for the physical improvements along the City's waterfront property.
The City shall retain ownership and control of that portion of the seawall built along
the City's property and may enter into agreements with third parties for use of the
City's portion; provided, however, that should the City enter into an agreement with a
non-govemmental third party for all or any of its portion of the its waterfront property
(including without limitation any associated boat slips), the City shall provide MBP
the right of first refusal in leasing said portion.
The estimated floor area required for the City Facilities is 40,600 Sq. Ft. The City
will retain an additional 5,000 Sq. Ft. for future potential development requirements.
The City will transfer to MBP approximately 50,000 Sq. Ft. of unused Floor Area
(the "Unused City Floor Area") from the City Parcel, to be incorporated by MBP
toward the construction of the Tower, including residential components and other
related residential amenities (the "FAR Transfer").
d.
Page 2 of 4
36
o
f. Allocation of costs.
i. MBP will be responsible for payment to City for the Unused City Floor
Area, in an amount to be negotiated between City and MBP but which
shall be no less than the fair market value of the Unused City Floor Area.
City and MBP will establish a mutually acceptable methodology to
determine the fair market value of the Unused City Floor Area.
ii. City will be responsible for payment to MBP for the cost of design,
permitting, and construction of the City Facilities, except for the City
Parking Spaces.
iii. Upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, there will be an accounting
of the final construction costs for the City Facilities and the Additional
City Spaces (if any) and the value of the Unused City Floor Area to
determine the amount actually owed. In the event that the final amount
negotiated between the City and MBP for the value of the unused City
Floor Area exceeds the final construction costs for the City Facilities, then
MBP shall promptly pay City the difference.
Concurrent with or prior to the execution of the Development Agreement, City will
take all reasonable measures to process and adopt amendments to the I-1 District,
Land Development Regulations, and to the Comprehensive Plan (collectively, the
"City Amendments") to allow for residential uses and accessory uses on Terminal
Island, and to establish appropriate parking requirements; provided, however, that
MBP agrees and acknowledges that any such City Amendments are subject to, and
conditioned upon, approval by the Mayor and City Commission, at its sole and
reasonable discretion.
MBP and City will work cooperatively to seek approval of the design and
development of the Project. MBP will be responsible for submitting any required
applications for development approvals, with City as co-applicant, for the Project (i.e.
Design Review Board, Planning Board, Board of Adjustment) prior to issuance of
building permits for the Project; provided however, that MBP agrees and
acknowledges that any such development approvals are subject to, and conditioned
upon, approval by applicable development boards, in their sole and reasonable
discretion.
MBP shall record, in the public records of Miami-Dade County, against the MBP
Parcel, a declaration of restrictive covenants confirming that any and all owners,
tenants, agents, etc., of the property shall affirmatively waive any objection to the I-l
zoning designation of the City Parcel, and to the City's use of the City Facilities
andlor the City Parcel, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for the intended use(s) in
paragraph 3a., hereof. Written notice shall be provided by MBP, and its successors
and assigns (including, without limitation any condominium or master associations),
h.
Page 3 of 4
37
j.
k.
to all prospective owners and tenants and placed in all purchase and sale agreements,
leases, etc.
MBP shall pay for attomey's fees incurred by the City for outside counsel's (which
counsel shall be selected and approved by the City Attorney) review and negotiation
of the development agreement, and related agreements, not to exceed reasonable
amounts, as mutually agreed upon by the Parties.
Any effort to rezone the I-1 zone Property to remove from the list of permitted uses
any of the currently permitted uses or to rezone the Property to another zoning
designation shall require a unanimous vote of the City Commission. This provision
will survive the Development Agreement.
MBP shall not be entitled to assign or transfer its rights under the Development
Agreement until after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (CO) without
obtaining prior written approval of the Mayor and City Commission.
Page 4 of 4
38
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CIry OF MIAMI BEACH, APPROVING THE TERM SHEET, ATTACHED
AND INCORPORATED AS EXHIBIT .,A" TO THIS RESOLUTION, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY ADMINISTRATION AND CITY ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE TO NEGOTIATE A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
(PSA) W|TH 8701 COLLTNS DEVELOPMENT, LLC (,,8701") FOR
SALE OF THE GITY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 226 87TH TERRACE;
FOR 8701'S DEVELOPMENT OF A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AND
CoMMERCIAL PARKTNG GARAGE (THE "PROJECT") ON THE CtTy
PARCEL AND 8701'5 ADJACENT PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 7925
GoLLINS AVENUE ("8701 PARCEL"), WHICH PROJECT WILL
PROVIDE THE CITY WITH 120 DEDICATED PUBLIC PARKING
SPACES
WHEREAS, the City owns the parcel of land known as 226 BTth Terrace, (Folio #
02-3202-006-0430), which is approximately 15,313 Sq. Ft. in size, which parcel
currently provides a limited amount of parking for the community ("City Parcel"); and
WHEREAS, 8701 Collins Development LLC ('8701") owns the north, and
adjacent parcel of land located a|7925 Collins Avenue, (Folio # 02-3202-006-0420),
which is approximately 15,312 sq.ft. in size ('8701 Parcel"),; and
WHEREAS, the City and 8701 intend to enter into the a purchase and sale
agreement (PSA) for 8701 to purchase the City's Parcel, and to utilize the City's
Property and 8701's Parcel in a project more specifically defined below (the two parcels
jointly shall be referred to as the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property shall be developed and constructed as a main use
parking garage, which garage will include 120 dedicated public parking spaces to be
owned by the City, and other uses to include (i) a retail/commercial use component on
the first floor; (ii) one or more levels of parking garage directly above the first floor; and
(iii) a hotel or residential component above the garage levels (collectively, such
development shall be hereinafter referred to as the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to the attached Term Sheet, which
document is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and is incorporated by reference herein;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends that the Mayor and City Commission
hereby approve the attached Term Sheet and authorize the City Administration and City
Attorney's office to negotiate a purchase and sale agreement with 8701 based on such
Agenda rtem R?f
oate Q-10 -lV39
NOW THEREFORE BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND GIry
GOMMISSION OF THE Clry OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and
Commission hereby approve the Term Sheet, attached and incorporated as Exhibit "A"
to this Resolution, and authorizing the City Administration and City Attorney's office to
negotiate a purchase and sale agreement (PSA) with 8701 Collins Development, LLC
("8701") for sale of the City property located at226 BTth Terrace; development of a
mixed use residential and commercial parking garage (the "Project") on the City Parcel
and 8701's adjacent property, located at 7925 Collins Avenue ("8701 Parcel"), which
project will provide the City with 120 dedicated public parking spaces.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of September,2014.
ATTEST:
Philip Levine, Mayor
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
E FOR EXECUTION
40
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
ffiyorAndCityCommissionofTheCityofMiamiBeach,Florida,AcceptingThe
Recommendation Of The City Manager Pertaining To The Ranking Of Proposals, Pursuant To Request For
Proposals No. 2014-051-SR (The RFP), For Design/Build Services For Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset lslands
3 & 4 Riqht-Of lnfrastructure I
Item Summary/Recommendation:
Advisow Board Recommendation:
IlN/A 'Financial lnformation:
mwaterManagementBylmplementingSelectShortAndLong.TermSolutionslncluding
Suppoding Data , Environmental Scan, etc: N/A
On December 1 X 2013, the City Commission approved to issue the subject Request for Proposals (RFP).
On May 16,2014, the RFP was issued. A pre-proposalconference to provide information to the proposers
submitiing a response was held on June 2,2014. RFP responses were due and received on July 16,2014.
The City received a total of three (3) proposals.
On June 17,2014,the Cig Managervia Letterto Commission (LTC) No. 244-2014, appointed an Evaluation
Committee (the "Committee"). The Committee was provided an overview of the project, information relative
to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Government Sunshine Law. The Committee also provided
general information on the scope of services, references, and a copy of each proposal. Additionally, the
Committee engaged in a question and answer session after the presentation of each proposer.
The Committee was instructed to score and rank each proposal pursuant to the evaluation criteria
established in the RFP. The results of the evaluation committee process were presented to the City Manager
for his recommendation to the City Commission.
After reviewing all the submissions and the results of the evaluation process, the City Manager recommends
that the Mayor and City Commission authorize the administration to enter into negotiations with the top
ranked proposer, Ric-Man lnternational, lnc.; and, should negotiations fail, authorize negotiations with the
second ranked proposer, David Manchini & Sons, lnc.; and, should negotiations failwith the second ranked
proposer, authorize negotiations with the third ranked proposer, Central Florida Equipment Rentals, lnc.
Further, should negotiations fail with the third ranked proposer, the City Manager recommends that the
administration be authorized to issue a new RFP.
RECOMMENDATION
the Resolution.
Source of
Funds:
Amount Account
1 $636,364.00 302-2318-069357 - Pay-As-You-Go - Capital Fund
2 $2,296,126.26 429-2318-069357 - Stormwater LOC Reso. 2009-27076
3 $2,306,987.00 431 -231 8-069357 201 1 - Stormwater Bonds - Reso No. 201 1
27782
4 $2,195,21 1 .00 420-2318-069357 W&S GBL Series 2010 CMB Reso 2009-
27243
5 50,279.25 425-2318-069357 Water and Sewer Fund
6 $290,000.00 429-231 8-069357 Stormwater LOC Reso. 2009-27076
Total $7.774,967.51
Financial lmpact Summary:
30\RFO-201 4-051 -SR Sunset tII
I
J
AGENBA ITE:'' B-71-(P AAIAAAIBTACH aarc 9101V41
g MIAMIBEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, lZ00 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Philip Levine and Members
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: September 10,2014
I
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATIOI.I PURSUANT TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CITY MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF PROPOSALS,
puRsuANT TO REQUEST FOR phOpOSALS NO. 2014-051-SR (THE RFP), FOR
DESIGN/BUILD SERVTCES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD NO.8: SUNSET ISLANDS 3 &
4 RIGHT.OF.WAY !N FRASTRUCTURE I MPROVEM ENTS.
On the July 30, 2014, City Commission agenda, the City Manager recommended that the
Mayor and City Commission authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations with the
top-ranked proposer, Ric-Man lnternational, lnc. ("Ric-Man"), pursuant to the above-
referenced RFP. However, subsequent to the City Manager's recommendation, a letter of
protest was received from DMSI, the second-ranked proposer. As a result, the agenda item
was deferred from the City Commission meeting agenda until such time as staff could evaluate
the issues raised in the protest. The City has responded to the protest under a separate letter,
in accordance with the City's Bid Protest Ordinance. A copy of DMSI's protest is attached.
It should be noted that Addendum 3 to the RFP amended the evaluation criteria to place a
significantly greater emphasis on price because staff believed, that once proposals were
"qualified" to perform the required work, the lowest priced "qualified" proposal should be
recommended for award. While the described process is within the allowable methodologies
for procuring design-build projects pursuant to Florida's Consultant's Competitive Negotiation
Act (CCNA), the methodology deviated from the scoring methodology which had been
included in the RFP draft approved by the City Commission. The City's past practice has been
that, although RFP drafts are submitted to the City Commission for approval, addendums
issued to the RFP are not generally provided to the City Commission or to the City Manager.
The Administration understands that this may be a concern and, going fonryard, is revising past
practices to assure that addendums which include material changes to the minimum
qualifications, scope of services, or evaluation criteria be approved by the City Manager and
noticed to the City Commission via an LTC.
Notwithstanding, all the proposers received Addendum 3 prior to submitting their proposals;
therefore, they were aware of the increased emphasis on price. They were all treated equally
and no proposer received an unfair or competitive advantage as all proposers were made
aware (and acknowledged) the Addendum. Additionally, pursuant to the City's Bid Protest
Ordinance, the appropriate time to protest the change in the scoring criteria would have been
when Addendum 3 was issued and prior to the receipt of proposals; not now, after all
proposals were reviewed and evaluated. Again, all proposers were on equal ground with
respect to the change in criteria.
42
2
Supplemental Memorandum Pursuant to the City Manager's Recommendation on RFP 2014-051-SR
There are two principal arguments being raised by DMSI to challenge the award to Ric-Man.
First, it is alleged that because Ric-Man's proposed price is significantly below the City
estimated cost (and the price bid by DMSI), Ric-Man cannot responsibly complete the project
as specified by the City. The second argument is that Ric-Man's proposal is non-responsive
because Ric-Man has allegedly deviated from the specifications in the design criteria package
prepared by the City (the'DCP').
With respect to the allegation that Ric-Man is non-responsible because it proposed a
significantly lower price than the City's estimate (compared to DMSI, which was significantly
above the estimate), I believe that this price is the result of the competitive process. At the
oral presentations, Ric-Man's representative stated that they were aggressive on price
precisely because they had not received any contracts from the City in some time and wanted
io re-esiablish the commercial relationship. This would not be the first time nor will it be the
last time that a company would choose to do that in order to obtain business. Furthermore,
such a strategy is consistent with views sometimes expressed on the dais and by taxpayers
that cities often pay more for construction than they should. lf that is true, and since the City's
estimate obviously takes that into account, then it would be possible for an aggressive bidder
to significantly underbid an estimate and still complete the project as designed. Furthermore,
this is not the case of an inexperienced company that does not know what it is getting itself
into. Ric-Man has completed many projects over the years, including many on behalf of the
City, and it is neither narve nor ignorant about the bidding process. lf they are willing to make
significantly less on the project in order to secure the business, that is precisely why we
competitively bid our contracts.
By way of further due diligence on this point, the Design Criteria Professional, Stantec
Consulting Services (Stantec), was tasked with the review of the proposed price submitted by
Ric-Man, and with providing its professional opinion on whether Ric-Man's price is within the
expected cost range, given the project requirements. ln Stantec's opinion, which is attached as
Exhibit A hereto, the cost is subject to a wide margin of variability based on the specifics of the
project. lt should be noted that the design presented in the DCP is preliminary by nature and
subiect to even greater variability than projects with completed designs. Furthermore, project
bidding can be heavily influenced by the contractor's work load, capabilities and motivations.
ln summary, considering the variability inherent with advance cost projections, the Ric-Man
price proposal falls within a range that could be considered valid for a project of this nature.
On the second point, that Ric-Man is proposing to do less than required by the DCP and is
therefore non-responsive, I do not believe that argument has any merit. The written
submission by Ric-Man takes precedence over any comments made at an oral presentation,
and will be the basis of the contract to be entered into. ln this case, Ric-Man's written proposal
did not propose any changes to or deviations from the DCP. As such, if the City Commission
awards the contract to Ric-Man, said contract will commit them to adhere to the DCP.
Secondly, as part of my due diligence, I discussed this item with the City Engineer at length to
make sure he was in agreement that Ric-Man's proposal was consistent with the DCP and
was providing what the City needed. He assured me that it did and supported my
recommendation in this RFP.
43
3
Supplemental Memorandum Pursuant to the City Manager's Recommendation on RFP 2014-051-SR
By way of further assurance, I asked AECOM, the City's flood mitigation consultant, to perform
an independent review of the storm water drainage components included in the subject
Request for Proposals to identify if there were any abnormalities, conflicts or ambiguity which
could affect the overall solicitation and procurement process for the project. AECOM's review
determined that even though there were several areas of ambiguity and minor conflicts within
the original DCP, in their opinion the addenda issued for the project clearly addressed and
identified the stormwater management system design required for the project. The specific
issues outlined in their report did not rise to the level of interpretations by the perspective
proposers which could lead to material differences in the submitted bids. AECOM's review is
included in Exhibit B hereto.
By virtue of this additional due diligence, as well as the analysis in the original Memorandum, I
hereby reaffirm my recommendation to award RFP 2014-051-SR, for Design/Build Services for
the Sunset lslands 3 & 4 Right-Of-Way lnfrastructure lmprovements, to Ric-Man Construction.
44
q MIAMIBEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, I200 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33,l39, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Philip Levine and Members [f the City
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manag"t tt ,? -i-\#
DATE: September 10,2014 I
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOI AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE GITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF PROPOSALS, PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 2014-051-SR (THE RFP), FOR DESIGN/BUILD
SERVICES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD NO. 8: SUNSET ISLANDS 3 & 4 RIGHT-OF-
WAY INFRASTRUCTU RE IMPROVEMENTS.
ADM!NISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
gnsure RetiaOle Stormwater Management By lmplementing Select Short And Long- Term
Solutions lncluding Sea-Level Rise.
FUNDING
Funding for this project will be as follows:
$ 636,364.00 302-2318-069357 Pay-As-You-Go - Capital Fund
$2,296,1 26.26 429-2318-069357 Stormwater LOC Reso. 2009-27076
$2,306,987.00 431-2318-069357 2011 Stormwater Bonds - Reso No. 201 1-27782
$2,195,211.00 420-2318-069357 W&S GBL Series 2010 CMB Reso 2009-27243
$ 50,279.25 425-2318-069357 Water and Sewer Fund
$ 290,000.00 429-2318-069357 Stormwater LOC Reso 2009-27076
$7,774,967.51
BACKGROUND
On fv1ay 16,2001, the City of Miami Beach (City) adopted Resolution No.2001-24387,
approving and authorizing the execution of an agreement with CH2M HILL, lnc. (CH2M HILL)
foi profeisional services for the Right-of-Way (ROW) lnfrastructure lmprovements Program for
Neighborhood No. 8 - Bayshore and Sunset lslands project pursuant to Request for
Quilifications (RFO) No. 134-99/OO. The agreement included planning, design, and
construction administration services for the collective Bayshore Neighborhoods which was
originally one (1) project and was subsequently separated into five (5) individual projects via
amlndments to the original agreement. These five projects included Central Bayshore
Neighborhood (Package 8A), Lower North Bay Road Neighborhood (Package 8B), Lake
Pantoast Neighborhood (Package 8C), and the Sunset lslands (Packages 8D and 8E).
On April 9, 2003, the City Commission approved the Basis of Design Report (BODR),
completed and submitted by CH2M HILL for the Neighborhood No. 8 Bayshore / Sunset
lslands Project. This BODR was the culmination of a comprehensive planning effort that
included input from and reviews by residents, various City Departments, and the Design
45
Commission Memorandum - RFQ # 2014-206-SR Design/Build Services for the London House
Rehabilitation & Restoration Project
September 10,2014
Page2
Review Board (DRB).
RFP PROCESS
On December 11 , 2013, the City Commission approved to issue the Request for Proposals
(RFP) No.2014-206-SR. On May 16,2014, the RFP was issued. A pre-proposal conference
to provide information to the proposers submitting a response was held on June 2,2014. RFP
responses were due and received on July 16,2014.
The City received proposals from the following firms:
Central Florida Equipment Rentals, lnc.
David Mancini & Sons, lnc.
Ric-Man lnternational, lnc.
On June 17, 2014, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 244-2014, appointed
an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee") consisting of the following individuals:
. Mina Samadi, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital lmprovement
Projects Department, City of Miami Beach. Jose Velez, Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital lmprovement Projects, City of
Miami Beach. Bruce Mowry, City Engineer, Public Works Department, City of Miami Beach
. Peter Luria, Resident, City of Miami Beacho Michael Alvarez, lnfrastructure Division Director, Public Works Department, City
of Miami Beach
The following individualwas appointed as alternates:
. Carla Dixon, Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital lmprovement Projects
Department, City of Miami Beach. Douglas Seaman, Assistant City Engineer, Public Works Department, City of
Miami Beach
The Committee convened on July 22, 2014 to consider proposals received and interview the
proposers. The Committee was provided an overview of the project, information relative to the
City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Government Sunshine Law. The Committee also
provided general information on the scope of services, references, and a copy of each
proposal. Additionally, the Committee engaged in a question and answer session after the
presentation of each proposer. The Committee was instructed to score and rank each
proposal pursuant to the evaluation criteria established in the RFP.
The evaluation process resulted in the ranking of proposers as indicated in the next page.
46
Commission Memorandum - RFQ # 2014-206-SR Design/Build Services for the London House
Rehabilitation & Restoration Project
September 10,2014
Page 3
MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE & RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing all the submissions and the results of the evaluation process, the City Manager
recommends that the Mayor and City Commission authorize the administration to enter into
negotiations with the top ranked proposer, Ric-Man lnternational, lnc. Should negotiations fail,
the City Manager recommends that the administration be authorized to enter into negotiations
with the second ranked proposer, David Manchini & Sons, lnc. Should negotiations fail with
the second ranked proposer, the City Manager recommends that the administration be
authorized to enter into negotiations with the third ranked proposer, Central Florida Equipment
Rentals, lnc. Should negotiations fail with the third ranked proposer, the City Manager
recommends that the administration be authorized to issue a new RFP.
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 Proposal (RFP) No. 2014-051-SR for Design/Build
Services for Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset lslands 3 & 4 Right-of-Way lnfrastructure
lmprovements; and, authorize the administration to enter into negotiations with the top ranked
proposer, Ric-Man lnternational, lnc.; and further authorize the City Manager to execute an
Agreement upon conclusion of successful negotiations by the Administration.
JLM/MT/DM/AD/YG
T:\AGENDA\2014UulyUuly 30\ RFP-2014-051-SR Sunset lslands 3 & 4 - Memo.doc
47
Yz
u
J
=tr
N (r,
(g
o
ttcgo
ro
F.(o
O)-*I-N.
N@
ocooa-ooN.
o
1{)
oq
@(o
o)-
roo)o-
@
oooao
c
o
o
o
(Etr
oc.(E
=o
tr
-U)
=o
d
o
oo
od
c'6
C(s
=!,
(Eo
os
ti(I,
E(,n
cIEo.
q
UJ
GE.E
-9tL
E
oo
zIF
fJ
UJ
N
UJ
U'
o.
vz
c
f,6a
urlFI
Hl,,
slE
=l9t
o F-6)
oc
c
Gd
N N
EU
^! (U.Y ->
oo)
oo o
O)
Ec!ccd
N (a
(g
=J
oo(L
No)N
O)
ro
F..
cc!c(tg.
o N
e3o
o)o3
d)
(?
O)
oo ioo)
E
(t
il
N (f,
h
-!!{
c
c
lo6)to)F.o)
oc!c(Ed
EE>6
U)
oC"oo)oo,
c
g
CL
=U
UJ
(Ep
LOoc
TLE*cc0roo(r
os
!;Co
U)
od
'E
oc(E
=^1e.6>s6=
Uv
oc
q
.9
(EE
o
E;(E
=.ot
zotr
fJ
u
UIo
o.
48
Exhibit A
ffi $tant*c 21301 Powerline Road, Suite 31 1
Boca Raton, FL 33433
Tel: (s61) 487-3379
Fax: (561) 487-3466
August 21,2014
Mr. Jimmy Morales
City Manager
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Re: RIGHT OF WAY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
NEIGHBORHOOD NO. 8: SUNSET ISLANDS 3&4
Bid Analysis
City of Miami Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Morales:
Stantec Consulting Services (Stantec), as the Design Criteria Professional on the above
referenced project, has been assisting the City with development of the project to date. We
are in receipt of the project bidding information and would like to provide this analysis to
assist you in determining the best path forward for the City.
It is our understanding that the City has received three bids for the above referenced
project:
Central Florida Equipment Company $ 11,995,938.85
Dave Mancini & Sons (DMSI) $ 11,200,000.00
Ricman lnternational, lnc. $ 7,774,967.51
The bids represent a large differential between the apparent low bidder (Ricman) and the
other two bids. DMSI has protested the bid with indication that the low bid represents an
unreasonably low cost that cannot accomplish the project scope. The bid protest makes
other indications regarding the qualifications of the bidder; however, this letter is intended
only to address the issue of the value of the work.
ln the performance of our duties as Design Criteria Professional, Stantec prepared an
"Opinion of Probable Cost" for the value of the project. Shortly before bidding, the City
adopted new drainage criteria as part of its adaptation strategy to address sea level rise.
Design vrilh communily in mind
49
Stantec
August 21,2014
Page 2 of 2
These new criteria were added into the Design Criteria Package shortly before bidding and
the "Opinion of Probable Cost" was updated accordingly.
The Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost for this project was determined to be
$9,811,614.68. This represents a variance of $2,036,647.17 from the Ricman low bid. lt
should be noted that the Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost includes a 10% contingency
on the constructed elements. Therefore, the constructed opinion of cost without
contingency is actually under nine million.
An Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost is a projection of costs based on industry
standards and experience on projects of a similar nature. As such, the cost is subject to a
wide margin of variability based on the specifics of the project. lt should be noted that the
design presented in a Design Build Criteria Package is preliminary by nature and subject to
even greater variability than projects with completed designs. Furthermore, project bidding
can be heavily influenced by the Contractor's work load, capabilities and motivations.
Considering the variability inherent with advance cost projections, the Ricman lnternational
Bid falls within a range that could be considered valid for a project of this nature.
We thank you for the opportunity to provide the City Of Miami Beach with our services. lf
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
Jeffrey Crews, P.E., LEED AP
Associate
Tel: (561) 487-3379 x235
Fax: (561) 487-3466
Email : jeff . crews@stantec. com
V:\21 67\activePl 67001 19\Sunset\Bid Phase\DB Bid Analysis.docx
50
A=CO/ht
Memorandum
Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
Exhibit B
AECOM 7722863883
850 N.W. Federal Highway 772 286 3925
Stuart, Florida 34994
www.aecom.com
Pages
tel
lax
To
Eric T. Carpenter, PE, Public Works Director
Independent Review - Request for Proposals Design/Build Services for
Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset lslands 3 and 4 Right-of-Way Infrastructure
lmprovements (RFP No. 201 4-051-SR)
Thomas F. McGowan, PE
August 25,2014
AECOM received materials from the City Staff on August 13, 2014 to conduct an independent review
of the drainage components of the Request for Proposals Design/Build Services for Neighborhood
No. 8: Sunset lslands 3 and 4 Right-of-Way lnfrastructure lmprovements (RFP No. 2014-051-SR),
herein referred to as the Project. The materials reviewed consisted of the documents listed below:
Item '1. Request for Proposals Design/Build Services for Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset lslands 3
& 4 Right-of-Way lnfrastructure lmprovements (RFP No. 2014-051-SR), and dated May
16,2014.
Item 2. Design Criteria for Design/Build Services for Right-of-Way lnfrastructure lmprovement
Program Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset lslands 3 & 4, and dated May 5,2014.
Item 3. Addenda No.'s 1 through 6.
Item 4. RFP Submittal of Ric-Man lnternational, lnc.
Item 5. RFP Submittal of DMSI
Item 6. RFP Submittal of Central Florida Equipment
Of note, we were not provided with copies of: 1) Volume 14, Conceptual Plans,2) Volume 3 -
Attachment 1, Drainage Report, or 3) Volume 3 - Attachment 10, Pump Station Schematic. ln
addition, only one RFP package (Central Florida Equipment) included the bid tabulation form.
Per the request of Eric Carpenter, PE, Public Works Director, we have reviewed the drainage related
elements of the materials listed above, for abnormalities, conflicts or ambiguity which could affect the
overall solicitation and procurement process for the Project.
Review Approach:
The first phase of the initial project review involved reading the solicitation package (ltems 1 & 2) and
developing an independent list of questions, concerns or conflicts contained within those documents.
The second phase of the initial project review involved a review of the six (6) addenda issued (ltem 3)
for the solicitation for questions specifically related to the drainage elements of the project. The third
phase of the initial project review was to review the drainage questions and clarifying responses to
ensure that the questions posed were succinctly and sufficiently addressed.
51
Finally, the initial project review was completed by cross referencing the addenda questions and
responses with the independent list of questions identified in the first phase to see if any question,
concern or conflict had not been fully addressed which could lead to differing interpretations by the
perspective proposers and which could lead to material differences in the submitted bids.
The second phase of the review included a cursory review of the proposal packages submitted by the
three (3) firms in response to the solicitation (ltems 4, 5 and 6). ln particular each submittal was
reviewed to ensure acknowledgement of the six (6) addenda issued for the Project, the Project
Approach, and the Risk Management Plan. All three proposers acknowledged receipt of the addenda
issued for the Project. The project approaches varied in the level of detail, but in general seemed to
indicate that each of the proposers had a sufficient understanding of the Project and scope of work to
submit their proposal. Other than days of lost work due to rain, none of the proposers indicated any
stormwater related concerns as it related to their submittal, and only one proposer (Ric-Man
lnternational, lnc.) noted a concern regarding their ability to permit new stormwater outfalls.
Specific Comments:
(1) With respect to independent review questions which were not address in the design criteria
package or the addenda:
a. Section 1.04.C.2.a) subsection
inlets and whether they are to
swale.
i. and iv. remain in conflict as to the placement of the
be placed in the curb or placed behind the curb in a
b. Section 1.04.C.2.a) subsection xiii. regarding rehabilitation of existing outfalls is
unclear or ambiguous as to the size and rim elevation of the box intended to isolate
the outfall from the drainage system and act as an emergency overflow.
With respect to the Request for Proposal Solicitation and in particular the bid tabulation form,
the bid tender form (Guaranteed Maximum Price Form) contains only nine (9) line items for
the contractor to complete. The submittal requirements to do not compel the proposer to
include a more detailed cost or quantity schedule. More cost or quantity detail in a separate
form or submittal could help the selection committee evaluate future proposals and to identify
where a particular proposer may have deviated significantly from other submittals. While
there certainly could be valid reasons for such differences, such as expertise or innovation, it
may also encourage the selection committee members to inquire further.
It is understood that the City's stormwater criteria are evolving based on the work being done
to mitigate flooding within the City and combat sea level rise. As these criteria evolve, and
standards are created and adopted, a standard design for the City's stormwater pumping
stations is encouraged. As such a design is finalized, more detail may be able to be added to
the design criteria package to ensure consistency and redundancy in the construction,
operation and maintenance of the City's infrastructure systems.
Summary:
While our review determined that there were several areas of ambiguity and minor conflicts within the
original Design Criteria Package it is my opinion that the addenda issued for the project clearly
addressed and identified the stormwater management system design required for the Project. The
issues discussed in Specific Comment 1, do not rise to the level of interpretations by the perspective
proposers which could lead to material differences in the submitted bids.
C:\Users\capicerm\Desktop\Exhibit B Sunset lslands Review Memo.docx
(2)
(3)
52
$-.3.q3 E- # ffi { q: Heck}eq e,r.
July 2S,2014
Via E-MaiI and Hand-Qelirrgry
i\:It. Jimary ilfor*les
Gty M*n*ger
firy of nCiami Be*ch
1700 Com'etdon ec,ntm Drive
klinmi Bra.h, FL 33139
ft.e: Request to Withdinw Recornrnendatior to Awerd RFP No.2014-051-5,fi.
De*ign/Build Sercices for Neighbuhoodhlo. 8: Suasst IsI*ndE III & fV
|une 30, 2014 fuenda Item S?B
Dear N,tr. hlerr*l*x;
Llotente and Hccklcr, P-A" f,epresent$ David Nlancini & Sons, Iac. (DIvIS['), in regards ro Request for
Proposals No. 2014-051-SR Desrgn/Buitrl $errices f,ieighborhood No. 8: Sunset Island- III and fV ['Rtr'n'1.
We wtite this Ietter to e:rTress our coflcerns about the evaluetion pf,ocess arrd, ultimately, the recommeadatioa
to *egotiate with a fitm that submrtted a low-ball ptice proposal rvhile failirrg to meer the mioimum
qu*Iifica.tinns requirements snd odrer key sp+cific*tions includad in the RFP.
!{'hile the Evaluatioa Cou:n{ttee detetmined that DIUSI lms the most mperienced and most qualified
Ptopo$et, the Committee recommended negotiating udth Ric-Ifan Iuternrtionai Inc. f'Ric-Ivlan') for'the sole
rea.riofl thtt Ric-lr{an's proposed pdce was considerably lower than the orher ptoposers. But Ric-N{an's ptice,
w'hich was 319/o lowet thtn the n*.t lotrest biddcr, c*lis irrto guertion th" 6r=r" responsibility and its
rradeffitnndif,g of the scope and requircmenb of *rs preposcd prnject. W-e fexFectfully utge y-ou to reconsider
thc tecor:m*ndation to negqtiate with Ric-[{rri afid recoffimend instead &at thc Ciry negotiate with Db{SI,
the cornpan rhat submitted the iowest resliutic price proposd and is in tlre best position to understand the
compiexities and cost dem*nds of the project, having receutly successFully compleed * rimilr. project on
Sun*et klands I sfld II.
I- B*clgtound
On Decenrbef t1, til13, the Ciry Commission approved issuitlg thii RFP based on a dmft prcvided bv the
Ptocuremeot deparrment. That draft esta.blished t nvo-step cvaluatioa and selectiofl process. Under the first
stcP, the proPosers s,ete scored on qualificarions and wete shortUsted fot consideration during the next step.
Tten, und* $fep fqr€ the ptice propoxal,s CIf the shqrt-listed pfsposeff rvete assigned pointx b*ed orr a fi-rid
fotrrula. Thc shortlisted proposers were to be ranked based oo the overall rggregatc $corcs ftorn step one
{quelitative) aad step nr.o {quanritative}" ffae Ciq, Commission Agenda, Dec. 11, i011, p. 10a). Uader this
criteria, price was an i:nportant, but not definitive, factor.
This_lqptoach zubstsntillly changed when the City nrodiEed the evrlunrion criteda in Addendum No. 3 of
the RFP. \Yhile the Ciry mainmined the tulo-step process, it ehanged the scodng me&od. Urder the rrxrised
8$l ,{rthur Gnrlfr*1, Bdo $te "l'$l / Mi*mi $ear:h. lrl 3}14{l / "f 3ii$.?4*"9&10 / F 7$f.3l+,6?,'},} / Llorrxrc}le*rklsrxom
53
$- $r: ye, ra d.* He*kles pn.
approach, the first step \rras used only to select the three most qnaliEed proFo;Ers grnd nrslnq thein into stcp
twn, where they were evaluated sole\' on cost^ Importantly, the renking of the er.aluatioa conrmittee for
qu*lifications became irrelevant during the second step of thc proposal. lnstead, the Enal llnlring of the shott-
listed proposers ws$ *it"ptf based on the lowest eosr
The new seoring proeess snd the manner ia which &is B.FF Frocess qrfls conducted essentially conrert.ed this
solicitation iato an invitation to bid^ Only three Froposers submitted bids in respcrnse to this solicitation end
all of thetn rnrere i$vited ro orel presentations before the evaluation csmmittee. As n resulq the scars* from
steP ofle had absolutelf no in:pact on the outcomc of the prccffiernent. Although DMSI ryas the highest-
*.nked [,f;oBot*r *nd fout out of Ere evaluction corurnittre members ranhed nh,ISI the highesr, this bCcame
irrelevu:t once the pdce propos*ls were opened. Without any regerd for it* qua-lifications. Ric-I{an was
selected because it was the lowest-co$t pro[roser.
Lo'w-cost competitive ptocurEmeflts arc best used when the City has precise speciEcatioas and requirements.
However, in * design-buitd preiect, rvhere the Ciry providcs a geneml iden of the reguitements, but does nor
pravidc the spccifrc rcquirements, the qualifications of the proposff as urell as its pto,posed approach become
rvholly relevant and ritd to the successfrI completion of"the prciect. fhis RFP was appro".d by the Gry
Commission and the residents of Sunset Islands with the intent to select the best rrrlue proposer. Thercforc,
the recom$lesdatipn to negotiare udth -Ric-hIao not consiitent with the inirltl direction of the Ciry
Conrnrissiort.
Thetefore, we respectfullv urge you, as R matter of public po[c,v, to exercise the disuerion verted in the City
Manager under the City Code and the RFP to select the proposer thnt will best serve rhe interests of the City.
As esplained below, we strongly believe that that proposer is DMSI.
U, Ric*hlarrsFropo**l$hould.bcfomdNon-Rrsponsiblr
Pubtic entities have a, duty to asceririn the degre* of e:'pcdcnce, the reputstion for performarrce rs well as
other matt*tx rvtrieh influence the *bitty of ench biddet to perform the conuoct that fu being awarded. Willis
v, H+Ihp.mra,y, 95 Fla, 6*& 616, 11? So. 89, 94-5 fl92S]" As such, the Flotida Supreme Cou4 has held thnt a
proposal mav be deemed non-rerytrnsible tvhen the proposed price is below cosi aad rhe contrrcring agency
is not coar.ioeed that the pmposeE possesses "tl1e *$l.judgrrrrtttaad q*itn*t twxsagt to rhefaithjul ard r4lutitiu,rs
lxtfomanrc of thc unrh conletwplated.'" Id., 95. The CoucE reasoned that letting a co$tract to a bidder at a price less
than the actual cost results in claims being filed by suppliers and subconuactors, the work being hampered or
delal'ed to fnirlirnum progtes$ anel, almost invariably, result kr having to forfeit rhe contract and usc the
cnnftactat's surety to camplete the work {$.
t]n$1!*etlon ?-3S9 of ihe City of h,Iiami Seach CCIde of Otdi:rances ('Ciq' Code') *nd Sec.tian 030CI.6 of
the RFP, the eiry Managet uray conduct a responsibilitl, detetnrinatiori at afly tirle tnd his recommendatioa
does not have to be consistcnt with the Hratruation Committee's ranking and scoting of dre pr*posals. Thc
Cltr hfanaget's rtsponsihiliry deterrnination must considcr the foltowing factors:
(l ) The *biliE, cnP,tffi* and tkilt of the bidder to pefotru the contmtt. {2} Wtnthcr rht bidder mn peform
the cantrd$ within rba fiw $ecifrd, withoxt diltyS or irttfrrcnce. p) Tbe cbamd4 inregi-g, rcpatatiott,
S{llArthur0rxlfrr:yBr},Stc{-#1 I }JirmiE**eh,trl,3iil4n / 1"305.?}l.2$Ifi 1F?l}S.gl,t.6?3.1 / Llorrinrrfleqlilrnriqrm
54
l, [qi n* : I tr t*Heckler; n,r
jgdgxe*t, **pnirxir *xrd rlpn:irE af tlx bidder. {fl Th {*lt# of perfannaw of pn.iout rcntracl* (5}Tl"
prwtiwts and wi*ing omPliaxm &S iln hiddcr with lawr and ordinntns rvl*ting ts tbt tonlru$.
Ciry Codc, Scction 2-369.
The Gg. Code nlso allorvs the City Comrnission to npprove or mlect the rec*mmendatio,n and select the
trroposd which it deerns to be in the }:est interest of the City. Id.
*.. ftie-IVlan's Ptalmsed Price is Belorw Co*t
The eiq4-s exp*ience a.ivnrdiag b*low coats bids has been exactly what the coqft in Sfillis v. Hathaway
ptcdicoed, ftnpottmt streetscape projects such ss the City Cef,ter, South Point III, fV acd V as well as the
Indian Creek Utiliry Replacement which were e\L'*rdrd to lou, cost bidders| ril/erc ail delayed aftet being subiect
to diqrutes md Ii.tig*tion. In otder to aroid histotf ftom repeating, i" this solicitation the City has r dug to
ex*miae the proiect costs sod scrutirrize price ptoposals which appeff to fall below the reasonable cost
Ric-lvfanls priet i* belory cost consideting the rcope and requimments of this prolect. This is evident gjven
the latge diffetentiel betryeen Ric-h{an's bid and the bid submitted by the rither ptnposers. Ric-blan"s bid of
$7,774,967.51 is 31910 lower than the DMSI's bid of $t 1,200,000.00 a.nd 351'o lower tharr the third plop6sers
bid of $11,935,938.
Ivloreovet, it should be rrotcd that the improvement$ to Sunset Islflnd I ad II cost approximately
$6,600,il00.00 (net including tfu de*ign of the project)- That project rr'a$ completed hetween FebruarF 2CI12
nnd May 20tr3" when the costs for labor and mstenals wtre susstaflrislly ]ower. The cosLs of supplies havc
incre*sed rvith dre reactivatiort of construction projects in the I,scf,l market (especialty ronsideting thrt
coastruction fot this pmiect wiX begin in thc surn!'oer of 2015). Unlike that project, the Sunset IItr sod fV
prnject irr this sfilicit*tion includes design $elices, Ffrro Fulrp stations, a smiury .cewei f,e$torfltiorr (rvh"ich
costs atounrJ $80fi$00), nnd the marise crossing of the watermairr. Furthermore, the Sunset Islurd I and tI
proiect did not r*quire uring black base for the road peyemsnt there rvas no undergrouading of publicutilities
*nd rhe csfrtract riid not tequire a guar,*ntced,traximrur ptice. AII of the*e,featuter add sigaiftcant decign and
coostructiss costs to the Sunset iII and fV project that nrake a$7,774,967.51 bid clcarly unrea*onable,
The l*rge price differential between Ric-&,Ian xad the other two pro. posef,s clearly -uriler a ted fleg tegarding
R.ic-Man's responsibility. This, toged:rer with ltiE-h{*n's fsilute to meet the nninimuu qualiEcation
rcquiremenrs, supports * finding thrt ll,ie-Idm's proposal is non-rcsponsible"
b. Ric-Mau does not Meet the Minimum Qualification Requirements of the RFP
The RPF providrx the minimurn tequirements that Proposers must meet in otder to be deemed responsive.
$rc Section 0100"6 of the RltP (ax mended in Addendum lrtro. 3 p. S). Non-responsire bids shonld be
disqualified fto.m teceiriag furthei considetation.
First, orre of the reguirements is that proposers ruust have completed at least Eo. (4 proiects similu in scope
and volume drynortutmting t'lre ptoposers' desigrt-build proiect eraerience in the prst tea (10) yeats. The
required expedcace can be a combination of tlre ea:perience of the desigr/build firm, the engineedng deergn
lJ,lll ,trthurtl*dlr*y [1d,5t* 'lOJ / illiunri l]et*h. FL3.?X4il / T3CI5.74l.9e1il I F?S6.21jl.fi7]* I Ltonr:ntrficr;*lnr.rxrrn
55
$ .,i tr r'{} }'} {*Heckle4 ru.
Errr snd fhe p:opnset constructing the projecr Se,cond propo$er$ were sJs<l r*quired to have cornpleted thrce
(3) projects sin'rilar ia scope and volume dernoas&ating the proposer's experience pcrforming deep
excavadoas/dexxtering ptocedutes in ccast*I enr.ironments in the past ter (10) years.
To meet the design-build experience requiremen! Ric-N{m submitted the ten proiects listed rn Table 1, below:
Rie- M art I nteruWtlq ilaL X rrc"
fr*ku-suilrl Proi*m Exy*rieircr
-ET E=E =I:r:t$=e:_-
9eE.*;iE5"ii3
**?xfi E EsEEsEliEii
fitpsf.,ttfu(*"e&ili*lilre Rlxhr.sa.ril{t
Io*axnmm.ix mft{n*ffi FI*lFn $*EXr$ 6p14 *1 :, f
ftty wf *tkiiS*rxk tlrr$fu*lYl*Md*
k&*fi'.rr{t&x{a ri*l.,i*6-hqt&:r-tr$.?30,ffi !00{ 1 . r t t r ., I J r/
*t*Slot&{tiral S*.nlr l@ilrd8!il-F* "raEl*. !ct&sp*, !Ri*icr."ni*r.ic*&$H
Ht#iHffil** 8!-ElYqri'l"lqcbPo@lirlsPnlrGt 1$.660-000 -1005 "
ffi#fliffi'T$"i',, i*iuffiif*-iehffiEf,xi $*'{'20s00 :EB? /
*h$'$t!'il*d:*.*b Fua*9o:"ualt--Ert'&*f09 r, r.&M^ !^!, 1x{id6 dli*riiifu$}F"l*r} }Luu'ti'$ i$rEr' / ' r';'!:
IrJ.tt06us xos{f, r * ,
,&y oJ Xkxel:*ir*lt *.$s:atr.uul$. ,,,, . rifJg*ido iflo{ * s: r r. *l{rgbortmd loppwana }mlta
$.li*11"!i!ds eMBtr lf$r
& 5rurro*prqxrir
lyitrl$iFAlNtFJchrflh;e*rr 11.i.it}B00 IBtfllMrrfts'ill X{atffi'*y ErM*+
flA:dFl-{B1f,rk0 fumpit! frSltrlrirr Eef6rsd I$?$,F00 ?B0E ICffi lEg, lyrter ihlE I}lsuon
lth,qt-B$ t_0{&1y }T{t* :r{F.tint lYrr* dre4Ad{*fst
eSi4{*rDsp*iiaxt**r' *{FIhB*i$t*rffi!$sl,4t$ffiu !sl}? r .. 1':l
I-* * i
:l
I.**":**t]'oo. f8oJ0s'not
T.{BLE 1. TAI(Eil FRON FI(II-MAN'S FROPCISAI, SEC. ?-16
'F{cwer.et, key pe*ounel &om slr of rho*e pro}ecrs (highlighted in Table t} am no longer parr of Ric-Man's
team. Iiretead" they' dr* Ilatt of the DIVIH team. Then-ptesident of Ric-Man, Mr" Danid Maneini, is nou,t
ptesident of E&ISI. Sirnilarly, thq ptoject rhanaget "aa U**a engfneer of those ptelects, Mr. Alhcrt
Dominguez, is DN{SI's ptoponed proiect trurnager and head eogineer for this contrnct. The same is true for
the pmiect supecinterrdent, forerffir,r, ancl olre*et*n In *dfition, thu deslgn-eons,rltirrg firm for tnost of those
projects was APCjI Enginretsn whieh is now part of Dh{SI'* m.*rn. Ric-ldaa*s ptaposed de*ign*eonsulting
finq Chen fuIoore and Associates, Inc., rsas aot part of any of those projects. FinaIIy, the scope of the
rernaiuing four projects did not include deep excavauon and pump strtion design, which are key to rhe Sunset
Isldnd III and IV proieet Hsscnti*lly, Ric-lvl*n'* FroFpsf,l doc-s *or deupnstmte tfiet its key personnel meets
the minirnura requircmerts fot desigp-build **pctience.
B0l ,{rthrr Grdfn:y Brl, Stc.l0l / }Iirrui l}r,adu }'L 33140 / 'l'305.7"12.!Sl0 / }'?S6.21+.(fi'}4 I l.torr:nteFk:cl;lr:r.ryrnr
56
$r $ *x'q: xx{ *Heclclcq r}A
The same rpplies te Eic-hdnn's listed deep exca-vntion projects highlighted in T*hle ?l
Elu*hlau lhterhational Inc.
$e*p "& Ctx*r*l froi+rt [xperionn'
Eilrurar'f
g*IEI
Lq.l!I,?Eit !.q lr FI$?{Eg3rfE:::-t.t_t.h;-j
5s,'
Iaa;a
Flrrt Allqrul S 5
a
,n
=
EE
IeaE==-9* 5
ci{t$ !{l$r*}.8*ddfi
.'-:
l$.+'&TSti&1$9#x
Tom,o{$ufqde
lBx.klagtErrlirrit+,
lirb*ilri€tur lEprnqslq{ld5 8!91$!.
fd*ril ol$urf3$i* huti'{l ur&rFr
&4h,ril&Ettur flftrlr.r
Itlittlir*:*:i*trr<.r:rft f
&er*tslr*xri*Imtitri*nr*tflle.,l*ttr Bli;lt{-**&' IBIU . .d::r::r':+' 'c'=,
$tg;rollE$.ip$*::.c #:iis::, ',qsrl#,r rl i+ i
SrEdlodsi
[Rr'*r,$]{'fl!lG$+S
...-C4* .:ltlr4r&s.6 tlarqP,l.::rrseua; Efi ;e!.& i{s.
$e.*t**rt4. d-!ir1$rs{}$ssr* Fr*}x.Nr s{i}rls$Ffti tol3i;ilr .{ :+'::d .i.,::: v'
rr$s,:rrimBfeb rYf"!',ls:it !r-Qo$es I$rD r' el * 4 . 4fi.q,rwull,lwMFtre$E
- EMd,tsuG{st$a!'w{sffir{ nq*dr,}o,&shiiksrr*onnrma* ?H!nr
li{ Ln€ft1i!r:trr}!{ $l{!f[a! C+lli**lrfit}.$tar$ Friht 6Tr!!k stuhitrlfr Ftislt
itrs0dffi, ffi? v" *: i::::;-:::::rf I
$r,150.00! !n09 r' I
li{t LfiAd Wfir+trdr V*@ C6ll"c.tiiE Sstrm hsla E
Yr.r@rri Etnrtrt PNrm t fL0:0.000 :{0t 1 r
Fr.r+$rdn{ollt Trrdr 5r0l,0mrsF,
TABLE 2. TAKCN FROM RIC.I'dAT'I'S PBOP&$AI SEC. U.17
Atthough Ei*-Ir{*n inc}uded r{ne pmiects, mo$t of those pmjeets rrerf csil}Fleted by the team which !" oo*
DMSL The Key Largo proiects thal wme completed by fuc-Man'r proposed tcam'are vasuum projeets. As
their ns,rre indicates, vscuuft projects invobe shaltrcnr Exctrratiors, not deep coa$td exc*vatiofi$^ Therefcrr*,
Ric-tvfan's proposfil did not provide tluee projects ia which its key personnel and design firm has had deep
escaratis.n experience in thc p{$t teft year$ Ri ftqufued by the RFP.
ln sum, while Ric-}'lan lvf,s the legal entitl' that tr/r.s prrty to the conuact$ fot the projects it }isted to meet the
minirlutn experience requitrmefi&, rhr kcy personnel and desiga firm thtt vnrked'on tho*c pmjecH is aerually
DM$l's propo*ed team. Based of, the RFP specificarions, Ric-M+n should be found aon-respoilsive end be
disqualified fot hilurc to meet the minimum cuteda. Flo\rrerrer, even if the City 6nds Ric-&Ian responsive, its
failure to shor\i rhat irs acrual team (including ie design fitrrr), meett the mifiimum e:,pedence rcquirenrents
raixes serious concerns about Ric-Man's responsibilirv. Ensuring that the pro1]eset'$ teffn meet-* the RFP
rnirrimutn tcquitement cdteria is directly related to rvhether Ric-iVlan has the rbilitl, capaciq', and skiil to
pedorn Lhe contract.
S0l:lrrhurtiod"trcl'Itd. Sto'tr{ll / tlhr:ri $rt*lr. FL X$l,l'* / T$fiS"?4l.gglli / I,'786.ll4.fr?lr4 1 lJorentel{c+kl*r.qom
57
[.,$ r*r.*xr t**Heck]eq HA.
c, The Poor Fast Fertcflxlafice of thr Ric.M*u/Chcn-hloore team euFFort*.,a finding that
it* propos*I is non-tespossihlc.
Tlre sco.ing results fot the fust tier evaluatioo rcflcct the ev*lurtion commimee's greflt coocems about the
qua^tirativq-non-pricing facrors of Ric-Man's proposd While thc maioriry (four- out of five) evaluation
commitrcc members rsked DNISI the highest, only half of the coramittee members mnked Ric-Man at the
toP.
In particutar, IvIr, Petet Luria, pmsident of the $urrset Islarrds Homeownet's Association and member of the
evaluation commiftee, ranked Ric-lvfrn thitd after axpressing sedous concfils about Ric-matr's responsibiliq'.
h{r. I"u*ia cited muftiple problems with Chen-Moore's design in the $uuscr Islards I *nd II proiect, including
dtivewtry hattroaiz*ti*n i*sues, lach of coordirratinn with the utiliries, and issues with the frrc hydrants. (,fn
'Transrt:rrt nf Evaluation Coni-mittee hleeting Atuched)"
Unfortunately, the Colnmitteers assessmqnt of Ric-i\'Ien's qrralifi6a6sas a{td ptrst pelfo$ranrrce was,f,ot * factqr
in the final rmking of the ptoposals on which the cu-rent recommendation is based- Therefore, we respectfully
request that the Ciry il'larrager resiesi these issues to determ.ine the responsihility of Ric-Man's proposal.
U[. Ric-M*a's Proposal Should be found Non-Responaiw
Even if Ric-N{an's proposal is deemed tesponsihle (which it is not), the ptoposal should be disqualified for
bcing non-tcsponsive due to Ric-Man's material deviatioos &om the design and schedule requiremenh for
thrs proiect. Jee Rgbinson H,Jcc. Co.. In+ r'" Dade Cnq'., 417 So. 2d 1032, 1034 Fh. Dist. Ct App. 1982)
Th* Design Crixtia Fackage fer this solicitation requires prCIFo$er$ to use black base on dI elevatioos below
3.5'NAVD ds oppo$e to lime tock pCP, p. 14).WIrile lime rock is substrntially cheaper than black brse, it
should not be used on heavy flood areas. Beirrg tr Forous materiaf it will start reletrring urith water flowing
ftotn the. bcttom up to dre surface. This is specially the ease in Miami Be*ch, u'hich is affected by rhe sea level
rise and storm water surges. Nesertheless, dlring irs oral presentation Ric'trlten said that it doe* not anticipate
using black base to pave the streets of the two islands. (Tca Transcript of Evaluation Commincc lv{eeting
Atached). Although this ailou,cd Ric-Man to offet * lower pdee, based on the geographS' uf dreptoiect, using
Iirne reicls *s mppnsed to black base threatens tha dumbrlity and quali{' of the psvement improvements.
b'Ioreovct, in its Risk Assessarent Ric-lvfan strted that they do not he[cr.e d-rat the outfslls will be permitted.
Therefore, rhey are considering an alternative to placing of the outfalls.
Ric-blan's schedule has severa-tr flarvs which malres it ncn-cornpliant \./ithifl the rimelines specified in Section
01S00,3 of the RFP. Fircq rccording to $eerron g-3 of Ric-M*rt's proposal the permitting process necessarf
to begin Eonstruftion wiil be comple*ted by March 31, 20i5. Hower"erythe schcdde has cinstruction starring
onlvluchls,2015,beforeobtniningthepermim. Second,Section0100.3oftheRFPrcquiresthatthatthe
proiect be subst*ntiqlly complet*d ryithin 330 daya of the secasd notice to proceed ('NT?'1. (RFP $ec.
01S0.3, p. 5i. Acco:ding to the RFF, subttantial eompletion $ct.uts sihes the Ciry can fi:lly accupy or utilizq
the plojeet for its inteod putpose. (R.F? SampJe Contuct, Sec. 1.3 p. 50). Ric-Ivlan's substarrtial csmpl#tino
dane is December 11" 2S15. (Ric-Man's Proposal, p 9-4). Hosrevet, Frlqlp $tation$ xrill be offline urrtil lUarch
39, 2fi16. (Ric-hlan's Ptopo,*d, p. 9-4, That is 364 days after the second optice to prnceed is issuerJ, i* riolatinn
of the RFP specifica.tions" Finaltry, Ric-N'fan's schedule pf,oposes instnlling the dr*inage pipe concurrently in
Bill rlrthr.tr Uodlrc,r lill.Stc 4tltr / l{ilrnri I}r:auh, FLSiltifl} 1 "l' jri)5.74:I.:lll0 / lr?Sli.9l,[.S?;,t / Llrrurrlr:Hcr&trr:r.corf
58
K . X r.rr** {mHeckleq B*t-
wo rdiacent *one$ of thc projecr, Sic*hta*'s Propos*l, F" $-8, 3). This is prohibited under the phasing
tequircnrents in Secrion 1.0S(C) of the Dolgo Crireria Peckage.
DMSI's desigu, on t*re other hand, is b*sed on the Ciry'-* inteot tn have *n *esthetically plee$aftt ptoiect which
takes into account the safety of the Sunset Island residents. DlvISl's design dors inrlsdE blnck b*re to p*vc
the stfeers. It also cottenrpktes placrng all rrires, inelud.ing the electric powff liaes, undergrouod" hfoteaveq
the RFP requir* replacing the waterm-ain *long Sunset Drivq between Islands III snd fV, urith a 12"
waterrnir!^ S.FP.fr,ddendum No. 5, p, 3). Thetefote, DL{SI't desigp ptopo$es using a 12" watertnain across
board, as opposed to a 12" wrtermdn on the b*idgu and an 8," watermain clservhere, to hsve adequate fue
flow for thJ i*fety of the resideats.
All of the*e coneerns together rrith Ric-IvIan's inesponsibly low price, suppoft a Eading tb*t Ric'Man's
proposal shauld be deerned non-tesponsible arrd be disqualiEed ftona receiving furthff consideration.
fir. Conclutior
In sum, the Ric-Man Team's previous poor petformance in similar proiecn at Sunset Islends, thc matedal
deficieuciis in their proposed drsisfi, qs well as its recklessly lour bid bdol*' cost supports rejecting its ptoposal
for being non*rcqpsnsible rad nail-te$poflsive, The Ciq, hxs p*id nn enormous ptice when it has arxrarded
contracts based on bids that tre beloui cost The sar.irrgs it sought to achisve rvere quickly ounreighed h th.
dme aod resourtes that were spetrt on rcsolving wurecessary disputes and litigation. In the meantirne, the
residentn suffesed the consequences of a delayed project. We hope that tle City avoids history from reperting
itself bv ensudrrg thet this contmct be *watded to DhdSI, the best value, responsive and responsible prroposer.
Tfle apprcciate yout attention to this mf,tter and uust that y'ou will talce any action flcce$$arT to ensure the
successful snd timely complerion of this ptoiect
Sincerely,
Cc:Mr. Baul Aguilx, City Attoruey
h,{t l-tafael Granadq City Clcdr
AlexanderP:
59
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
60