20141119 SM1r915.20r5
MIAMIBEACH
City Commission Meeting
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 1
City Hall, Gommission Ghambers, 3rd Floor, 1700 Convention Center Drive
November 19,2014
Mayor Philip Levine
Vice-Mayor Joy Malakoff
Commissioner Michael Grieco
Com m issioner Micky Steinberg
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
City Manager Jimmy L. Morales
City Attorney Raul J. Aguila
City Clerk Rafael E. Granado
Visft us at www.miamibeachfl.gov for agendas and video "streaming" of City Commission Meetings.
ATTENTION ALL LOBBYISTS
Chapter 2, Article Vll, Division 3 of the City Code of Miami Beach entitled "Lobbyists" requires the
registration of all lobbyists with the City Clerk priorto engaging in any lobbying activitywith the Gity
Commission, any City Board or Committee, or any personnel as defined in the subject Code
sections. Copies of the City Code sections on lobbyists laws are available in the City Clerk's office.
Questions regarding the provisions of the Ordinance should be directed to the Office of the City
Attorney.
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA
G7 - Resolutions
C7L A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager To Reject All Proposals
Received, Pursuant To Request For Proposal (RFP) No. 2014-091-SW, For lnvestmentAdvisory
Services, And Authorizing The Administration To Release An lnvitation To Negotiate (lTN) For
lnvestment Advisory Services.
( Finance/Procurement)
(Memorandum & Resolution)
1
Supplemental Agenda, November 19, 2014
C7 - Resolutions (Continued)
C7M RFQ And RFP General Building Contractor Rehabilitation Services1. A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager, Pertaining To The
Request For Qualifications (RFO) No. 2014-316-JR For General Building Contractor
Rehabilitation Services For The City's Housing And Community Services Department;
Authorizing The Administration To Negotiate With The Sole Proposer, Delcons lnc.; And
Should The Administration Not Be Successful ln Negotiating An Agreement With The Sole
Proposer, Authorizing The Administration To lssue A New RFQ; And FurtherAuthorizing The
Mayor And City Clerk To Execute An Agreement Upon Successful Negotiations By The
Administration.
(Housing & Community Services/Procurement)
2. A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager Pertaining To The
Rankings Of Proposals, Pursuant To Request For Proposals (RFP) No. 2014-325-JR, For
General Building Contractor Rehabilitation Services And Consulting For The City's Housing
And Community Services Department; Authorizing The Administration To Negotiate With The
Top-Ranked Proposer, Gecko Group lnc.; And Should The Administration Not Be Successful
ln Negotiating An Agreement With The Top-Ranked Proposer, Authorizing The Administration
To Negotiate With The Second-Ranked Proposer, Cast Development, LLC;And Should The
Administration Not Be Successful ln Negotiating An Agreement With The Second-Ranked
Proposer, Authorizing The Administration To lssue A New RFP; And Further Authorizing The
Mayor And City Clerk To Execute An Agreement Upon Successful Negotiations By The
Administration.
( Housing & Community Services/Procurement)
(Memorandum & Resolutions)
R2 - Competitive Bid Reports
R2A A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager Providing Two Options ForThe
City Commission's Selection And Authorization For The Replacement Or Refurbishment Of 29
Lifeguard Towers: Option 1 - Negotiate With Bidders To ITB 2014-385-YG; Or, Option 2 - Waive
Bidding By 5l7th To Refurbish Existing Units, Finding Such Waiver To Be ln The City's Best lnterest.
(Capital I mprovement Projects/Procurement)
(Memorandum)
R5 - Ordinances
RsA An Ordinance Amending Chapter 74 Of The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, Entitled
"Peddlers And Solicitors," By Amending Article l, Entitled "ln General," By Amending Section 74-1,
Entitled "Soliciting Business ln Public From Pedestrians," To Prohibit Commercial Solicitation ln
Certain Areas; Providing For Repealer, Severability, Codification, And An Effective Date. 10:20 a.m.
Second Reading Public Hearinq
(Sponsored by Mayor Philip Levine)
(Legislative Tracking: City Attorney's Office)
(First Reading on September 30,2014 - RsE)
(Memorandum & Ordinance)
2
Supplemental Agenda, November 19, 2014
R5 - Ordinances (Continued)
RsB An Ordinance Amending Chapter 46 Of The Code Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, Entitled
"Environment," ByAmending Article lll, Entitled "Litter," ByAmending Division 1, Entitled "Generally,"
By Amending Section 46-92(a), Entitled "Definitions," By Adding A Definition For The Term "Right-Of-
Way," ByAmending Section 46-92(9), Entitled "Prohibition On CommercialHandbill Distribution," By
Amending The Regulations And Prohibitions ForThe Distribution Of Commercial Handbills; Providing
For Repealer, Severability, Codification, And An Effective Date. 10:25 a.m. Second Readinq Public
Hearing
(Sponsored by Mayor Philip Levine)
(Legislative Tracking: City Attorney's Office)
(First Reading on September 30, 2014 - R5F/Referred to NCAC)
(Memorandum & Ordinance)
3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER TO REJEGT ALL
PROPOSALS RECEIVED, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) No. 2014-091-SW,
FOR INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
SUBSEQUENTLY RELEASE AN TNVTTATTON TO NEGOTTATE (rTN) FOR INVESTMENT
ADVISORY SERVICES.
Ensure trends are sustainable over the lonq term.
Data {Survevs. Environmental etc
Item Summary/Recommendation :
On May 21,2014, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, approved
Resolution 2014-28587 (the "Resolution") accepting the recommendation of the City Manager
pertaining to the ranking of proposals, pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 2014-091-SW for
lnvestment Advisory Services and authorizing the Administration to enter into negotiations with the
top-ranked firm, First Southwest; and should the Administration not be successful in negotiating an
agreement with the top-ranked proposer, authorizing negotiations with the second-ranked proposers
(tie), Davidson Fixed lncome Management and Public Trust Advisors, LLC.
Following approval of the Resolution by the City Commission, the City's Finance Department
attempted to negotiate an agreement with the top-ranked firm, First Southwest, but was unable to
come to final agreement. More specifically, the parties were unable to come to mutual agreement with
regard to the fees to be paid by the City under the agreement. Prior to initiating negotiations with the
second-ranked proposers, it became apparent that the amount of City investments to be managed is
expected to increase significantly since the RFP was released, which considerably changes the City's
ability to negotiate a cost-effective agreement for investment advisor services. The proposals received
pursuant to RFP 2014-091-SW did not consider that the amount of the stated investments to be
managed did not reflect the significant capital financing now planned for FY2014115, FY2015l16, and
FY2016117. During those years the investment to be managed is expected to surpass one billion
dollars.
The Administration believes it is important to provide an opportunity for proposers, through a
competitive solicitation process, to offer value added services which could reduce City cost, or provide
additional services and efficiencies to the City. To that end, the Administration recommends
terminating negotiations and rejecting all proposals. Further, the Administration recommends that the
scope of services to be included in a future solicitation be reviewed to include the City's current
investment reality, as well as incorporate an opportunity for proposers to provide value added services
to the City.
lnstead of continuing under an RFP process, following the rejection of proposals and termination of
the current RFP, the Administration recommends releasing a subsequent lnvitation to Negotiate (lTN),
which will provide the City the opportunity to negotiate with multiple firms simultaneously.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
After considering and reviewing staffls recommendation, the City Manager recommends that the
Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida approve the Resolution rejecting all
proposals, pursuant to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 2014-091-SW for lnvestment Advisory
Services and authorize the City Manager to release a subsequent lnvitation to Negotiate (lTN) for
services following the review and revisions to the scope of services, which shall be part of the lTN.
Prior to release of the lTN, the Administration shall provide the City Commission a copy of the ITN
through a Letter to Commission (LTC).
RECOMMENDATION
the Resolution
Financial lnformation: N/A
Glerk's Office Leoislative T
AGENEtjA ITEll/l
I)ATE
c-7 L-7/-7VV-?
Alex Ext # 6641
MIAAAIBEACH
14-091-MF -Advisory
5
r.-. r-.r--
---
City of Miomi Beoch, I 700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 331 39, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Mayor Philip Levine and Members o the City
Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
November 19,2014
OF MIAM! BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CITY MANAGER TO REJECT ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED,
PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) No. 2014-091-SW,
FOR INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVIGES, AND AUTHORIZING THE
ADMINISTRATION TO SUBSEQUENTLY RELEASE AN INVITATION TO
NEGOTTATE (lrN) FOR INVESTMENT ADVISORY SERVICES.
ADMINISTRATION REGOMM ENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
BACKGROUND
The City requires the services of an investment advisor to manage and direct the City's
investments. The investment advisor is to provide advice on the investment of excess
funds in accordance with the City's investment objectives as set forth in City of Miami
Beach's lnvestment Policy. The key objectives of the City's investment policy are safety
of capital, sufficient liquidity to meet requirements and attaining market-average rates of
return. Excess funds are defined as funds not required to meeting short term
expenditures of the City. Currently, funds available for investment consist of
approximately $SZZ million which include: $346 million from operating funds, $103
million from various bond proceeds, and $73 million from the Miami Beach
Redevelopment Agency (RDA).
The City expects its investment advisor to be highly experienced, a leader and innovator
in the management of investments, and able to provide comprehensive investment
advisory services. The firm selected as the investment advisor and its affiliates will be
restricted from selling to the City, or buying from the City, any securities to or from that
firm's own inventory or account. The investment advisor will also be restricted from
placing into the City's portfolio any securities for which it, or an affiliate, is the issuer.
lnvestment advisors will not provide custodial services or security safekeeping. All City
investments, except for swap agreements must be held in an independent custodial
account.
6
2
November 19,2014 City Commission Agenda
RFP 2014-091-SW for lnvestment Advisor Services
RFP PROCESS
To seek the required services, the City developed Request for Proposals (the 'RFP')
No. 2014-091-SW for an lnvestment Advisory Services. On January 15, 2014, the
Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of the RFP. The RFP was issued on
February 6, 2014, with an opening date of March 25, 2014. The solicitation was
advertised and notices were released to prospective proposers. The RFP resulted in
proposals from the following six (6) firms:
1. Cutwater Asset Management
2. Davidson Fixed lncome Management
3. First Southwest
4. PFM Asset Management LLC
5. Public Trust Advisors, LLC
6. Russell lnvestments
On April 3, 2014, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 111-2014
appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee") consisting of the following
individuals:
. Jim Goldsmith, Resident ". Sanford Horwitz, Resident. Georgie Echert, Finance Department, City of Miami Beach. James Sutter, lnternalAudit, City of Miami Beacho Julie Santamaria, RBC Capital Markets
* Jim Goldsmith was unable to participate due to prior commitments he could not
reschedule.
The Evaluation Committee (the "Committee") convened on April 17, 2014, to consider
proposals received and interview the proposers. The Committee was provided with
information relative to the City's Cone of Silence and Government in the Sunshine Law,
general information on the scope of services, reference responses, and additional
pertinent information from all responsive proposers.
After proposer's presentations and interviews, the Committee discussed the proposers'
qualifications, experience, and competence, and further scored the proposers
accordingly. The Committee was instructed to score each proposal pursuant to the
evaluation criteria established in the RFP. The final rankings are as follows:
Georgie
Echert
Sanford
Horwitz
Julie
Santamaria
James
Sutter
Low
Aggregate
Totals /
Rank
First Southwest 96 (1)84 (1)90 (1)93 (1)4fi\
Davidson Fixed lncome
Manaqement 82 (3)81 (2)78 (3)85 (2)10 (2) tie
Public Trust Advisors, LLC 86 (2)75 (3)84 Q\83 (3)10 (2) tie
PFM Asset Manaoement LLC 79 @)66 (4)71 A\80 (4)16 (4)
Cutwater Asset Manaoement 78 (5)66 (4)68 (5)77 $\19 (5)
Russell lnvestments 62 (6)40 (6)56 (6)s9 (6)(6)24
7
3
November 19,2014 City Commission Agenda
RFP 2014-091-SW for Investment Advisor Services
On May 21,2014, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida,
approved Resolution 2014-28587 (the "Resolution") accepting the recommendation of
the City Manager pertaining to the ranking of proposals, pursuant to Request for
Proposals (RFP) No. 2014-091-SW for lnvestment Advisory Services and authorizing
the Administration to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked firm, First Southwest;
and should the Administration not be successful in negotiating an agreement with the
top-ranked proposer, authorizing negotiations with the second-ranked proposers (tie),
Davidson Fixed lncome Management and Public Trust Advisors, LLC.
Following approval of the Resolution by the City Commission, the City's Finance
Department attempted to negotiate an agreement with the top-ranked firm, First
Southwest, but was unable to come to final agreement. More specifically, the parties
were unable to come to mutual agreement with regard to the fees to be paid by the City
under the agreement. Prior to initiating negotiations with the second-ranked proposers,
it became apparent that the amount of City investments to be managed is expected to
increase significantly since the RFP was released, which considerably changes the
City's ability to negotiate a cost-effective agreement for investment advisor services. The
proposals received pursuant to RFP 2014-091-SW did not consider that the amount of
the stated investments to be managed did not reflect the significant capitalfinancing now
planned for FY2014115,FY2015/16, and FY2016/17. During those years the investment
to be managed is expected to surpass one billion dollars.
The Administration believes it is important to provide an opportunity for proposers,
through a competitive solicitation process, to offer value added services which could
reduce City cost, or provide additional services and efficiencies to the City. To that end,
the Administration recommends terminating negotiations and rejecting all proposals.
Further, the Administration recommends that the scope of services to be included in a
future solicitation be reviewed to include the City's current investment reality, as well as
incorporate an opportunity for proposers to provide value added services to the City.
lnstead of continuing under an RFP process, following the rejection of proposals and
termination of the current RFP, the Administration recommends releasing a subsequent
lnvitation to Negotiate (lTN), which will provide the City the opportunity to negotiate with
multiple firms simultaneously.
MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE & RECOMMENDATION
After considering and reviewing staff's recommendation, the City Manager recommends
that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida approve the
Resolution rejecting all proposals, pursuant to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 2014-
091-SW for lnvestment Advisory Services and authorize the City Manager to release a
subsequent lnvitation to Negotiate (lTN) for services following the review and revisions
to the scope of services, which shall be part of the lTN. Prior to release of the lTN, the
Administration will provide the City Commission a copy of the ITN through a Letter to
Commission (LTC).
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of
Miami Beach, Florida approve the Resolution rejecting all proposals received, pursuant
to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 2014-091-SW for lnvestment Advisory Services and
authorize the City Manager to release a subsequent lnvitation to Negotiate (lTN) for
services following the review and revisions to the scope of services, which shall be part
of the lTN.
JLM/MT/PDW/AD
T:\AGENDA\2014\Novemberlg\Procurement\RFP 2014-091-LR lnvestment Advisory Services - Reject - MEMO.doc
8
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
CITY MANAGER TO REJECT ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED, PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 2014-091-SW, FOR INVESTMENT
ADVISORY SERVICES, AND AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
RELEASE AN TNVTTATION TO NEGOTIATE (lTN) FOR INVESTMENT
ADVISORY SERVICES.
WHEREAS, on May 21,2014, the Mayor and City Commission approved Resolution No.
2014-28587 (the "Resolution") accepting the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to
the ranking of proposals, pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 2014-091-SW for
lnvestment Advisory Services, and authorized the Administration to enter into negotiations with
the top-ranked proposer, First Southwest and, should the Administration not be successful in
negotiating an agreement with the top-ranked proposer, authorized negotiations with the tied
second-ranked proposers, Davidson Fixed lncome Management and Public Trust Advisors,
LLC; and
WHEREAS, following approval of the Resolution, the City's Finance Department
attempted to negotiate an agreement with the top-ranked proposer, First Southwest; and
WHEREAS, the parties were unable to come to mutual agreement with regard to the
fees to be paid by the City under the agreement; and
WHEREAS, p rior to initiating negotiations with the second-ranked proposers, it
became apparent that since the issuance of the RFP the amount of City investments to be
managed is expected to increase significantly, and
WHEREAS, this would significantly affect the City's ability to negotiate a cost-effective
agreement for investment advisor services under the current RFP; and
WHEREAS, the proposals received pursuant to the RFP did not consider that the
amount of the stated investments to be managed did not reflect the significant capital financing
now planned for FY2014115, FY2O15/16, and FY2016117, which is expected to surpass one
billion dollars; and
WHEREAS, the Administration also believes it is important to provide an
opportunity for proposers, through a competitive solicitation process, to offer value added
services which could reduce City cost, or provide additional services and efficiencies to the
City given the now planned investments for FY201 4115, FY2015116, and FY201 6117; and
WHEREAS, to that end, the Administration recommends terminating
negotiations and rejecting all proposals under the current RFP process and allow the
Administration to revise the scope of services to be included in a future solicitation to include
the City's planned investments, as well as incorporate an opportunity for proposers to provide
value added services to the City; and
WHEREAS, following the rejection of proposals and termination of the current
RFP process, the Administration recommends releasing a subsequent lnvitation to Negotiate
(lTN), which will provide the City the opportunity to negotiate with multiple firms
simultaneously.
9
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby
accept the recommendation of the City Manager to reject all proposals received, pursuant to
Request For Proposal (RFP) No. 2014-091-SW, for investment advisory services, and authorize
the Administration to release an lnvitation To Negotiate (lTN) for investment advisory services.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of November,2014.
ATTEST:
PHILIP LEVINE, MAYOR
RAFAEL E. GRANADO, CITY CLERK
T:\AGENDA\2O14\November\Procurement\RFP 2014-091-MF - lnvestment Advisory Services Reject - RESOLUTION.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & ISNGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
10
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
RESOLUTIONS OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
ACCEPTING THE REGOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKINGS OF
PROPOSALS, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS NO. 2014-316-JR, FOR GENERAL BUILDING
CoNTRACTOR REHABILITATION SERVTCES AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 2014-32s-JR, FOR
GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR REHABILITATION SERVICES AND CONSULTING FOR THE CITY'S
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICE DEPARTMENT.
lmprove Building/Development-Related Processes from Single-Family Residences to the Large Development
Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc: N/A
Item Summary/Recommendation :
The State Housing lnitiatives Partnership program (SHIP), administered through the Florida Housing Finance
Corporation (FHFC), was established in 1992 by the William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing Act to stimulate the
production of affordable housing statewide. SHIP program funds are derived from documentary stamp levies on real
estate transactions, and held in the SHIP Program Trust Fund. Annually, FHFC allocates SHIP program funds among
participating jurisdictions on a formula basis. SHIP program funds serve to increase access to affordable housing for
income-eligible participants whose income does not exceed 120o/o of the Area Median lncome (AMl).
On July 30,2014, the City Commission approved to issue the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 2014-316-JR and
Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 2014-325-JR. On July 31,2014, the RFQ and RFP were issued. A voluntary pre-
proposal conference to provide information to the proposers submitting a response was held on August 5,2014 and
August 6,2014 respectively. RFQ and RFP responses were due and received on August 20,2014. The City received
one proposalfor RFQ 2014-316-JR and a total of two (2) proposals for RFP 2014-325-JR.
On September8,2014, the City Managervia Letterto Commission (LTC) Nos. 314-2014 and 315-2014, appointed an
Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"). The Committee convened on October 8, 2014 and October 9, 2014
respectively were 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.
RECOMMENDATION
1. After reviewing the submission and the results of the evaluation process, the City Manager recommends that the
Administration be authorized to enter into negotiations and execute an agreement with Delcons, lnc. pursuant to
Request for Qualifications No. 2014-316-JR, General Building Contractor Rehabilitation Services (the "RFa"). Should
negotiations fail with the sole proposer, the City Manager recommend that the administration be authorized to issue a
new RFQ.
2. And further, the City Manager recommends that Administration be authorized to enter into negotiations and execute
an agreementwith Gecko Group, lnc., pursuantto Requestfor Proposal No.2014-325-JR, General Building Contractor
Rehabilitation Services Consultant (the "RFP"); and should the Administration not be successful in negotiating an
agreement with the top-ranked proposer, authorizing negotiations with the second-ranked proposer, Cast Development
LLC; and further authorize the City Manager to execute an Agreement upon conclusion of successful negotiations by
the Administration.
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION
Financial Information :
Source of
Funds:
Amount Account
,l $ 44,933 152-8000-331580 State of Florida SHIP Program
Total $ 44,933
Financial lmpact Summary:
T:\AGENDA\20 1 4\NovembeAProcurement\RFQ-20 1 4-31 6-JR & RFP 14-325-JR General Bu
Services - Summary.doc
AGENDA "'U C7 MMIAMIBEACHDAnE //-/?-/y11
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISS MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: November 19,2014
the City
SUBJECT: RESOLUTIONS OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKINGS OF PROPOSALS, PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS NO. 2014.316.JR, FOR GENERAL BUILDING
CONTRACTOR REHABILITATION SERVICES AND REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
(RFP) NO. 2014-325-JR, FOR GENERAL BUtLDtNG CONTRACTOR
REHABILITATION SERVICES AND CONSULTING FOR THE CITY'S HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY SERVICE DEPARTMENT.
ADMI NISTRATION RECOMMEN DATION
Adopt the Resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
lmprove Building/Development-Related Processes from Single-Family Residences to the Large
Development Projects.
FUNDING
Funding for the State Housing lnitiative Partnership (SHIP) program is sponsored by the State
of Florida and the William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing Act. Currently, the City has
$44,933 in FY09/10 funds (account code 152-8000-331580) available for immediate use.
Once the FY09/10 funds are drawn, the City can access an additional $451,459 in combined
funds from subsequent fiscal years. These funds are intended for the development and
retention of affordable housing.
BACKGROUND
The State Housing lnitiatives Partnership program (SHIP), administered through the Florida
Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC), was established in 1992 by the William E. Sadowski
Affordable Housing Act to stimulate the production of affordable housing statewide. SHIP
program funds are derived from documentary stamp levies on real estate transactions, and held
in the SHIP Program Trust Fund. Annually, FHFC allocates SHIP program funds among
participating jurisdictions on a formula basis. SHIP program funds serye to increase access to
affordable housing for income-eligible participants whose income does not exceed 12Oo/o of the
Area Median lncome (AMl).
Communities that receive SHIP funds, including the City, are required to produce and file with
the State of Florida a Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) which governs each community's
use of SHIP funds. A new LHAP must be filed every three years. The LHAP delineates the
strategies that will be employed to increase the availability of affordable housing for income-
eligible residents within the jurisdiction.
One of the City's affordable housing strategies is the repair and rehabilitation of qualifying
owner-occupied homes including condominium units. These repairs may include: energy
12
efficiency modifications, ADA modifications to enable aging in place, remediation of Code
Compliance violations, and general repairs that preserve housing. Eligible homeowners must be
income-eligible (with income not exceeding 120% Area Median lncome (AMl) and agree to
maintain the improved property as their primary residence for fifteen (15) years. ln the event that
an assisted property is sold before the expiration of the affordability period, the assisted
homeowner must repay the City for funds received. ln essence, the City awards SHIP funds as
forgivable loans upon expiration of the affordability period. The City safeguards awarded funds
by placing a restrictive covenant on the assisted property that is released upon either repayment
of provided funds or the expiration of the affordability period, whichever comes first.
Until recently, the homeowner rehabilitation strategy was managed by Miami Beach Community
Development Corporation (MBCDC). When it was determined that MBCDC was no longer able
to effectively administer the program, the City assumed this role. ln order to effectuate the
homeowner-occupied rehabilitation strategy, the City must identify a third party verifier or
Project Manager/Consultant to inspect properties, draft the specifications of funded work scope,
and conduct progress and final inspections of approved work. ln addition, the City must identify
a pool of qualified general contractors who can be contracted by homeowners to complete the
repairs and rehabilitation work approved by the City within specified timeframes.
To secure a qualified Project Manager/Consultant, on July 30,2014, the City Commission
authorized the issuance of RFQ No. 2014-316-JR for General Building Contractor Rehabilitation
Services. To establish a pool of General Contractors (GC) that can be contracted directly by
residents approved for SHIP funds to provide repairs and rehabilitation work needed at funded
residential properties for a term of three (3) years with two (2) one (1) year options to renew at
the discretion of the City, on July 30, 2014, the City Commission authorized the issuance of
RFP No. 2014-325-JR for General Building Contractor Rehabilitation Services and Consulting.
1. RFQ 2014.316.JR PROCESS
On July 30, 2014, the City Commission approved to issue the Request for Qualifications (RFO)
No. 2014-316-JR, for General Building Contractor Rehabilitation Services. On July 31,2014,
the RFQ was issued. A voluntary pre-proposal conference to provide information to the
proposers submitting a response was held on August 6,2014. RFQ responses were due and
received on August 20,2014. The City received one (1) proposal from Delcons, lnc.
On September 8, 2014, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 315-2014,
appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), consisting of the following individuals:
. Richard Bowman, Housing Specialist, Department of Housing and Community
Services, City of Miami Beach. Maria Cerna, Division Director, ClP, City of Miami Beach. Mariano Fernandez, Director, Building Department, City of Miami Beach
The following member was considered as an alternate; Antonio Gonzalez, Building Operations
Manager, Building Department, City of Miami Beach.
The Committee convened on October 9, 2014 and 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 the sole proposal. Additionally, the Committee engaged in a question and answer
session after the presentation of the sole proposer.
2. RFP 2014.325-JR PROCESS
On July 30, 2014, the City Commission approved to issue the Request for Proposal (RFP) No.
2014-325-JR, for General Building Contractor Rehabilitation Services and Consulting. On July
31,2014, the RFP was issued. A voluntary pre-proposal conference to provide information to
the proposers submitting a response was held on August 5, 2014. RFQ responses were due
and received on August 20,2014. The City received two (2) proposals form Gecko Group, lnc.,
13
and Cast Development, LLC.
On September 8, 2014, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 314-2014,
appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), consisting of the following individuals:
. Richard Bowman, Housing Specialist, Department of Housing and Community
Services, City of Miami Beacho Maria Cerna, Division Director, ClP, City of Miami Beacho Mariano Fernandez, Director, Building Department, City of Miami Beach
The following member was considered as an alternate; Antonio Gonzalez, Building Operations
Manager, Building Department, City of Miami Beach.
The Committee convened on October 8, 2014 and 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 the sole proposal. Additionally, the Committee engaged in a question and answer
session after the presentation of the sole proposer. The results of the evaluation committee
ranking is as follows:
1. Gecko Group, lnc.
2. Cast Development, LLC
MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE & RECOMMENDATION
1. After reviewing the submission and the results of the evaluation process, the City Manager
recommends that the Administration be authorized to enter into negotiations and execute an
agreement with Delcons, lnc. pursuant to Request for Qualifications No. 2014-316-JR, General
Building Contractor Rehabilitation Services (the "RFQ"). Should negotiations fail with the sole
proposer, the City Manager recommend that the administration be authorized to issue a new
RFQ.
2. And further, the City Manager recommends that Administration be authorized to enter into
negotiations and execute an agreement with Gecko Group, lnc., pursuant to Request for
Proposal No. 2014-325-JR, General Building Contractor Rehabilitation Services Consultant (the
"RFP"); and should the Administration not be successful in negotiating an agreement with the
top-ranked proposer, authorizing negotiations with the second-ranked proposer, Cast
Development LLC; and further authorize the City Manager to execute an Agreement upon
conclusion of successful negotiations by the Administration.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida approve the City Manager's recommendation pertaining to the proposals
received, pursuant to RFQ No.2014-316-JR, for General Building Contractor Rehabilitation
Services and RFP No. 2014-325-JR for General Building Contractor Rehabilitation Services and
Consulting.
MRYAD/MT/JLM/MLR
T:\AGENDA\2O14\November\Procurement\RFQ-2014-316-JR & RFP 2014-325-JR General Building Contractor Rehab Services - Memo FINAL rev.
1 'l 131 4 JR.doc
14
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAM! BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
CITY MANAGER, PERTAINING TO THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
(RFO) NO. 2014.316-JR FOR GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR
REHABILITATION SERVICES FOR THE CITY'S HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
SERVICES DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE SOLE PROPOSER, DELCONS lNC.; AND SHOULD
THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE SUCGESSFUL IN NEGOTIATING AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE SOLE PROPOSER, AUTHORIZING THE
ADMINISTRATION TO ISSUE A NEw RFQ; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT UPON
SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
WHEREAS, Request for Qualification (RFQ) No. 2014-316-JR for General Building
Contractor Rehabilitation Services (the RFO) was issued on July 31, 2014, with an opening
date of August 20,2014; and
WHEREAS, a voluntary pre-proposal meeting was held on Wednesday, August 6,2014
for the RFQ; and
WHEREAS, the City received one proposalfor the RFQ; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2014, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC)
No. 315-2014, appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), consisting of the following
individuals:
o Richard Bowman, Housing Specialist, Department of Housing and Community
Services, City of Miami Beach. Maria Cerna, Division Director, CIP Department, City of Miami Beacho Mariano Fernandez, Director, Building Department, City of Miami Beach
The following member was considered as an alternate; Antonio Gonzalez, Building Operations
Manager, Building Department, City of Miami Beach.
WHEREAS, the Committee convened on October 9, 2014 for the proposal received
pursuant to the RFQ; and
WHEREAS, the Committee was provided an overview of the project; information relative
to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Sunshine Law; general information on the
scope of services, references, and a copy of each proposal; and engaged in a question and
answer session after the presentation of the proposer; and
WHEREAS, the Committee was instructed to score the proposal pursuant to the
evaluation criteria established in the RFQ; and
WHEREAS, the Committee scored the sole proposer for the RFQ, Delcons lnc., and
15
WHEREAS, after reviewing all the submissions and the Evaluation Committee's scores,
the City Manager exercised his due diligence and is recommending that the Administration be
authorized to negotiate with the sole proposer, Delcons lnc.; and should the Administration not
be successful in negotiating an agreement with the sole proposer, the City Manager
recommends that the Administration be authorized to issue a new RFQ.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby accept the recommendation of the City Manager, pursuant to Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) No. 2014-316-JR for General Building Contractor Rehabilitation Services
for the City's Housing and Community Services Department; authorize the Administration to
negotiate with the sole proposer, Delcons lnc.; and should the Administration not be successful
in negotiating an agreement with the sole proposer, authorize the Administration to issue a new
RFQ; and further authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement upon successful
negotiations by the Administration.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2014.
ATTEST:
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk Philip Levine, Mayor
T;\AGENDA\2014\November\ProcuremenI\RFQ-2o'14-316-JR General Building Contractor Rehab SeMces - Resolution.doc
,8["[8Y:R8ilB'
& FOR EXECUTIoN) Q0{- '!Jffi,ffi@1 Ee ft
16
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY GOMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER
PERTAINING TO THE RANKINGS OF PROPOSALS, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 2014-325-JR, FOR GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR
REHABILITATION SERVICES AND CONSULTING FOR THE CITY'S HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE TOP-RANKED PROPOSER, GECKO GROUP lNC.; AND SHOULD
THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE SUCCESSFUL !N NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE TOP.RANKED PROPOSER, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE
WITH THE SECOND.RANKED PROPOSER, CAST DEVELOPMENT, LLC; AND SHOULD
THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IN NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE SECOND.RANKED PROPOSER, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ISSUE A
NEW RFP; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE
AN AGREEMENT UPON SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
WHEREAS, Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 2014-325-JR (the RFP) for General
Building Contractor Rehabilitation Serviceswas issued on July 31,2014, with an opening date
of August 20,2014; and
WHEREAS, a voluntary pre-proposal meeting was held on Tuesday, August 5,2014for
the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the City received two (2) proposals for the RFP; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2014, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC)
No. 31 4-2014, appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), consisting of the following
individuals:
. Richard Bowman, Housing Specialist, Department of Housing and Community
Services, City of Miami Beach. Maria Cerna, Division Director, CIP Department, City of Miami Beach. Mariano Fernandez, Director, Building Department, City of Miami Beach
The following member was considered as an alternate; Antonio Gonzalez, Buildlng Operations
Manager, Building Department, City of Miami Beach; and
WHEREAS, the Committee convened on October 8 2014 to consider the proposals
received pursuant to the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the Committee was provided an overview of the project; information relative
to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Sunshine Law; general information on the
scope of services, references, and a copy of each proposal; and engaged in a question and
answer session after the presentation of each proposer; and
WHEREAS, the Committee was instructed to score and rank each proposal pursuant to
the evaluation criteria established in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the Committee's ranking for the RFP was as follows: Gecko Group lnc., top
ranked; Cast Development, LLC, second highest ranked; and
17
WHEREAS, after reviewing all the submissions and the Evaluation Committee's
rankings, the City Manager exercised his due diligence and is recommending that the
Administration be authorized to negotiate with the top-ranked proposer, Gecko Group lnc.; and
should the Administration not be successful in negotiating an agreement with the top-ranked
proposer, the City Manager recommends that the Administration be authorized to negotiate with
the second ranked proposer, Cast Development, LLC; and should the Administration not be
successful in negotiating an agreement with the second-ranked proposer, the City Manager
recommends that the Administration be authorized to issue a new RFP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby accept the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the ranking
of proposals, pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 2014-325-JR, for General Building
Contractor Rehabilitation Services and Consulting for the City's Housing and Community
Services Department; authorize the Administration to negotiate with the top ranked proposer,
Gecko Group lnc.; and should the Administration not be successful in negotiating an agreement
with the top-ranked proposer, authorize the Administration to negotiate with the second-ranked
proposer, Cast Development, LLC; and should the Administration not be successful in
negotiating an agreement with the second-ranked proposer, authorize the Administration to
issue a new RFP; and further authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement upon
successful negotiations by the Administration.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2014.
ATTEST:
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk Philip Levine, Mayor
T:\AGENDA\2014\November\Procurement\RFP 2014-325-JR General Building Contractor Rehab Seruices - Resolution.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
r t(tz(t+
5EE-
(-
CityAtlomey
18
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER PROVIDING TWO OPTIONS FOR THE CITY
COMMISSION'S SELECTION AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE REPLACEMENT OR REFURBISHMENT OF 29
LIFEGUARD TOWERS: OPTION I - NEGOTIATE WITH BIDDERS TO ITB 2014-385-YG; OR, OPTION 2 -WAIVE
BIDDING BY 5/7S TO REFURBISH EXISTING UNITS, FINDING SUCH WAIVER TO BE IN THE CITY'S BEST
INTEREST.
Maximize the Miami Beach brand as a world class destination.
Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc: N/A
Item Summarv/Recommendation:
Given that the City has commenced its centennial celebrations, the Administration is seeking to replace current
lifeguard towers with the new models designed by William Lane. The scope of work for this project will entail the new
construction of 29 lifeguard towers for the City of Miami Beach from South Pointe Park Pierto 86th Street, replacing the
existing 29 lifeguard towers. Additionally, 26 lifeguard towers must be demolished and removed from the site. The City
will be keeping three (3) lifeguards towers, which are located at: the ends of 1Oth Street (Jetson Tower), 12th Street,
and South Point Pier. The new lifeguard towers must be installed at the same location where the existing ones are
currently located.
To seek a contractorforthe project, on July 24,2014, the City issued lnvitation to Bid (lTB) No.2014-305-YG forthe
desired scope. However, on September 17,2014, the City Commission approved the City Manage/s recommendation
to reject all bids, pursuant to ITB 2014-305-YG, because the apparent low bidderwas deemed non-responsive and the
second lowest bidder's price of $3,598,566 exceeded the project estimate of costs. The estimated construction budget
for the work identified in the ITB was $900,000; although, $1.49 million is available for the project.
Prior to issuing a subsequent lTB, the Administration attempted to address bidders' concerns which included: the need
for the City to provide staging areas adjacent to the points of installation; the reduction of the amount of liquidated
damages; and reduction of the quantity of units to be delivered by the March 2015 date. Prior to the issuance of the
second lTB, the City secured four (4) staging areas, evenly spaced and strategically placed along the beach adjacent to
the points of installation, the liquidated damages were reduced from $1,900 to $1,000 per day, and the delivery
schedule was modified to require delivery of the first 15 lifeguard towers by March 2015, with the remainder to be
delivered by May 2015.
On September24,2014,lnvitation to Bid (lTB) No. 2014-385-YG was re-issued with the aforementioned revisions. On
October 29,2014, the ITB resulted in the
Both bids received once again significantly exceed the available funds for the project.
MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE & RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing the bids received and considering the available project funds, as well as the fact that the City has twice
attempted to secure a contractor through an lTB, the City Manager recommends that the Mayor and City Commission
approve a resolution authorizing the City Manager to proceed with one (1) of the following options:
Option 1 - Negotiate with Bidder(s) Pursuant to Section 2-367(c) of the City Code.
Option 2 - Waive Bidding by 5/7s to Refurbish Existing Units.
Both options are detailed in the attached memorandum.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida approve one
of the options recommended bv the for the Towers
Advisorv Board Recommendation:
Financial !nformation:
Source of
Funds:
Amount Account
1 N/A N/AII2
OBPI Total
Financial lmoact Summarv:
Alex 6641
AGENDA 'Y'* 82 AAAIAMITTACHD^18 n'lqlLl19
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, I 200 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33I 39, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Philip Levine and Members City
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: November 19,2014
SUBIECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MA AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER PROVIDTNG TWO OPTIONS FOR THE CITY COMMISSION'S
SELECTION AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE REPLACEMENT OR
REFURBISHMENT OF 29 LIFEGUARD TOWERS: OPTION 1 - NEGOTIATE WITH
BIDDERS TO ITB 2014-385-YG; OR, OPTION 2 - WAIVE BIDDING BY 5/7S TO
REFURBISH EXISTING UNITS, FINDING SUCH WAIVER TO BE IN THE CITY'S
BEST INTEREST.
ADMI NISTRATION RECOMM ENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Maximize the Miami Beach brand as a world class destination.
BACKGROUND
Miami Beach is known internationally for its unique and iconic lifeguard towers designs.
However, these towers are in need of replacement and the Administration desires to complete
the replacement by the City's centennial celebration. The proposed project replaces the
existing 29 lifeguard towers located citywide on the beachfront from South Pointe Park Pier to
86TH Street. The new lifeguard towers will feature functionally and aesthetically upgraded
designs. This project was adopted as part of the Capital Budget Amendment No. 4 of the
Fiscal Year 201312014.
ln 2006, the City opted to internally undertake the construction of 22 lifeguard towers, instead of
purchasing these from a contractor, as a result of a need for expediency, as well as to contain
costs while providing a durable product. At that time, City's estimate of costs for constructing
lifeguard towers internally with Property Management personnel was approximately $25,000 per
tower (not including labor costs) and was achievable through the creation of a standardized mass
production line or process. The Property Management Division of the Public Works Department
proceeded with the construction of the new ocean lifeguard towers to replace those damaged or in
need of replacement due to wear and tear and deemed unusable. At the time, the principal concern
was the rapid construction of sturdy and functional lifeguard towers.
20
Commission Memorandum - ITB-2014-385-YG Lifeguard Towers Replacement Project
November 19,2014
Page2
Following the deployment of the 22lifeguard towers constructed by the City, the Administration
began receiving community feedback regarding the designs of the lifeguard towers. At that time,
the communig was expressing a desire that the lifeguard tower designs be updated. William Lane,
one of the architects of the original designs, offered to redesign the towers at no cost to the City.
Once the redesigns were completed, in 2007 il was estimated that the newly designed lifeguard
towers would cost approximately $45,000 per tower (not including labor costs). lt was determined
that the custom built and iconic designs of the proposed lifeguard towers are more time consuming
to build than the mass produced stands and, as a result, economies of scale achievable in mass
production are not realized. As a result, the construction of the newly designed towers was
delayed.
Given that the City has commenced its centennial celebrations, the Administration is seeking
to replace current lifeguard towers with the new models designed by William Lane. The scope
of work for this project will entail the new construction of 29 lifeguard towers for the City of
Miami Beach from South Pointe Park Pier to 86th Street, replacing the existing 29 lifeguard
towers. Additionally, 26 lifeguard towers must be demolished and removed from the site. The
City will be keeping three (3) lifeguards towers, which are located at: the ends of 1Oth Street
(Jetson Tower), 12th Street, and South Point Pier. The new lifeguard towers must be installed
at the same location where the existing ones are currently located.
To seek a contractor for the project, on July 24, 2014, the City issued lnvitation to Bid (lTB)
No. 2014-305-YG for the desired scope. However, on September 17,2014, the City
Commission approved the City Manager's recommendation to reject all bids, pursuant to ITB
2014-305-YG, because the apparent low bidder was deemed non-responsive and the second
lowest bidder's price of $3,598,566 exceeded the project estimate of costs. The estimated
construction budget for the work identified in the ITB was $900,000; although, $1.49 million is
available for the project.
Prior to issuing a subsequent lTB, the Administration attempted to address bidders' concerns
which included: the need for the City to provide staging areas adjacent to the points of
installation; the reduction of the amount of liquidated damages; and reduction of the quantity of
units to be delivered by the March 2015 date. Priorto the issuance of the second lTB, the City
secured four (4) staging areas, evenly spaced and strategically placed along the beach
adjacent to the points of installation, the liquidated damages were reduced from $1,900 to
$1,000 per day, and the delivery schedule was modified to require delivery of the first 15
lifeguard towers by March 2015, with the remainder to be delivered by May 2015.
ITB PROCESS
On September 24, 2014, lnvitation to Bid (lTB) No. 2014-385-YG was re-issued with the
aforementioned revisions. On October 29,2014, the ITB resulted in the following two bids:
ABC Construction $3.010.854.00
AARYA Construction & Desion $3,124,845.15
21
Commission Memorandum - ITB-2014-385-YG Lifeguard Towers Replacement Project
November 19,2014
Page 3
Therefore, both bids received once again significantly exceed the available funds for the
project.
MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE & RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing the bids received and considering the available project funds, as well as the
fact that the City has twice attempted to secure a contractor through an lTB, the City Manager
recommends that the Mayor and City Commission approve a resolution authorizing the City
Manager to proceed with one (1) of the following options:
Option 1 - Negotiate with Bidder(s) Pursuant to Section 2-367(c) of the Gity Code.
This option will allow the City Manager to approve and execute an Agreement where the
Administration has negotiated a mutually agreeable agreement (based primarily on
schedule and costs) with the lowest and responsive, responsible bidder to ITB 2014-385-
YG; and, if the Administration is unable to successfully negotiate an agreement with the
lowest bidder, the City Manager may terminate negotiations with such bidder and direct the
Administration to commence negotiations with the second lowest and responsive,
responsible bidder to the lTB. Any resulting agreement pursuant to the options denoted
above will be provided to the City Commission via Letter to Commission (LTC).
Option 2 - Waive Bidding by 5/7s to Refurbish Existing Units. This option allows the
City Manager to direct staff to secure contractor(s) to refurbish all 29 existing towers in
time for the March, 2015, centennial celebrations within the available project budget.
Pursuant to Section 255, Florida Statutes, if the City decides to refurbish the existing
lifeguard towers, and providing that the total cost of refurbishment is $300,000 or less, the
City Commission may waive the competitive bidding requirements, by a 5l7s vote, which
would allow the Administration to secure the services of a contractor(s) to complete the
refurbishment.
ln an effort to supplement the available budget, the City may explore the possibilities of selling
or auctioning the remaining 26 lifeguard towers in their present condition.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida approve one of the options recommended by the City Manager for the
Lifeg ugr$ Towers Replacement Project.
rurltlffirMJ/DM/AD/YG
T:\AGENDA\2014\November\Procurement\lTB-2014-385-YG Lifeguard Stands Replacement Projection (FINAL).docx
22
RESOLUTION TO BE SUBMITTED
23
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
24
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Gondensed Title:
Second Reading to consider an Ordinance Amendment pertaining to the prohibition on commercial
solicitation in certain areas.
The government interests supporting these proposed amendments include: (1) Protecting the
historic character of these districts, the City's economic engine; (2) Developing the high-end retail
and high-end sidewalk caf6 promenades in the district; (3) Promoting luxury tourism; (4)
Minimizing harassment of pedestrians along the public right-of-way; (5) Minimizing congestion;
Supporting Data (Surveys, EnvironmentalScan, etc The City has received numerous complaints
from residents, visitors, and business owners and managers regarding the proliferation of commercial
solicitation activities.
Item S ummary/Recommendation :
SECOND READING
The proposed amendment to Section 74-1 seeks to prohibit commercial solicitation along the public
right-of-way within the following areas:
(1) The area bounded on the north by, but not including, 17th Street, bounded on the east by, but
not including, Washington Avenue, bounded on the south by Lincoln Lane, and bounded on
the west by Alton Road;(2) Ocean Drive from Sth to 15th Streets;(3) Collins Avenue from Sth to 15th Streets;(4) Washington Avenue from Sth to Lincoln Road;(5) All cross streets and bystreets bounded on the north by 15th Street, bounded on the east by
Ocean Drive, bounded on the south by 5th Street, and bounded on the west by Washington
Ave;(6) Espafiola Way from Pennsylvania Avenue to Collins Avenue; and(7) Lummus Park.
As in the currentversion of Section 74-1,the prohibitions on commercial solicitation in the proposed
amendment would apply at all times. Additionally, the proposed amendment seeks to clarify the
prohibitions on commercial solicitation by deleting the language relating to accosting or attempting to
accost any person for the purpose of soliciting him or her to purchase any good, service, food, or
beverage.
The Administration recommends that the Gity Gommission approve the Ordinance at Second
Reading.
Financial I nformation :
Source of
Funds:
Amount Account
1
2
3
OBPI Total
Financial lmpact Summary: ln accordance with Charter section 5.02, which requires that the "City
of Miami Beach shall consider the long-term economic impact (at least 5 years) of proposed
legislative actions," this shall confirm that the City Administration evaluated the long{erm economic
impact (at least 5 years) of this proposed legislative action, and determined that there will be no
measureable impact on the City's budget.
City Attorney's Office - Camilo Mejia (Ext. 6731)
E MIAMIBEACH aoeruon rrem RS A
25
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
CC: Raul J. Aguila, City Attorney
DATE: November 19,2014
Commission
SEGOND READING
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJ: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF
THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ENTITLED..PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS," BY AMENDING ARTICLE I,
ENTITLED ..IN GENERAL," BY AMENDING SECTION 74.1,
ENTITLED ..SOLICITING BUSINESS IN PUBLIC FROM
PEDESTRIANS," TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL SOLICITATION IN
CERTAIN AREAS; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY,
CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Ordinance was approved by the City Commission on First
Reading on September 30, 2014 and referred to the Neighborhood and
Community Affairs Committee for public hearing and debate. At its October 31,
2014 meeting, members of the Committee heard testimony from the public and
City staff, and considered supporting documents entered into the legislative
record by the Administration. At the conclusion of that hearing, the members of
the Committee unanimously recommended approva! of the Ordinance and
returned it to the full City Commission for Second Reading. The Administration
recommends that the City Commission approve the Ordinance on Second
Reading-Public Hearing on November 19,2014.
BACKGROUND
Section 74-1 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach currently prohibits
any person from soliciting pedestrians for any commercial purpose. This
prohibition applies throughout the City. Section a6-92(g) prohibits the distribution
of commercial handbills during high-impact periods on certain streets within the
City's art deco district (Ocean Drive from 6th through 1Sth Streets, Washington
Avenue from 6th through 17th Streets, Collins Avenue from 6th through 17th
Streets, and on any portion of Lincoln Road).
ln 2012, the City Commission amended the enforcement provisions of
both Section 74-1 and 46-92 by: (a) altering the penalty scheme for the violation
26
of these provisions; and (b) transferring the enforcement responsibilities from the
City's Police Department to the Code Compliance Division. Throughout the last
year, in response to complaints from visitors and residents, the City Commission
directed the Administration to step up its enforcement efforts to address
commercial solicitation along the City's most popular tourist destinations, with an
emphasis on Lincoln Road and Ocean Drive. As a result, the number of citations
issued by the Code Compliance Division pursuant to these provisions has
increased substantially.
CURRENT REGULATIONS
A. Chapter 74-1: Current Prohibition on Commercial Solicitation.
ln its current form, Section 74-1 ol the Code of the City of Miami Beach
places restrictions on the solicitation of pedestrians for commercial purposes.
More specifically, this Section provides that:
It shall be unlawful for any person, while upon any public street or
sidewalk or while in any building, doorway, stairway, window or
other opening abutting on or adjacent to such street or sidewalk, to
accost or attempt to accost any pedestrian on such street or
sidewalk for the purpose of soliciting him to purchase any property,
real or personal, or any food, beverage or service, or to solicit him
to enter any place of business for the purpose of selling to or
inducing or attempting to induce such pedestrian to purchase any
property, real or personal, or any food, beverage or service.
B. Chapter 46-92(q): Current Prohibitions on Commercial
Handbill Distribution.
Section 46-92(9) prohibits the distribution of commercial handbills during
high-impact periods on certain streets within the City's art deco district: Ocean
Drive from 6th through 1Sth Streets, Washington Avenue from 6th through 17th
Streets, Collins Avenue from 6th through 17th Streets, and on any portion of
Lincoln Road). The City Code defines high-impact periods as "those periods of
time as annually designated by the City Manager during which one of the
following occur:
(i) There is a designated major event period;
(ii) A maintenance or traffic plan is required;
(iii) Hotel occupancy levels are anticipated to be greater than 75
percent;
27
(iv) Mutual aid or other assistance from outside agencies is
required to provide for the safety and well-being of residents
and visitors to the destination; and
(v) An event on public property is anticipated to result in more
than 25,000 visitors to the destination.
ln addition to the above prohibition, Section 46-92(9) also bans the
distribution of commercial handbills within 20 feet from the outside perimeter of
any approved sidewalk caf6, on any right-of-way within the approved sidewalk
caf6, and on any City beach east of the dunes.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
A. Proposed Amendment to Section 74-1
The proposed amendment to Section 74-1 prohibits commercial
solicitation along the public right-of-way only within the following areas:
(1) The area bounded on the north by, but not including, 17th
Street, bounded on the east by, but not including,
Washington Avenue, bounded on the south by Lincoln
Lane, and bounded on the west by Alton Road;
(2) Ocean Drive from Sth to 15th Streets;
(3) Collins Avenue from Sth to 1Sth Streets;
(4) Washington Avenue from 5th to Lincoln Road;
(5) All cross streets and bystreets bounded on the north
by 15th Street, bounded on the east by Ocean Drive,
bounded on the south by 5th Street, and bounded on
the west by Washington Ave;
(6) Espafrola Way from Pennsylvania Avenue to Collins
Avenue; and
(7) Lummus Park.
As in the current version of Section 74-1, the prohibitions on commercial
solicitation in the proposed amendment would apply at all times.
Additionally, the proposed amendment eases the enforcement of the city's
regulation of commercial solicitation by clarifying the prohibitions on commercial
28
solicitation by setting forth restrictions based upon designated locations for the
purpose of soliciting him or her to purchase any good, service, food, or beverage.
The government interests supporting these proposed amendments
include: (1) protecting the historic character of these districts, the City's economic
engine; (2) developing the high-end retail and high-end sidewalk caf6
promenades in the district; (3) promoting luxury tourism; (4) minimizing
harassment of pedestrians along the public right-of-way; (5) minimizing
congestion; (6) reducing litter; (7) improving the aesthetic experience for
residents and visitors; (8) protecting the right of pedestrians to be let alone in
their quiet enjoyment of these districts; (9) maintaining the unique ambiance the
city has created in these sectors; and (10) the expansion of other areas where
commercial solicitation is allowed within the city.
B. Proposed Amendment to Section 46-92(q)
The proposed amendment to Section 46-92(9) seeks to prohibit the
distribution of commercial handbills within the following areas:
(1) The area bounded on the north by, but not including, 17th
Street, bounded on the east by, but not including,
Washington Avenue, bounded on the south by Lincoln
Lane, and bounded on the west by Alton Road;
(2\ Ocean Drive from Sth to 15th Streets;
(3) Collins Avenue from 5th to 1Sth Streets;
(4) Washington Avenue from Sth to Lincoln Road;
(5) All cross streets and bystreets bounded on the north
by 1Sth Street, bounded on the east by Ocean Drive,
bounded on the south by Sth Street, and bounded on
the west by Washington Ave;
(6) Espafrola Way from Pennsylvania Avenue to Collins
Avenue; and
(7) Lummus Park.
As in the current version of Section 46-92(9), the ban on the distribution of
commercial handbills within 20 feet from the outside perimeter of any approved
sidewalk caf6, on any right-of-way within the approved sidewalk caf6, and on any
City beach east of the dunes would remain in force throughout the City.
29
The government interests supporting these proposed amendments
include: (1) protecting the historic character of these districts, the City's economic
engine; (2) developing the high-end retail and high-end sidewalk caf6
promenades in the district; (3) promoting luxury tourism; (4) minimizing
harassment of pedestrians along the public right-of-way; (5) minimizing
congestion; (6) reducing litter; (7) improving the aesthetic experience for
residents and visitors; (8) protecting the right of pedestrians to be let alone in
their quiet enjoyment of these districts; (9) maintaining the unique ambiance the
city has created in these sectors; and (10) the expansion of other areas where
commercial solicitation is allowed within the city.
ANALYSIS
A. Historv of Art Deco District.
Miami Beach's Art Deco District ("the District") is the first 20th-century
neighborhood to be recognized by the National Register of Historic Places. Prior
to its historic preservation, this acclaimed sector was a working-class district on a
downward spiral. The District was plagued with drug use and crime. Physical
decay was rampant. ln the 1970's, many of the buildings and structures in the
District were slated for demolition. The desire to save many of these small hotels
promoted a widespread interest in preserving the area and eventually made
Ocean Drive a fashionable address. Now a focal point of revitalization and
redevelopment, Miami Beach's renowned Art Deco District is both a national
treasure and an international attraction. Miami Beach was recently named one of
the "Great American Public Places" and the "Hottest Destination in the World."
ln addition to the architectural beauty of the Art Deco District, its unique
ambiance, and its importance for tourism, the single most important other feature
of the area is its sidewalk cafes. The numerous sidewalk cafes on Ocean Drive
and throughout the Art Deco District facilitated the area's popularity and ensure
its continued success. ln a 1996 survey conducted by the Greater Miami
Convention and Visitors Bureau, visitors to Greater Miami were asked what
features they liked most about the region. Given the wide range of amenities and
attractions in Greater Miami, Ocean Drive restaurants and cafes were remarkably
selected by almost twenty percent (20Yo) of the visitors.
The importance of the Art Deco District and its cafes is also evidenced by
the increase in Resort Tax for Miami Beach and the South Beach District. The
Art Deco district and South Beach were the top tourist attractions in Miami-Dade
County in 2013, visited by nearly 43.60/o of its 14.2 million visitors. Resort Tax
sales are room, alcohol, and food sales collected by establishments in Miami
Beach. Resort Tax sales for Miami Beach have increased from a negligible
amount in 1989 to $59,613,31 1 in fiscal year 2012-2013. Resort taxes accounted
for 16% (FY 11112) and 17Yo (FY 12113) of Revenues for City in Government
Activities. The District has become the City's economic life blood.
30
The District can be divided into three major neighborhood types based on
function and use - the seasonal hotel area, the commercial areas and the
residential area. Architecturally, these zones are easily recognizable and
coincide with the long-established street configuration. The seasonal hotel area
is concentrated along Ocean Drive from Sth Street to 15th Street and along Collins
Avenue from 6th Street to 23'd Street. A secondary concentration of such hotels
is located in the Collins Park/James Avenue area north of Lincoln Road and east
of Washington Avenue. The commercial areas are largely restricted to two
streets which traverse the District from north to south (Washington Avenue) and
east to west (Lincoln Road). The residential area which surrounds Flamingo
Park includes both multi-family and single family buildings.
This approximately 125 square block area contains the largest
concentration of 1920s and 1930s era resort architecture in the United States.
Dozens of grand, Mediterranean Revival style hotels were built during the 1920s.
ln the early 1930s the City was being promoted and developed as a tropical
playground. lt is during this phase that a new building boom began, and would
last until the beginning of World War II. The vast majority of the over 800
buildings constructed in the 1930s were designed in the Moderne (Art Deco and
Streamline) style of architecture. These apartment houses and commercial
buildings were built by only a few architects working for a small number of
developers, resulting in a uniformity of scale, architectural style and extraordinary
architectural compatibility, and giving the district an extremely cohesive
character. ln 1979, the Miami Beach Architectural District was listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. This act set a historic precedent because it
marked the first recognition of a 20th Century district.
Today, the Art Deco district of Miami Beach is one of America's most
famous neighborhoods. lts Art Deco architecture has formed the backdrop to
many fashion shoots, movies, television shows, and music videos. Benefiting
from its unique geography and history, the preservation of Miami Beach has had
a significant regional economic impact.
ln May of 1979, thanks in large part to the efforts of the Miami Design
Preservation League, the Miami Beach Architectural District was listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. ln addition to marking the first time that a
20th Century district obtained this designation, this event was also significant
because many of the buildings in the district were not over 50 years old, which
until that time was considered necessary for inclusion in the Register.
Since its addition to National Register of Historic Places, the City has
heavily regulated the District to protect its unique aesthetics and ambiance.
Specifically, the City precludes all commercial solicitation (except the sidewalk
cafe tables) from the streets and sidewalks in the District and the buildings and
cafes are subject to an extensive design review process for all physical
31
structures and fixtures associated with them. Moreover, the City recently added
even stricter criteria to the regulations which govern the sidewalk cafes. The City
is committed to maintaining the District's historic significance and aesthetic
beauty and ensuring its continued success.
Between 1986 and 1992 the City filled in the boundaries of the National
Register Historic District with four locally designated historic districts. These
locally designated historic districts include the Ocean Drive/Collins Avenue
Historic District, Espanola Way Historic District, Flamingo Park Historic District,
and the Museum Historic District.
Three of the four locally designated historic districts are made up of
portions of major commercial streets that are included in the area regulated by
the amendments proposed today:
Ocean Drive
Ocean Drive is the cultural and economic backbone of the City's tourism
industry. The sidewalk cafes on Ocean Drive between Fifth and Fifteenth Streets
have become the economic lifeblood of the City. ln a 1996 study, almost twenty
percent of the tourists to the Greater Miami area listed the cafe district as their
favorite area attraction. lndeed, the architecture, colors, and style of Ocean
Drive and the Art Deco District have come to symbolize the entire City.
Lincoln Road
ln 1914, a year before the "Town of Miami Beach" was incorporated,
Lincoln Road was conceived of and built by Carl Fisher (developer of the
lndianapolis Speedway) to command the attention of America's industrial and
social elite. Lincoln Road was destined to become "The Fifth Avenue of the
South". Fisher, who was often referred to as "the Father of Miami Beach",
specifically intended for the road to be the "high end" retail hinge of Miami Beach.
Fisher's vision gave exceptional urbane credibility to the otherwise small and
fledgling seaside resort community built on a sandbar. lt not only brought visitors
seeking the warmth of the tropical sun but also wealthy new residents
accustomed to the amenity of fine shopping and high profile promenading.
Time and history have proven that the urban success of Lincoln Road is
highly dependent upon creating and maintaining a critical balance of energizing
uses - retail, outdoor cafes, fine dining, cultural amenity, and joyful promenading
along a tree shaded corridors, in tandem with exceptional adaptive reuse and
restoration of historic structures simultaneous with the creation of brilliant new
design at a world class level. lf any one of these decisive factors is undervalued
or undermined the Road could once again slip back into commercial and cultural
decline as witnessed in the 1950s and the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s.
32
Washinqton Avenue
Washington Avenue has historically served as one of the primary
commercial streets in our city. lt has contained a mix of retail stores, restaurants,
hotels and sidewalk cafes.
Washington Avenue contains a one mile corridor from Sth Street to Lincoln
Road, comprising thirteen blocks and containing 98 Historic Properties.
Washington Avenue landmarks include Old City Hall, the historic United States
Post Office, the Blackstone Hotel, Feinberg-Fisher Elementary School, the
Wolfsonian-FlU Museum of Art, and the historic Espanola Way district.
Collins Avenue
Collins Avenue region from 5th Street to 17th Street is one of the two
major commercial thoroughfares in the Ocean Drive/Collins Avenue Historic
District. This geographic region contains a concentration of hotels that house a
significant percentage of the city's tourists, and a large number of historically
relevant hotels and other structures.
Espanola Wav
Espanola Way sits on land which formed the northern boundary of Ocean
Beach; the first recorded plat in what was to become Miami Beach, as recorded
by the pioneer Lummus Brothers'Ocean Beach Realty Company in 1912. The
street was built by Francis F. Whitman in 1922 as "Whitman's Spanish Colony."
The undeveloped land consisting of 20 corner lots and 40 inside lots was
purchased by N.B.T. Roney and the Spanish Village Corporation in 1925 at the
peak of the first great Florida land boom. Roney, one of the most prolific builders
in early Miami Beach envisioned creating an artists' colony ... "where artists and
lovers of the artistic might congregate amid congenial surroundings." The idea of
such a bohemian village was first suggested to Mr. Roney by former New
Yorkers who mentioned that Miami Beach lacked an area with a creative
atmosphere for artists as one would find in New York's Greenwich Village, or the
artists' quarter in Paris.
B. Commercial Solicitation Threatens the Historic Districts.
Commercial solicitation of pedestrians along Ocean Drive, Lincoln Road,
Washington Avenue, Collins Avenue, and Espafrola Way causes increased
pedestrian congestion and harassment of the tourists and residents who frequent
these historically significant and popular tourist destinations. Commercial
solicitation has been a problem for the City for some time, as reflected by
numerous complaints from residents, businesses, and visitors, as well as the
observations of City officials, regarding the harassment and accosting of
33
pedestrians arising from commercial solicitation activities.
As an internationally famous tourist destination, the visual blight caused by
commercial solicitation harms the City's goal of promoting tourism and continuing
to be an internationally renowned tourist destination. Commercial solicitation
along these historically significant and popular areas reduces pedestrians'
enjoyment of these areas and impedes the City's vision of these areas as
pleasant and tranquil promenades. Both the aesthetics and special ambiance of
these districts are being adversely affected by commercial solicitation along the
streets and sidewalks.
C. Gommercial Handbill Distribution Threatens the Historic
Districts.
The distribution of commercial handbills along Ocean Drive, Lincoln Road,
Washington Avenue, Collins Avenue, and Espaflola Way causes increased
pedestrian congestion and harassment of the tourists and residents who frequent
these historically significant and popular tourist destinations. The proliferation of
commercial solicitation, including solicitation through the distribution of
commercial handbills, is a burgeoning problem for the City, as reflected by
numerous complaints from residents, businesses, and visitors, as well as the
observations of City officials, regarding the harassment and accosting of
pedestrians arising from these activities.
As an internationally famous tourist destination, the visual blight caused by
the handbills that end up as litter harms the City's goal of promoting tourism and
continuing to be an internationally renowned tourist destination. The distribution
of commercial handbills along these historically significant and popular areas
reduces pedestrians' enjoyment of these areas and impedes the City's vision of
these areas as pleasant and tranquil promenades.
D. Evidence Considered in Support of the Amendments.
The City has received numerous complaints from business owners and
managers regarding the proliferation of commercial solicitation activities and
commercial handbilling within the regulated areas. Although the experiences of
these business owners and managers vary, they include, but are not limited to,
the following observations:
. Employees of several retail stores and restaurants along Lincoln Road
actively solicit pedestrians on the public right-of-way by approaching
them in an aggressive manner, including by touching a potential
customers' hair or body, questioning pedestrians insistently, and
continuing to speak with and walk along pedestrians who ask to be left
alone.
34
Commercial solicitation has damaged the reputation of Lincoln Road,
creating a "honky tonk" atmosphere.
On at least one occasion, a pedestrian was "cursed out" when said
pedestrian refused to go along with a sales pitch from a solicitor.
On another occasion, a pedestrian verbally objected to the solicitor's
unwanted advances, and the solicitor followed her to her car in an
attempt to intimidate her and possibly cause her harm.
Employees of stores engaging in commercial solicitation are scaring
customers, tourists, and pedestrians away from entering nearby
businesses.
Customers often complain about their anger, annoyance, and
discomfort resulting from the exposure to commercial solicitation
tactics.
Often, pedestrians will avoid the entire side of the street where the
commercial solicitation activities are taking place, or will quickly walk
past these areas in order to avoid the harassment.
Employees of neighboring retail and food establishments avoid the
areas where commercial solicitation takes place, and are forced to take
alternate routes to get to work, in order to avoid the harassing conduct
of commercial solicitors.
City staff reports that several businesses conducting commercial
solicitation along Lincoln Road have appropriated the public right-of-
way by marking their "territory" with black tape on the sidewalk,
impeding pedestrians from walking through the "box."
While the box discourages pedestrians from walking through the
illegally appropriated space, the commercial solicitors do not confine
themselves to the box, instead chasing pedestrians down the street.
ln addition to complaints of business owners and managers, the
Administration has also received numerous complaints from residents and
visitors. These include email accounts of not being able to walk along Lincoln
Road without fear of being hassled and/or harassed, as well as descriptions of
rude behavior and comments when a pedestrian chooses to avoid the
commercial solicitation activities.
10
35
E. Alternative Solutions for Consideration.
The Administration has considered several alternatives with a view
towards resolving the problems of commercial solicitation. One of these
alternatives involves the creation of free speech "bubbles," which would
essentially require that any commercial solicitation activities take place beyond a
minimum threshold distance surrounding a pedestrian. This alternative has been
discussed and, ultimately, rejected due to the difficulties that arise in connection
with the enforcement of buffer zones in the high-traffic pedestrian areas where
solicitation is a problem.
A second alternative is to create commercial solicitation "boxes" or
"zones," in which commercial solicitation would be allowed with little or no
limitation. The Administration considered several such areas, including: (1) the
intersection of Lincoln Road and Washington Avenue; (2) the intersection of
Ocean Drive and Fifth Street; and (3) the intersection of Ocean Drive and Tenth
Street.
Several unacceptable enforcement and administrative challenges arise in
connection with this alternative. First, this alternative does not address many of
the legitimate concerns raised above because it still would create a bazaar
atmosphere. Also, it is difficult to determine the geographic limitations of these
zones, as well as the extent of the limitations on speech, if any, on commercial
soliciting within these zones. Second, commercial speech zones would create
enforcement challenges, as it would be difficult to define the boundaries of the
zone itself, and, in addition, there would likely be some spillover effect outside of
the zone and into the surrounding bystreets and side streets.
As a third alternative, the Administration considered limiting the application
of the commercial solicitation ban to aggressive solicitation. As with the other
alternatives, this limitation poses several important enforcement problems. First,
it is more difficult than restrictions or limitations based on location to enforce.
Similarly, training Code enforcement officers to recognize whether particular
conduct is in fact aggressive, and thus subject to a violation, would also be more
costly and difficult. ln addition, limiting the ban to aggressive solicitation would
not help to resolve the more prevalent problem of commercial solicitation along
the City's rights-of-way. Accordingly, the Administration does not recommend
adopting this alternative.
F. AvailabiliW of Alternative Channels of Communication.
The Administration has carefully considered alternative channels that
commercial entities have to convey their commercial messages other than direct
solicitation and handbilling in the historic districts under consideration. Various
alternatives do exist:
11
36
1.
2.
The regulated area is small. lt comprises only short
stretches of six streets within the City's historic districts.
The vast majority of the City is available for commercial
solicitation and handbilling.
Within the regulated zone, commercial businesses may
convey their commercial messages on lighted billboard type
signs that are leased for that purpose.
Commercial businesses may convey their message, subject
to lawful restrictions of type and size, on signage on their
building and in their windows.
Subject to lawful restrictions on number, spacing, and
volume, messages may be conveyed with a permit within
the regulated area by incorporating them into a
performance such as a song.
The City permits newsstands (subject to Iawful regulation)
within the regulated area. Commercial entities are free to
purchase advertising space within newspapers of all kinds
from publishers that have a permit to place a newsstand
on City Streets (or to seek a permit to place a newsstand for
a newspaper published by the commercial entity).
The lnternet is widely available within the regulated area,
including via City provided free Wi-Fi coverage. Location
services on the lnternet such as Yelp, AroundMe, and
Facebook allow businesses to communicate to the public
within the regulated area the location of the business,
information about the business, and consumer reviews of
the commercial entities within the regulated area.
Commercial entities are free to communicate their
message to consumers who want it via this medium.
Most businesses within the regulated area are permitted to
place a single video monitor within their window in order to
communicate with the public regarding the services offered
inside.
8. Advertising on the local television and radio stations is
readily available.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
t2
37
G. Failure of Gurrent Regulatory Regime and Likelihood that
Proposed Regulations Will Successfully Address the
Gontinuinq Challenqes.
The current regulatory scheme for commercial solicitation and handbilling
within the City has proven ineffective. lt requires an economically infeasible
investment of staff and enforcement resources. Additionally, as tourism and
commercial revenue within the regulated area increases exponentially, the
problems associated with commercial solicitation and the litter and environmental
harm associated with commercial handbilling are correspondingly multiplied.
The Administration concludes that the limited prohibition of commercial
solicitation within the historic districts regulated here (as opposed to the entire
city) will allow city code enforcement officers and police officers to more
effectively regulate commercial solicitation in these historically sensitive areas.
Additionally, the prohibition on commercial handbilling within the regulated
historic districts will more effectively address the economic, aesthetic and
environmental problems created by the distribution of commercial flyers in this
culturally sensitive area.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
!n accordance with Charter section 5.02, which requires that the "City of
Miami Beach shall consider the long-term economic impact (at least 5 years) of
proposed legislative actions," this shall confirm that the City Administration
evaluated the long-term economic impact (at least 5 years) of this proposed
legislative action, and determined that there will be no measureable impact on
the City's budget.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the
proposed ordinance on Second Reading.
JM/rfr
13
38
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF
THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ENTITLED
..PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS,'' BY AMENDING ARTICLE I,
ENTITLED "IN GENERAL,'' BY AMENDING SECTION 74.I,
ENTITLED "SOLICITING BUSINESS IN PUBLIC FROM
PEDESTRIANS," TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL SOLICITATION IN
CERTAIN AREAS; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER, SEVERABILITY,
CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Washinglon Avenue from 5'h Street to Lincoln Road ("Washington
Avenue"); Ocean Drive from 5th Street to 15th Street ("Ocean Drive"); the area bounded on the
north by, but not including, 17th Street, bounded on the east by, but not including, Washington
Avenue, bounded on the south by Lincoln Lane, and bounded on the west by Alton Road
("Lincoln Road Area"); the area bounded on the north by 15'h Street, bounded on the east by
Ocean Drive, bounded on the south by 5tn Street, and bounded on the west by Washington
Avenue ("Collins Avenue Area"); Espaflola Way from Pennsylvania Avenue to Collins Avenue
("Espaflola Way"); and Lummus Park, are located within or adjacent to unique historic districts
in the City of Miami Beach ("City") and are nationally and intemationally popular tourist
destinations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach and, in particular, the Lincoln Road Area,
Espafiola Way, Lummus Park, Ocean Drive, Washington Avenue, and the Collins Avenue Area,
are located in the "South Beach" area, which attracts a reported 6.8 million tourists from around
the world annually and is host to a myriad of major events, such as Art Basel - Miami Beach, The
Food Network South Beach Wine & Food Festival, the Miami International Boat Show, White
Party, Winter Party, Winter Music Conference, Miami Marathon, Art Deco Weekend, South
Beach Comedy Festival, Mercedes Benz Swimwear Fashion Week, among others, that attract
local, national, and intemational visitors; and
WHEREAS, situated within the Lincoln
Ocean Drive, Washington Avenue, Lummus Park,
and Collins Avenue Areas, and along
Espaflola Way are a multitude of retail,
Road
and
dining, and entertainment venues that include restaurants, sidewalk cafes, nightclubs, the Fillmore
at the Jackie Gleason Theater, the New World Symphony, City parks, and retail stores, all of
which are heavily trafficked by residents, visitors, and tourists who desire to visit, shop, dine, and
attend cultural performances, or to simply stroll along these areas without any disruption and
intimidation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach has a significant governmental interest in
providing its residents, visitors, and tourists with a pleasant, enjoyable, and safe environment free
of nuisance activity; and
WHEREAS, the commercial solicitation of pedestrians along these heavily traveled
pedestrian areas causes increased pedestrian congestion and harassment of tourists and residents
who traverse these historic areas; and
39
WHEREAS, the harassment of pedestrians arising from commercial solicitation activities
is a burgeoning problem in the City of Miami Beach, as reflected by numerous complaints from
residents, business owners, and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the businesses that engage in commercial solicitation activities disrupt the
activities of the surrounding outdoor cafes, restaurants, nightclubs, retail establishments, and
entertainment venues, by physically approaching, harassing, and intimidating residents, visitors
and tourists in places where it is difficult to exercise the right to decline to listen to them or avoid
their requests; and
WHEREAS, commercial solicitation activities on the public rights-of-way in the above-
stated areas dissuade residents, visitors and tourists from traversing these areas, resulting in the
disruption and/or loss of business to the surrounding outdoor cafes, restaurants, nightclubs, retail
establishments, and entertainment venues; and
WHEREAS, the businesses that engage in solicitation activities regularly distribute
commercial handbills to pedestrians, resulting in increased litter and adversely impacting the
City's interests in preserving its aesthetic ambience, tourist industry, and image as a beautiful and
enj oyable beachfront destination; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that commercial speech is entitled to First Amendment
protection and its regulation must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a significant
government interests while leaving open alternative channels of communication; and
WHEREAS, the City has significant goverrrmental interests in protecting the character of
its historic districts, developing the high-end retail and high-end promenades within its historic
and entertainment districts, promoting luxury tourism, minimizing the harassment of pedestrians
along the public right-of-way, minimizing congestion, reducing litter, and improving the aesthetic
experience for residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, it would serve the aforementioned govemmental interests for the
Commission to enact an Ordinance increasing the City's ability to enforce its regulations by
prohibiting the commercial solicitation of pedestrians on the public rights-of-way on Washington
Avenue, Ocean Drive, the Collins Avenue Area, the Lincoln Road Area, Espaflola Way, and
Lummus Park;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. ThatArticle I of Chapter 74 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach, Floridais
hereby amended as follows:
40
Chapter 74
PEDDLERS AND SOLICITORS
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
&J&
Sec. 74-1. Soliciting business in public-frompedestri**s.
(a) Prohibitions. It shall be unlawful f,-or an]' person; rvhile upen an,v publiestreet or sielelvEtlk
or while in an,v building; doerw'a,vr rit*irrvay;windor'v er other opening at nttillg ofi or adjaeent to
@ to solicit @any pede$triix+pglggn tl*-sueh*+ree+
Mk-for the purpose of o purchase any property,real
or personal, or any food, beverage or service, or to solicit hiin-gggblgl5gn to enter any place of
business for the purpose of selli*pborinducing or attempting to induce such pedes+ridtt-pgl$gq
to purchase any property, real or personal, or any food, beverage or service.
'l'lris Section sltA!]_apply rvhert tlr_e_ ,sg.ljcitor or the pellon beinq soli.cited is located..on any
puhlic right-of'-rvay. which uroat$ and inclurdes" but is not lirnited to. iury street. sidewalk. street
corncr. ourb. bicycle path. or pedestrian walkrva),. in an), o{ the ltrllclr.ving iu'eas in the City of'
Miami Beach. This Section shall also apply to any doorrva)'. stairwa),. winclorv or othEr opening
of a b_uilding abutlilr&olr or adjacelrt_ to such right-qf-w?)'.. in an)'gf the following area.S- in the
C;it)"of Miami Beach:
(.1) The arezr bounded orr the north by. br"rt not inclucling. 17th Street. bouncled on the
east b),. but not including, Washington Avenue. bounded on the south by Lincoln
l,ane. Ald.bounded-en the.west by-Alton Road;
(2) Ocean Dri-ve f'rom 5thjo l5th Streets:
(3) Collins Avenue ltom 5th to 15th Streets:
(4) Washington Avenue lrom 5th to Lincoln Road:
(5) All__qross streetl_and.bystreets !.ounded o_!_the northly 1.5th Stteet" boUude-d.on the
east by Ocean Drive. bounded on lhe south b)r 5th Street- and boulrcled on the rvest
b.vr Washinqtcur Ave:
(.6) Espaflola Way lrorn Pennsylvania Ai,enue tt'r Collins Avenue: and
(.7) L-ulrlnrus Park.
SECTION 2. CODIFICATION
It is the intention of the Mayor and the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, and
it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made apart of the
Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or
re-lettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section,"
"article," or other appropriate word.
41
SECTION 3. REPEALER
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby
repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the
remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE
PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of _,2014.
This Ordinance shall take effect on the _ day of _,2014.
ATTEST:
Philip Levine, Mayor
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
Underscore denotes additions
Strlke+nreush de n otes deletio n s
(Sponsored by Mayor Philip Levine)
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
.\-
ciry A|oneyyl
42
c :E>!o@> o>€ ESEHEEE :- :t E;E€ *: :f €E _B:=Sii?-€ FE :E :E E 63
s ESEE{EE tt e€s c*FE EE I€ EE iEEEfEE E! ii E; g
EE: --ITEEE:p EE 3!$ E5:t Hi F; E* c5;ilii E; EE i: E iat 5'e!';.Sii-E St a-,,! FE;* ;F iE E& E pE6T F,E s E E= E:; :nH;"::f g ti i5i :E;€ €E Ei r: ;f EE:e e t ; i: sC _t $". :EE?::=? !x EEE s.Q!I p= ez I.d 'E:si!!:! -E: 3s ;!
E EiE?E;gE gi fiE BEEE Ei i5 EE EfiEEEEi ;E iE Ei i
€t€EEiEgsiiEE*ia:i;egss€EIrESEE{EEEEiE,iE ;*=;€E;E st E=t €;s€ Ei iEH t€, *:=ga!l qE ;E :ic ': tE:ereil
=t
+Ei eiiE Ii iEE igE iEEiIii iE gE-ifii
oi, tEtEs;tE EE EEg tEEe gi gEF giE ;EE;EES {i ;EiEiE[=
gE ii EEiESEEE ii EiE iEEi ig iEi Eii iiEiEig Ei iEiiEiIi
itsE i;3g;E;E IE EgE sElg gi Esi iEE 3iEBi;E E: E;EsEiEl
E H E* ;:EEAE+E EE ti; iaAIi a: EE* gE*
EgEEEE; !E EEi E:i XI
e i! EEEEEiSE EE E6E irEii E? iF3 gfE qr;tEBE $E lEi Eii EE
;g giEggEEE tE ErE E?Els iF rEu "tj {liss:s B! er: it; ss:p ,*r=u'=E E= Ei€ scEE+" sE S*j Es; fgiu:si :: gEs ;e,p ri
ii tiE;Et;E fE c;= Ei;iE EE F*E Eit E;EEE;; EE sff i;g EE-r Ei ;f€iE$si EE :iE cEi+'i iE iuE E;E {EfEEE:B E: E;: tE;;*
I:t ii ?SEEEEIs c$ EiE EEEEiE ;ffiS EEE EEEE E:i€gEEEE ilE ;EFEEi Ei
IN iE E:E;EEEg EEx F*E EaEffi iElE ;i; gEgE
IEEEFESEE EEi*iE EaE iE
li- Ei uecEc3iEE s€3s *€Ei ,!;;sE* spu,Fsg=== e3"3EBi}iEEEEsEi! Eii EiiEs ?
tl
(l
II
\
Oi
<iE]
EI
=:Si
=:-l
Ei
I:
E:
=:
o:
@icl
:iui
z'
t'
o
dltIFi
luiz'ol
!z
43
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
44
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Second Reading to consider an Ordinance Amendment pertaining to the distribution of commercial handbills.
AGENDA '"U .RS_B
The government interests supporting these proposed amendments include: (1) Protecting the historic
character of these districts, the City's economic engine; (2) Developing the high-end retail and high-end
sidewalk caf6 promenades in the district; (3) Promoting luxury tourism; (4) Minimizing harassment of
pedestrians along the public right-of-way; (5) Minimizing congestion; (6) Reducing litter; (7) lmproving the
Supporting Data (Surveys, EnvironmentalScan, etc The City has received numerous complaints from
idents, visitors. and business owners and
Item Summarv/Recommendation :
FIRST READING
The proposed amendment to Section 46-92(g) seeks to prohibit the distribution of commercial handbills along the
public right-of-way in the following areas:
(1) The area bounded on the north by, but not including, 17th Street, bounded on the east by, but
not including, Washington Avenue, bounded on the south by Lincoln Lane, and bounded on
the west by Alton Road;(2) Ocean Drive from 5th to 15th Streets;(3) Collins Avenue from Sth to 15th Streets;(4') Washington Avenue from 5th to Lincoln Road;(5) All cross streets and bystreets bounded on the north by 15th Street, bounded on the east by
Ocean Drive, bounded on the south by Sth Street, and bounded on the west by Washington
Ave.;(6) Espafrola Way from Pennsylvania Avenue to Collins Avenue; and(7) Lummus Park.
As in the current version of Section 46-92(9), the ban on the distribution of commercial handbills within 20 feet
from the outside perimeter of any approved sidewalk caf6, on any right-of-way within the approved sidewalk caf6,
and on any City beach east of the dunes would remain in force throughout the City.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the Ordinance at Second Reading.
Financial lnformation:
Funds:
Amount Account
1
2
3
OBPI Total
Financial lmpact Summary: ln accordance with Charter section 5.02, which requires that the "City of Miami
Beach shall consider the long{erm economic impact (at least 5 years) of proposed legislative actions," this shall
confirm that the City Administration evaluated the long-term economic impact (at least 5 years) of this proposed
legislative action, and determined that there will be no measureable impact on the City's budget.
City Attorney's Offlce - Camilo Mejia (Ext. 6731)
E MIAMIBEACH onre ll-t9-l V45
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
CC: Raul J. Aguila, City Attorney
DATE: November 19,2014
SECOND READING
PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJ: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 46 OF
THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ENTITLED..ENVIRONMENT," BY AMENDING ARTICLE III, ENTITLED..L!TTER," BY AMENDING DIVISION 1, ENTITLED "GENERALLY,''
BY AMENDING SECTION 46-92(a), ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS," BY
ADDING A DEFINITION FOR THE TERM "RIGHT-OF.WAY," BY
AMENDING SECTION 46-92(9), ENTITLED "PROHIBITION ON
COMMERCIAL HANDBILL DISTRIBUTION," BY AMENDING THE
REGULATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF
COMMERCIAL HANDBILLS; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER,
SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Ordinance was approved by the City Commission on First
Reading on September 30, 2014 and referred to the Neighborhood and
Community Affairs Committee for public hearing and debate. At its October 31,
2014 meeting, members of the Committee heard testimony from the public and
City staff, and considered supporting documents entered into the legislative
record by the Administration. At the conclusion of that hearing, the members of
the Committee unanimously recommended approval of the Ordinance and
returned it to the full City Commission for Second Reading. The Administration
recommends that the City Commission approve the Ordinance on Second
Reading-Public Hearing on November 19,2014.
BACKGROUND
Section 74-1 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach currently prohibits
any person from soliciting pedestrians for any commercial purpose. This
prohibition applies throughout the City. Section a6-92(g) prohibits the distribution
of commercial handbills during high-impact periods on certain streets within the
City's art deco district (Ocean Drive from 6th through 15th Streets, Washington
Avenue from 6th through 17th Streets, Collins Avenue from 6th through 17th
Streets, and on any portion of Lincoln Road).
46
ln 2012, the City Commission amended the enforcement provisions of
both Section 74-1 and 46-92 by: (a) altering the penalty scheme for the violation
of these provisions; and (b) transferring the enforcement responsibilities from the
City's Police Department to the Code Compliance Division. Throughout the last
year, in response to complaints from visitors and residents, the City Commission
directed the Administration to step up its enforcement efforts to address
commercial solicitation along the City's most popular tourist destinations, with an
emphasis on Lincoln Road and Ocean Drive. As a result, the number of citations
issued by the Code Compliance Division pursuant to these provisions has
increased su bstantial ly.
CURRENT REGULATIONS
A. Chapter 74-1: Gurrent Prohibition on Commercial Solicitation.
!n its current form, Section 74-1 of the Code of the City of Miami Beach
places restrictions on the solicitation of pedestrians for commercial purposes.
More specifically, this Section provides that:
It shall be unlaMul for any person, while upon any public street or
sidewalk or while in any building, doonruay, stairway, window or
other opening abutting on or adjacent to such street or sidewalk, to
accost or attempt to accost any pedestrian on such street or
sidewalk for the purpose of soliciting him to purchase any property,
real or personal, or any food, beverage or service, or to solicit him
to enter any place of business for the purpose of selling to or
inducing or attempting to induce such pedestrian to purchase any
property, real or personal, or any food, beverage or service.
B. Chapter 46-92(q): Gurrent Prohibitions on Gommercial
Handbill Distribution.
Section 46-92(g) prohibits the distribution of commercial handbills during
high-impact periods on certain streets within the City's art deco district: Ocean
Drive from 6th through 1Sth Streets, Washington Avenue from 6th through 17th
Streets, Collins Avenue from 6th through 17th Streets, and on any portion of
Lincoln Road). The City Code defines high-impact periods as "those periods of
time as annually designated by the City Manager during which one of the
following occur:
(i) There is a designated major event period;
(ii) A maintenance or traffic plan is required;
(iii) Hotel occupancy levels are anticipated to be greater than 75
percent;
47
(iv) Mutual aid or other assistance from outside agencies is
required to provide for the safety and well-being of residents
and visitors to the destination; and
(v) An event on public property is anticipated to result in more
than 25,000 visitors to the destination.
ln addition to the above prohibition, Section 46-92(9) also bans the
distribution of commercial handbills within 20 feet from the outside perimeter of
any approved sidewalk caf6, on any right-of-way within the approved sidewalk
caf6, and on any City beach east of the dunes.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
A. Proposed Amendmentto Section 74-1
The proposed amendment to Section 74-1 prohibits commercial
solicitation along the public right-of-way only within the following areas:
(1) The area bounded on the north by, but not including, 17th
Street, bounded on the east by, but not including,
Washington Avenue, bounded on the south by Lincoln
Lane, and bounded on the west by Alton Road;
(2) Ocean Drive from 5th to 15th Streets;
(3) Collins Avenue from 5th to 1Sth Streets;
(4) Washington Avenue from 5th to Lincoln Road;
(5) All cross streets and bystreets bounded on the north
by 1Sth Street, bounded on the east by Ocean Drive,
bounded on the south by Sth Street, and bounded on
the west by Washington Ave;
(6) Espaflola Way from Pennsylvania Avenue to Collins
Avenue; and
(7) Lummus Park.
As in the current version of Section 74-1, the prohibitions on commercial
solicitation in the proposed amendment would apply at all times.
Additionally, the proposed amendment eases the enforcement of the city's
regulation of commercial solicitation by clarifying the prohibitions on commercial
48
solicitation by setting forth restrictions based upon designated locations for the
purpose of soliciting him or her to purchase any good, service, food, or beverage.
The government interests supporting these proposed amendments
include: (1) protecting the historic character of these districts, the City's economic
engine; (2) developing the high-end retail and high-end sidewalk caf6
promenades in the district; (3) promoting luxury tourism; (4) minimizing
harassment of pedestrians along the public right-of-way; (5) minimizing
congestion; (6) reducing Iitter; (7\ improving the aesthetic experience for
residents and visitors; (8) protecting the right of pedestrians to be let alone in
their quiet enjoyment of these districts; (9) maintaining the unique ambiance the
city has created in these sectors; and (10) the expansion of other areas where
commercial solicitation is allowed within the city.
B. Proposed Amendment to Section 46-92(q)
The proposed amendment to Section a6-92(g) seeks to prohibit the
distribution of commercial handbills within the following areas:
(1) The area bounded on the north by, but not including, 17th
Street, bounded on the east by, but not including,
Washington Avenue, bounded on the south by Lincoln
Lane, and bounded on the west by Alton Road;
(2) Ocean Drive from 5th to 15th Streets;
(3) Collins Avenue from 5th to 1Sth Streets;
(4) Washington Avenue from Sth to Lincoln Road;
(5) All cross streets and bystreets bounded on the north
by 15th Street, bounded on the east by Ocean Drive,
bounded on the south by Sth Street, and bounded on
the west by Washington Ave;
(6) Espafrola Way from Pennsylvania Avenue to Collins
Avenue; and
(7) Lummus Park.
As in the current version of Section 46-92(9), the ban on the distribution of
commercial handbills within 20 feet from the outside perimeter of any approved
sidewalk caf6, on any right-of-way within the approved sidewalk caf6, and on any
City beach east of the dunes would remain in force throughout the City.
49
The government interests supporting these proposed amendments
include: (1) protecting the historic character of these districts, the City's economic
engine; (2) developing the high-end retail and high-end sidewalk caf6
promenades in the district; (3) promoting luxury tourism; (4) minimizing
harassment of pedestrians along the public right-of-way; (5) minimizing
congestion; (6) reducing litter; (7) improving the aesthetic experience for
residents and visitors; (8) protecting the right of pedestrians to be let alone in
their quiet enjoyment of these districts; (9) maintaining the unique ambiance the
city has created in these sectors; and (10) the expansion of other areas where
commercial solicitation is allowed within the city.
ANALYSIS
A. Historv of Art Deco District.
Miami Beach's Art Deco District ("the District") is the first 20th-century
neighborhood to be recognized by the National Register of Historic Places. Prior
to its historic preservation, this acclaimed sector was a working-class district on a
downward spiral. The District was plagued with drug use and crime. Physical
decay was rampant. ln the 1970's, many of the buildings and structures in the
District were slated for demolition. The desire to save many of these small hotels
promoted a widespread interest in preserving the area and eventually made
Ocean Drive a fashionable address. Now a focal point of revitalization and
redevelopment, Miami Beach's renowned Art Deco District is both a national
treasure and an international attraction. Miami Beach was recently named one of
the "Great American Public Places" and the "Hottest Destination in the World."
ln addition to the architectural beauty of the Art Deco District, its unique
ambiance, and its importance for tourism, the single most important other feature
of the area is its sidewalk cafes. The numerous sidewalk cafes on Ocean Drive
and throughout the Art Deco District facilitated the area's popularity and ensure
its continued success. ln a 1996 survey conducted by the Greater Miami
Convention and Visitors Bureau, visitors to Greater Miami were asked what
features they liked most about the region. Given the wide range of amenities and
attractions in Greater Miami, Ocean Drive restaurants and cafes were remarkably
selected by almost twenty percent (2Oo/o) of the visitors.
The importance of the Art Deco District and its cafes is also evidenced by
the increase in Resort Tax for Miami Beach and the South Beach District. The
Art Deco district and South Beach were the top tourist attractions in Miami-Dade
County in 2013, visited by nearly 43.6% of its 14.2 million visitors. Resort Tax
sales are room, alcohol, and food sales collected by establishments in Miami
Beach. Resort Tax sales for Miami Beach have increased from a negligible
amount in 1989 to $59,613,31 1 in fiscal year 2012-2013. Resort taxes accounted
for 16% (FY 11112) and 17o/o (FY 12113) of Revenues for City in Government
Activities. The District has become the City's economic life blood.
50
The District can be divided into three major neighborhood types based on
function and use - the seasonal hotel area, the commercial areas and the
residential area. Architecturally, these zones are easily recognizable and
coincide with the long-established street configuration. The seasonal hotel area
is concentrated along Ocean Drive from 5th Street to 15th Street and along Collins
Avenue from 6th Street to 23'd Street. A secondary concentration of such hotels
is located in the Collins Park/James Avenue area north of Lincoln Road and east
of Washington Avenue. The commercial areas are largely restricted to two
streets which traverse the District from north to south (Washington Avenue) and
east to west (Lincoln Road). The residential area which surrounds Flamingo
Park includes both multi-family and single family buildings.
This approximately 125 square block area contains the largest
concentration of 1920s and 1930s era resort architecture in the United States.
Dozens of grand, Mediterranean Revival style hotels were built during the 1920s.
ln the early 1930s the City was being promoted and developed as a tropical
playground. lt is during this phase that a new building boom began, and would
last until the beginning of World War ll. The vast majority of the over 800
buildings constructed in the 1930s were designed in the Moderne (Art Deco and
Streamline) style of architecture. These apartment houses and commercial
buildings were built by only a few architects working for a small number of
developers, resulting in a uniformity of scale, architectural style and extraordinary
architectural compatibility, and giving the district an extremely cohesive
character. ln 1979, the Miami Beach Architectural District was listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. This act set a historic precedent because it
marked the first recognition of a 20th Century district.
Today, the Art Deco district of Miami Beach is one of America's most
famous neighborhoods. lts Art Deco architecture has formed the backdrop to
many fashion shoots, movies, television shows, and music videos. Benefiting
from its unique geography and history, the preservation of Miami Beach has had
a significant regional economic impact.
ln May of 1979, thanks in large part to the efforts of the Miami Design
Preservation League, the Miami Beach Architectural District was listed on the
National Register of Historic Places. ln addition to marking the first time that a
20th Century district obtained this designation, this event was also significant
because many of the buildings in the district were not over 50 years old, which
until that time was considered necessary for inclusion in the Register.
Since its addition to National Register of Historic Places, the City has
heavily regulated the District to protect its unique aesthetics and ambiance.
Specifically, the City precludes all commercial solicitation (except the sidewalk
cafe tables) from the streets and sidewalks in the District and the buildings and
cafes are subject to an extensive design review process for all physical
51
structures and fixtures associated with them. Moreover, the City recently added
even stricter criteria to the regulations which govern the sidewalk cafes. The City
is committed to maintaining the District's historic significance and aesthetic
beauty and ensuring its continued success.
Between 1986 and 1992 the City filled in the boundaries of the National
Register Historic District with four locally designated historic districts. These
locally designated historic districts include the Ocean Drive/Collins Avenue
Historic District, Espanola Way Historic District, Flamingo Park Historic District,
and the Museum Historic District.
Three of the four locally designated historic districts are made up of
portions of major commercial streets that are included in the area regulated by
the amendments proposed today:
Ocean Drive
Ocean Drive is the cultural and economic backbone of the City's tourism
industry. The sidewalk cafes on Ocean Drive between Fifth and Fifteenth Streets
have become the economic lifeblood of the City. ln a 1996 study, almost twenty
percent of the tourists to the Greater Miami area listed the cafe district as their
favorite area attraction. lndeed, the architecture, colors, and style of Ocean
Drive and the Art Deco District have come to symbolize the entire City.
Lincoln Road
!n 1914, a year before the "Town of Miami Beach" was incorporated,
Lincoln Road was conceived of and built by Carl Fisher (developer of the
lndianapolis Speedway) to command the attention of America's industrial and
social elite. Lincoln Road was destined to become "The Fifth Avenue of the
South". Fisher, who was often referred to as "the Father of Miami Beach",
specifically intended for the road to be the "high end" retail hinge of Miami Beach.
Fisher's vision gave exceptional urbane credibility to the otherwise small and
fledgling seaside resort community built on a sandbar. It not only brought visitors
seeking the warmth of the tropical sun but also wealthy new residents
accustomed to the amenity of fine shopping and high profile promenading.
Time and history have proven that the urban success of Lincoln Road is
highly dependent upon creating and maintaining a critical balance of energizing
uses - retail, outdoor cafes, fine dining, cultural amenity, and joyful promenading
along a tree shaded corridors, in tandem with exceptional adaptive reuse and
restoration of historic structures simultaneous with the creation of brilliant new
design at a world class leve!. lf any one of these decisive factors is undervalued
or undermined the Road could once again slip back into commercial and cultural
decline as witnessed in the 1950s and the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s.
52
Washinqton Avenue
Washington Avenue has historically served as one of the primary
commercial streets in our city. lt has contained a mix of retail stores, restaurants,
hotels and sidewalk cafes.
Washington Avenue contains a one mile corridor from 5th Street to Lincoln
Road, comprising thirteen blocks and containing 98 Historic Properties.
Washington Avenue landmarks include Old City Hall, the historic United States
Post Office, the Blackstone Hotel, Feinberg-Fisher Elementary School, the
Wolfsonian-FlU Museum of Art, and the historic Espanola Way district.
Gollins Avenue
Collins Avenue region from 5th Street to 17th Street is one of the two
major commercial thoroughfares in the Ocean Drive/Collins Avenue Historic
District. This geographic region contains a concentration of hotels that house a
significant percentage of the city's tourists, and a large number of historically
relevant hotels and other structures.
Espanola Wav
Espanola Way sits on land which formed the northern boundary of Ocean
Beach; the first recorded plat in what was to become Miami Beach, as recorded
by the pioneer Lummus Brothers'Ocean Beach Realty Company in 1912. The
street was built by Francis F. Whitman in 1922 as "Whitman's Spanish Colony."
The undeveloped land consisting of 20 corner lots and 40 inside lots was
purchased by N.B.T. Roney and the Spanish Village Corporation in 1925 at the
peak of the first great Florida land boom. Roney, one of the most prolific builders
in early Miami Beach envisioned creating an artists' colony ... "where artists and
lovers of the artistic might congregate amid congenial surroundings." The idea of
such a bohemian village was first suggested to Mr. Roney by former New
Yorkers who mentioned that Miami Beach lacked an area with a creative
atmosphere for artists as one would find in New York's Greenwich Village, or the
artists' quarter in Paris.
B. Commercial Solicitation Threatens the Historic Districts.
Commercial solicitation of pedestrians along Ocean Drive, Lincoln Road,
Washington Avenue, Collins Avenue, and Espaflola Way causes increased
pedestrian congestion and harassment of the tourists and residents who frequent
these historically significant and popular tourist destinations. Commercial
solicitation has been a problem for the City for some time, as reflected by
numerous complaints from residents, businesses, and visitors, as well as the
observations of City officials, regarding the harassment and accosting of
53
pedestrians arising from commercial solicitation activities.
As an internationally famous tourist destination, the visual blight caused by
commercial solicitation harms the City's goal of promoting tourism and continuing
to be an internationally renowned tourist destination. Commercial solicitation
along these historically significant and popular areas reduces pedestrians'
enjoyment of these areas and impedes the City's vision of these areas as
pleasant and tranquil promenades. Both the aesthetics and special ambiance of
these districts are being adversely affected by commercial solicitation along the
streets and sidewalks.
C. Commercial Handbill Distribution Threatens the Historic
Districts.
The distribution of commercial handbills along Ocean Drive, Lincoln Road,
Washington Avenue, Collins Avenue, and Espafrola Way causes increased
pedestrian congestion and harassment of the tourists and residents who frequent
these historically significant and popular tourist destinations. The proliferation of
commercial solicitation, including solicitation through the distribution of
commercial handbills, is a burgeoning problem for the City, as reflected by
numerous complaints from residents, businesses, and visitors, as well as the
observations of City officials, regarding the harassment and accosting of
pedestrians arising from these activities.
As an internationally famous tourist destination, the visual blight caused by
the handbills that end up as litter harms the City's goal of promoting tourism and
continuing to be an internationally renowned tourist destination. The distribution
of commercial handbills along these historically significant and popular areas
reduces pedestrians' enjoyment of these areas and impedes the City's vision of
these areas as pleasant and tranquil promenades.
D. Evidence Gonsidered in Support of the Amendments.
The City has received numerous complaints from business owners and
managers regarding the proliferation of commercial solicitation activities and
commercial handbilling within the regulated areas. Although the experiences of
these business owners and managers vary, they include, but are not limited to,
the following observations:
. Employees of several retail stores and restaurants along Lincoln Road
actively solicit pedestrians on the public right-of-way by approaching
them in an aggressive manner, including by touching a potential
customers' hair or body, questioning pedestrians insistently, and
continuing to speak with and walk along pedestrians who ask to be left
alone.
I
54
. Commercial solicitation has damaged the reputation of Lincoln Road,
creating a "honky tonk" atmosphere.
. On at least one occasion, a pedestrian was "cursed out" when said
pedestrian refused to go along with a sales pitch from a solicitor.
. On another occasion, a pedestrian verbally objected to the solicitor's
unwanted advances, and the solicitor followed her to her car in an
attempt to intimidate her and possibly cause her harm.
. Employees of stores engaging in commercial solicitation are scaring
customers, tourists, and pedestrians away from entering nearby
businesses.
o Customers often complain about their anger, annoyance, and
discomfort resulting from the exposure to commercial solicitation
tactics.
o Often, pedestrians will avoid the entire side of the street where the
commercial solicitation activities are taking place, or will quickly walk
past these areas in order to avoid the harassment.
. Employees of neighboring retail and food establishments avoid the
areas where commercial solicitation takes place, and are forced to take
alternate routes to get to work, in order to avoid the harassing conduct
of commercial solicitors.
. City staff reports that several businesses conducting commercial
solicitation along Lincoln Road have appropriated the public right-of-
way by marking their "territory" with black tape on the sidewalk,
impeding pedestrians from walking through the "box."
o While the box discourages pedestrians from walking through the
illegally appropriated space, the commercial solicitors do not confine
themselves to the box, instead chasing pedestrians down the street.
In addition to complaints of business owners and managers, the
Administration has also received numerous complaints from residents and
visitors. These include email accounts of not being able to walk along Lincoln
Road without fear of being hassled and/or harassed, as well as descriptions of
rude behavior and comments when a pedestrian chooses to avoid the
commercial solicitation activities.
10
55
E. Alternative Solutions for Consideration.
The Administration has considered several alternatives with a view
towards resolving the problems of commercial solicitation. One of these
alternatives involves the creation of free speech "bubbles," which would
essentially require that any commercial solicitation activities take place beyond a
minimum threshold distance surrounding a pedestrian. This alternative has been
discussed and, ultimately, rejected due to the difficulties that arise in connection
with the enforcement of buffer zones in the hightraffic pedestrian areas where
solicitation is a problem.
A second alternative is to create commercial solicitation "boxes" or
"zones," in which commercial solicitation would be allowed with little or no
limitation. The Administration considered several such areas, including: (1) the
intersection of Lincoln Road and Washington Avenue; (2) the intersection of
Ocean Drive and Fifth Street; and (3) the intersection of Ocean Drive and Tenth
Street.
Several unacceptable enforcement and administrative challenges arise in
connection with this alternative. First, this alternative does not address many of
the legitimate concerns raised above because it still would create a bazaar
atmosphere. Also, it is difficult to determine the geographic limitations of these
zones, as well as the extent of the limitations on speech, if any, on commercial
soliciting within these zones. Second, commercial speech zones would create
enforcement challenges, as it would be difficult to define the boundaries of the
zone itself, and, in addition, there would likely be some spillover effect outside of
the zone and into the surrounding bystreets and side streets.
As a third alternative, the Administration considered limiting the application
of the commercial solicitation ban to aggressive solicitation. As with the other
alternatives, this limitation poses several important enforcement problems. First,
it is more difficult than restrictions or limitations based on location to enforce.
Similarly, training Code enforcement officers to recognize whether particular
conduct is in fact aggressive, and thus subject to a violation, would also be more
costly and difficult. ln addition, limiting the ban to aggressive solicitation would
not help to resolve the more prevalent problem of commercial solicitation along
the City's rights-of-way. Accordingly, the Administration does not recommend
adopting this alternative.
F. AvailabiliW of Alternative Channels of Communication.
The Administration has carefully considered alternative channels that
commercial entities have to convey their commercial messages other than direct
solicitation and handbilling in the historic districts under consideration. Various
alternatives do exist:
ll
56
1.The regulated area is small. lt comprises only short
stretches of six streets within the City's historic districts.
The vast majority of the City is available for commercial
solicitation and handbilling.
Within the regulated zone, commercial businesses may
convey their commercial messages on lighted billboard type
signs that are leased for that purpose.
Commercial businesses may convey their message, subject
to lavuful restrictions of type and size, on signage on their
building and in their windows.
Subject to lawful restrictions on number, spacing, and
volume, messages may be conveyed with a permit within
the regulated area by incorporating them into a
performance such as a song.
The City permits newsstands (subject to laMul regulation)
within the regulated area. Commercial entities are free to
purchase advertising space within newspapers of all kinds
from publishers that have a permit to place a newsstand
on City Streets (or to seek a permit to place a newsstand for
a newspaper published by the commercial entity).
The Internet is widely available within the regulated area,
including via City provided free Wi-Fi coverage. Location
services on the Internet such as Yelp, AroundMe, and
Facebook allow businesses to communicate to the public
within the regulated area the location of the business,
information about the business, and consumer reviews of
the commercial entities within the regulated area.
Commercial entities are free to communicate their
message to consumers who want it via this medium.
Most businesses within the regulated area are permitted to
place a single video monitor within their window in order to
communicate with the public regarding the services offered
inside.
Advertising on the local television and radio stations is
readily available.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
t2
57
G. Failure of Current Regulatory Regime and Likelihood that
Proposed Regulations Wil! Successfully Address the
Continuino Ghallenqes.
The current regulatory scheme for commercial solicitation and handbilling
within the City has proven ineffective. lt requires an economically infeasible
investment of staff and enforcement resources. Additionally, as tourism and
commercial revenue within the regulated area increases exponentially, the
problems associated with commercial solicitation and the litter and environmental
harm associated with commercial handbilling are correspondingly multiplied.
The Administration concludes that the limited prohibition of commercial
solicitation within the historic districts regulated here (as opposed to the entire
city) will allow city code enforcement officers and police officers to more
effectively regulate commercial solicitation in these historically sensitive areas.
Additionally, the prohibition on commercial handbilling within the regulated
historic districts will more effectively address the economic, aesthetic and
environmental problems created by the distribution of commercial flyers in this
culturally sensitive area.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
ln accordance with Charter section 5.02, which requires that the "City of
Miami Beach shall consider the long-term economic impact (at least 5 years) of
proposed legislative actions," this shall confirm that the City Administration
evaluated the long-term economic impact (at least 5 years) of this proposed
legislative action, and determined that there will be no measureable impact on
the City's budget.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the
proposed ordinance on Second Reading.
JM/rfr
13
58
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 46 OF
THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ENTITLED
"ENVIRONMENT," BY AMENDING ARTICLE III, ENTITLED
.OLITTER,'' BY AMENDING DIVISION 1, ENTITLED O'GENERALLY,''
BY AMENDING SECTION 46-92(a), ENTITLED "DEFINITIONS,' BY
ADDING A DEFINITION FOR THE TERM "RIGHT.OF-WAY,' BY
AMENDING SECTION 46-92(9), ENTITLED "PROHIBITION ON
COMMERCIAL HANDBILL DISTRIBUTION,'' BY AMENDING THE
REGULATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF
COMMERCIAL HANDBILLS; PROVIDING FOR REPEALER,
SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Washington Avenue from 5th Street to Lincoln Road ("Washington
Avenue"); Ocean Drive from 5th Street to 15th Street ("Ocean Drive"); the area bounded on the
north by, but not including, 17th Street, bounded on the east by, but not including, Washington
Avenue, bounded on the south by Lincoln Lane, and bounded on the west by Alton Road
("Lincoln Road Area"); the area bounded on the north by 15th Street, bounded on the east by
Ocean Drive, bounded on the south by 5th Street, and bounded on the west by Washington
Avenue ("Collins Avenue Area"); Espaflola Way from Pennsylvania Avenue to Collins Avenue
("Espaflola Way"); and Lummus Park, are located within or adjacent to unique historic districts
in the City of Miami Beach ("City") and are nationally and intemationally popular tourist
destinations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach and, in particular, the Lincoln Road Area,
Espaflola Way, Lummus Park, Ocean Drive, Washington Avenue, and the Collins Avenue Area,
are located in the "South Beach" area, which attracts a reported 6.8 million tourists from around
the world annually and is host to a myriad of major events, such as Art Basel - Miami Beach,
The Food Network South Beach Wine & Food Festival, the Miami International Boat Show,
White Party, Winter Party, Winter Music Conference, Miami Marathon, Art Deco Weekend,
South Beach Comedy Festival, Mercedes Benz Swimwear Fashion Week, among others, that
attract local, national, and intemational visitors; and
WHEREAS, situated within the Lincoln Road and Collins Avenue Areas, and along
Ocean Drive, Washington Avenue, Lummus Park, and Espaflola Way are a multitude of retail,
dining, and entertainment venues that include restaurants, sidewalk cafes, nightclubs, the Miami
Beach Convention Center, the Fillmore at the Jackie Gleason Theater, the New World
Symphony, City parks, and retail stores, all of which are heavily trafficked by residents, visitors,
and tourists who desire to visit, shop, dine, and attend cultural performances, or to simply stroll
along these areas without any disruption and intimidation; and
WHEREAS, the distribution of commercial handbills on these heavily traveled
pedestrian areas causes increased pedestrian congestion, harassment ofthe tourists and residents
who traverse these historic areas, and increases litter on sidewalks, streets, and in sidewalk caf6
59
areas; and
WHEREAS, the litter on public property caused by persons distributing commercial
handbills has been a problem in the City of Miami Beach for many years and has been the
subject of City Commission discussions; and
WHEREAS, the harassing and excessive commercial handbill distribution in or on
Washington Avenue, Ocean Drive, the Collins Avenue Area, the Lincoln Road Area, Espaflola
Way, and Lummus Park has resulted in significant complaints to the City, and to local business
owners, from residents and tourists who seek a pleasant strolling and sightseeing experience and
is an invasion of the privacy of pedestrians and a detrimental nuisance which adversely impacts
the City's tourist industry; and
WHEREAS, the harassing and excessive commercial handbill distribution on the public
rights-of-way that are adjacent to and within sidewalk cafe areas is also a detrimental nuisance
which invades the privacy of cafe diners and adversely impacts the City's interests in preserving
its aesthetic ambience, tourist industry, and image as a beautiful and enjoyable beachfront
destination; and
WHEREAS, the businesses that engage in commercial solicitation activities through the
distribution of handbills disrupt the activities of the surrounding outdoor cafes, restaurants,
nightclubs, retail establishments, and entertainment venues, by physically approaching,
harassing, and intimidating residents, visitors, and tourists in places where it is difficult to
exercise the right to decline to listen to them or avoid their requests; and
WHEREAS, the commercial solicitation activities engaged in by some businesses
dissuade residents, visitors, and tourists from traversing the aforementioned areas, resulting in a
disruption of business to the surrounding outdoor cafes, restaurants, nightclubs, retail
establishments, and entertainment venues; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes that commercial speech, including speech disseminated
through commercial handbills, is entitled to First Amendment protection and its regulation must
be content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve significant government interests while leaving
open altemative channels of communication; and
WHEREAS, the City has significant governmental interests in protecting the character of
its historic districts, developing high-end retail and high-end promenades within its historic and
entertainment districts, promoting luxury tourism, minimizing the harassment of pedestrians
along the public right-of-way, minimizing congestion, reducing litter, and improving the
aesthetic experience for residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, it would serve the aforementioned govemmental interests for the City
Commission to enact an Ordinance increasing the City's ability to enforce its litter regulations by
prohibiting the distribution of commercial handbills in and along Washington Avenue, Ocean
Drive, the Collins Avenue Area, the Lincoln Road Area, Espaflola Way, and Lummus Park.
60
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That Division 1 of Article III of Chapter 46 of the Code of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida is hereby amended as follows:
Chapter 46
ENVIRONMENT
ARTICLE III. LITTER
DIVISION 1. GENERALLY
Sec. 46-92. Litter; definitions; prohibitions on litter; penalties for litter and commercial
handbill violations; commercial handbill regulations, fines, and rebuttable presumptions;
seizure and removal of litter by the city; enforcementl appeals; liens.
(a) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning:
(3) Handbil/ means any handbill, flyer, paper, document, dodger, circular, folder,
booklet, letter, card, pamphlet, sheet, poster, sticker, banner, notice or other written,
printed or painted matter or object that conveys any information, except that "handbill"
shall not include a newspaper or its contents.
(4) Commercial handbill means any handbill that conveys any information about any
good or service provided by a business.
*rf*
(8) fiiltfrt-rly'yray means and includes. but is not lirnitecl to. an.v* state. county. or citl'-
ownedgublic s_treet. sideu'alk. stre_e_t corner. curb" bic. )'cle path. or pedcstrian rv?lklvay'.
*{<rF
(g) Prohibitions on commercial handbill distribution.
(.1) 1{i,rloric,4rerz,y. It shall be unlawlul lbr any persr:rn to distribute commercial handbills
on the.:right.9_t-E-.ay in any of the.fo_llorving areas..i.n.the City of lr'liami []each:
a. 'fhe area houndecl on the north b.v-. but not including. 17th Street. bounded
on the east by. but not includirrg. Washinqton Avenule. bouncled on the
south by Lincoln Lane, and bounded on the west by Alton Road;
61
b. Ocean Drive liorn 5th to 15th Streets;
c. Ciollins Avenue frorn 5th to 15th Streets;
d- _Washington Avenue from 5th to_ Irincoln R.o_ad;
e. __ All cross streets and h.vstreets bouncled en the north by I5th Street.
bounded on the east b), Ocean Drive. bounded on the south by 5th Street.
and bounded on the r.vest b.v Washington Avel
f. Espafiola Way fiom llenns-v*lvania Avenue to Collins Avenue: and
g. Lurnmus Park.
'l'he_ prohibitions inlhis sqbsec_ti_cr_n (g) shall appl-v- to the distribution _oJ celnryercial
handbills on an-v* riqht-of.r.vay. including.but not limited to an), doorway. stairrvay. rvindorv or
other orrening ol a buildinq abutting on or adjacent to surch right-of-rvay-. All righl.s-ol'-way
identified as prohibited areas shall include the entire rvidth of the righrof'-way" includinq all
sidervalks.
flJ ntfn;r;orts, fUe l
@
I+egister l,list in
*epcndix--A
A-
eity rnanager during wl*eh sne sr *r+ore of the folle*'i*rg oeeur:
@i@
(iii) l{stel oeeupane,v levels are an,tieipateel te be gre*ter them 75
pereene
(iv) Il4utual *ider-othe- assistanee &srr+-strtside ageneies isreqt*ired te
des+ination;-**
@lon'
e, *rtlrr-r#wry me*ns and-ineltreles; bt* is *ot-{i+r+ited to; a+r.v state; eotrnty=
or eit), swned putrlie street, slelewalk; street eomer, eurb; bieyele patl-r; er
62
r+et$e.di**{buted+ d€lperieds-trr+Oeean
(?3) Sidewalk cafes. Commercial handbills shall not be distributed on the right-of-way:
a. Within 20 feet in any direction from the outside perimeter of any approved
sidewalk cafe (as indicated in the approved site plan attached to the city-issued
permit); and
b. On any right-of-way within the approved sidewalk cafe.
Q1) Beaches. Commercial handbills shall not be distributed on any city beach east of
the dunes.
*,trk
SECTION 2. CODIFICATION
It is the intention of the Mayor and the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, and
it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made apart of the
Code of the City of Miami Beach, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or
re-lettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section,"
"article," or other appropriate word.
SECTION 3. REPEALER
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith be and the same are hereby
repealed.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the
remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity.
63
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE
PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of _,2014.
This Ordinance shall take effect on the _ day of _,2074.
ATTEST:
Philip Levine, Mayor
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
Underscore denotes additions
St+ike+n+eugh d e notes de I eti o n
(Sponsored by Mayor Philip Levine)
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
t,\- qlfilb
-
)Yt.t Dote
64
E Fp$EE€; ;t ff- tsEE I: :f EB i;Eie€I ;; +: ,p: a if€ E5EESEE F: "6€s tTs=E lC i.E ?E
EiEiEEiEIEiiEEiEEiEiEi!EIiEEEEgEEEEiEEi +E*;aES*
,' ;EEE E:t+ E} =-H ;C 9B;.EE9$ !E E€ iE ir c;rqr;:s iE !E$ ;aEB Ef ;En a; iq$sEnE E: i3 Bs, i
E E;:;g;Bs iE EEi iE;i ti iEE igH EiEE$ii iE EE=EEi €
HHEEEiiEEEEiiiliEEEiigiEiEiFEiEiiiEEig;EiEiE
3I:i ;;ElEfiE E* Eflf iisi sE FEi ?*i E}EEiEg iE iiisiise
=
d ii t;;;ct;i i€ ;;E ESEE EE ;Es lii lEgEiii gi iF; ii€:F
E E gi HiscEiEA {s :EE ifiE Ei ?Ei EsE :is6€EE E: F;EiEi 5;
=g iE E;EiEEiE E€ Eit EE?EE Ei igE iFi ifEFEiE iE Eiiii€;j
i, iiiiiiEE iE EEi EiiE$ iE ifE EEi
gifEEii
Ei EIEiEEEi' EE :iE*I**E
tE iil t:aig$ uEi= iEE ,€$' *€IEEEiE,EtuiEEiEiEi
il+ ii iiEiiEEg iEu iEE EiEiEi iiii,iEE giai
EEieiEEiiEIiEEg;EE Iilil gi uesEE$iE5 s€is E€lF ,!;;eEc sgEis gs€EE
'fEi€
*Effr3EEis EEE Ei} 3Fi sE $
(l
(
ll
oi
41u1
=l
:.
E:
E,
Ei
E:.!i:i
ol
@
d
6:u
oizl
oi
d:
f:I.
-l
l{lZlo:
{
65
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
66