Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-01-0971J-01-873 9/17/01 0 40 RESOLUTION NO. =9 "7 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION AND ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY FLAGSTONE PROPERTIES, LLC ("PROPOSER"), FOR THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT OF A MEGA YACHT MARINA AND MARINE FACILITIES THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE VESSELS EIGHTY (80) FEET AND LARGER, A FISH MARKET, HOTELS WITI_ TIMESHARE UNITS, CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES INCLUIrING A MARITIME MUSEUM AND PUBLIC GARDENS, RESTAURANTS, RETAIL, AND SUPPORT FACILITIES SUCH AS OFFICE AND PARKING ON APPROXIMATELY 10.8 ACRES OF CITY --OWNED WATERFRONT PROPERTY LOCATED ON WATSON ISLAND AND 13.4 ACRES OF ADJACENT SUBMERGED LAND; AUTHORIZING AND DIREC'T'ING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A LEASE AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH SAID PROPOSER, TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY CHARTER AND CODE PROVISIONS, SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION AND TO INCLUDE CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; FURTHER PROVIDING THAT THE HEREIN SELECTION OF THE SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER DOES NOT CUNFEk ANY CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS UPON SAID PROPOSER UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN A FAVORABLE VOTE BY THE ELECTORATE AS REQUIRED BY CITY CHARTER SECTION 29-C AND THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI; FURTHER PROVIDING THAT IN THE EVENT AN AGREEMENT WHICH IS FAIR AND REASONABLE TO THE CITY CANNOT BE REACHED, THE CITY MANAGER MAY DISCONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS AND THE SELECTION PROCESS SHALL TERMINATE WI`1'HOUT FINANCIAL OR LEGAL LIABILITY TO THE CITY. tD i 9'71. 0 WHEREAS, the City Charter and Code provide for Unified Development Projects ("UDPs") for improvements to real property owned or to be acquired by the City, such UDPs to seek an integrated package of planning, design, construction, leasing and management Fervices from the private sector; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 00-1081, adopted December 14, 2000, the City Commission authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals ("RFP") on February 1, 2001, for the development of a marina and marine facilities that will accommodate vessels eighty (80) feet and larger, recreational, entertainment, educational and/or cultural facilities, an entertainment destination, convention and/or conferencing facilities, hotr-1 aid ancillary uses such as office and parking on Watson island, as previously designated UDP; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, pursuant to Motion No. 01-435, adopted at a public hearing on May 10, 2001, amended the RFP to include the development of a fish market as a required use on Watson Island; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. 00-1081 and 01-503, duly appointed members to a Review Committee, as recommended by the City Manager, to evaluate proposals received in response to the RFP; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. 00-1081 and 01-504, selected the Certified Public Page 2 of 6 01- 971 Accounting ("CPA") firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, working in conjunction with Grau & Company, P.A., to evaluate proposal submissions; and WHEREAS, the City received three proposals on July 16, 2001, in response to the RFP; and WHEREAS, said CPA firm analyzed the proposals based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP and rendered a written report to the City Manager; and WHEREAS, the Review Committee evaluated the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP and rendered a written report to the City Manager of its findings; and WHEREAS, the City Manager, taking into consideration the reports of the CPA firm and the Review Committee, recommends the acceptance of the proposal submitted by the Proposer; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has transmitted to the City Commission his recommendation and has included written reports from the aforementioned CPA firm and Review Committee; and WHEREAS, the above actions and procedures have been pe•rf.ormed in accordance with applicable City Charter and Code provisions, particularly those pertaining to UDPs as delineated in Charter Section 29--A(c) and City Code Section 18-87. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF' MIAMI, FLORIDA: Page 3 of 6 Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. The City Manager's recommendation is approved and the proposal submitted by Flagstone Properties, LLC, is accepted for the unified development of a mega yacht marina and marine facilities that will accommodate vessels eighty (80) feet and larger, a fish market, hotels with Timeshare units, cultural and educational facilities including a maritime museum and public gardens, restaurants, retail, and support facilities such as office and parking on approximately 10.8 acres of City -owned waterfront property located on Watson Island and 13.4 acres of adjacent submerged land. Section 3. The City Manager is authorized -1 and directed to negotiate a lease agreement-, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, with said Proposer, to be in compliance with applicable City Charter. and Code provisions, subject to final approval of r_`ie 17ity Commission and to include, without limitation, the following provisions: (a) The term of the lease shall not exceed 45 years with two 15 -year renewal options. 1� The herein authorization is further subject to compliance with all requirements that may be imposed by the City Attorney, including but not limited to those prescribed by applicable city Charter and Code provisions. Page 4 of 6 0 (b) The successful proposer shall pay the City an amount not less than $2,000,000 as the minimum annual guaranteed base rent, which may be adjusted annually subject to Consumer Price Index increases over the lease term, and one percent - (1%) of gross receipts from all project components after three years plus 2.55k of gross receipts from fractional unit license sales. (c) The successful proposer shall be responsible to construct improvements to the property with minimum total costs of $281,000,000 as specified in its proposal and pursuant to the provisions of the RFP. Section 4. The herein selection of the Proposer, does not confer any contractual rights upon said Proposer unless and until there has been a favorable vote by the electorate as required by City Charter Section 29-C and the proposed agreement has been executed by the City of Miami. Section 5. The Proposer agrees to forgo any legal or equitable rights related to the UDF unless and until the City and the Proposer enter into a fully executed agreement for the development of Watson island as described in the UDP. Section 6. In the event that an agreement, which is fair and reasonable to the City, cannot be reached with the Proposer, the City Manager is authorized to discontinue negoci.ations and the selection process for the UDP shall terminate without financial or legal liability to the City. Page 5 of 6 01—�I Section 7. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.2' PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of September , 2001. JOE CAROI,LO, MAYOR In accordance with Miami Codt tec. 2-36, since thc:i Mayor did not indicate apj)roval of this legislation f>y si(Ining in ti -ie designated place f)rcvided, said legislation now becomes effertivo with the d afasc of ten (10) days from the dote of commission action t'agfardincc samo, vfithcuut the Mayor exercising a vote. ;I ATTEST: ; Wa3lor ;J, ,'F'ocman, CiI..y Clerk WALTER J. FOEMAN CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO DORM AND CORRECTNESS: ALy.&0RDR=1LARBLLO fy ATTORNEY W5705:BSS:ELF If. the Mayor dogs not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at the end of ten calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission. Page 6 of 6 011- 971 Ci; Y OF FLORDA INTER -OFFICE NIEMORANDUNI -- The Honorable Mayor and = September .11, 2001 Members of the City Commission Resolution Accepting Proposal for the Development of Watson Island IGGG' enez ' ` - - For Commission Meeting of Sept. 17, 2001 City Mana er - Binder RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that .the City Commission adopt the attached Resolution pertaining to the Unified Development Project for the northwest quadrant of Watson Island, more specifically, the development of a Mega Yacht Marina, Fish Market, and other defined upland uses on approximately 10.8 acres of city -owned waterfront property and 13.4 acres of submerged land, a total of 24.2 acres. After a careful review of the proposals and the reports from the Review Committee, the CPA firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, and Barry Abramson, a real estate consultant under contract with the City, each performing an independent evaluation of the three (3) proposals that were received, I am pleased to recommend that the City Commission accept the proposal submitted by Flagstone Properties, LLC. This is an important and exciting step for the City of Miami as it represents the first major development of City property in a new era of professionalism and development outreach, evidenced by the Miami Development Summit of April 2001 and by the City's participation in national industry -related conferences and marketing efforts. The recommended proposal provides for the development of the required mega -yacht marina and fish market, as well as 2 hotels, each with a small number of timeshare units, cultural facilities including a maritime museum and public gardens, restaurants, retail shops, and support facilities. The legislation would also authorize the negotiation of a lease agreement with said proposer, including particular terms and conditions listed in the resolution and subject to final approval of the City Commission. The legislation contains additional disclaimers regarding contractual rights of said proposer (not until there has been a favorable vote of the electorate, as required by City Charter and the agreement has been executed by the City), and provides for the termination of the process without financial or legal liability to the City in the event the tegotiations fail. BACKGROUND Beginning in late 1998, the Department of Real Estate and Economic Development has administered this Unified Development Project (UDP) process for the Mega Yacht Marina, Fish Market and Mixed Use Development on Watson Island. The objective of the process is to obtain from the private sector an integrated package of development services including planning, design, construction, leasing and management of proposed improvements to the specified site. 51- 971 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission • Proposal for Development of Watson Island Page 2 THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The .Request for Proposals offered 24.2 acres (10.8 acres upland and 13.4 acres submerged) primarily zoned C-1 (commercial), specifying a mega -yacht marina and a fish market as required uses. Allowed uses included recreational, entertainment, educational and/or cultural facilities, marine facilities, convention and/or conference facilities, hotel, office, retail, parking and ancillary and support facilities. Given a state -imposed deed restriction on the property, public purpose and public use were mandated to be strong and integral components of the project. The successful proposer, after approval of the proposed lease by a majority of voters at a referendum, would be permitted to negotiate a final lease and development agreement with a term of 45 years, with 2 additional 15 -year renewals. Respondents were to provide an earnest money deposit of $100,000. CHRONOLOGY This UDP process was undertaken in strict compliance with the provisions of City Charter Section 29-A(c) and City Code Section 18-87. All legally mandated public hearings were held by the City Commission as required, and additional community meetings and public workshops were held with the City's Waterfront Advisory Board. Below is synopsis of significant activity related to the project. December 9,1998 Resolution No. 98.1205 (Public Hearing) Determination of a Unified Development Project for Watson Island's Northwest Quadrant, identifying the acreage (15.58 upland and 14.08 submerged, for 29.66 total) to be included and the allowed uses: recreational, entertainment, educational and/or cultural facilities, marina and marine facilities, convention and/or conference facilities, hotel, office, retail, parking and ancillary and support facilities January1999 Solicitation of qualifications and evaluation of prospective CPA firms October 10, 2000 Staff presents a draft of the RFP at a public meeting of the Waterfront Advisory Board October 26, 2000 Resolution No. 00-931 (Public Hearing) Modification of the UDP determination to reduce acreage (from a total of 29.66 acres to 24.2) and to include "entertainment destination as an allowed use. November 16, 2000 The City Commission referred the draft RFP to the Waterfront (Public Hearing) Advisory Board for additional public input November 29, 2000 Public Workshop on the RFP with the Waterfront Advisory Board December 14, 2000 Resolution No. 00-1081 (Public Hearing) . Authorization to issue the RFP, including the directive that a mega -yacht marina be a required use. • Selection of PricewaterhouseCoopers as the CPA firm to evaluate proposals • Appointment of individuals to serve on the Review Committee February, 2001 Issuance of the RFP April 26, 2001 Motion 01-341 Recommendation for a public hearing to consider a fish market as a required use 0i 971 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission Proposal for Development of Watson Island Page 3 • May 10, 2001 Motion 01-435 (Public Nearing) Directive that a fish market be,included as a required- use May 24, 2001 Resolution No. 01-503 (Public Hearing) Appoints 2 new individuals to the Review Committee to replace others that are unable to serve Resolution No. 01-504 Authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with the CPA firm Motion No. 01-521 Extends the deadline for receipt of proposals until July 16, 2001 Motion No. 01-522 Schedules a Special City Commission Meeting for September 17, 2001 for the Commission's consideration of the City Manager's recommendation on the proposals July 18, 2001 Three (3) proposals received by the City Clerk July — August 2001 Evaluation of proposals by staff, the Review Committee, the CPA firm, and the real estate consultant September 17, 2001 Discussion of the proposals, the City Manager's recommendation (Public Hearing) and ballot language for the November referendum THE PROPOSALS Pursuant to public notice, three proposals were received by the City Clerk on July 16, 2001. Respondents were: Flagstone Properties, LLC, Swerdlow Marine Partners, LLC and Watson Island Partners, LLC. Copies of each proposal were sent to the Mayor and Commission in late July. Detail of each proposal is included in the enclosed Submission Fact Sheet, and is summarized below. Flagstone Proaerties titled its project "Island Gardens" and features, as its trademark, an extended series of formal landscaped gardens interwoven throughout the site. Mehmet Bayraktar, who has extensive real estate development experience in Turkey, is the principal of Flagstone Properties, and Sherwood Weiser of the Continental Companies, LLC, and Eric Kuhne of Eric Kuehne & Associates, architects, are board members. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc. will serve as the development manager. Other development team members include: Camper & Nicholsons Marinas, Ltd. as marinas consultant, the Continental Companies, LLC as the hotel development management, and Fairchild Tropical Gardens and the Historical Museum of South Florida as cultural affiliates. Design and other consultants are Spillis Candela DMJM, Eric Kuehne & Associates, Edward D. Stone, Jr. & Associates, Beers Construction, and David L. Plummer & Associates. The proposed mega -yacht marina provides 54 slips along 7,000 linear feet of dockage with all the support facilities and services commensurate with an upscale marina. The required fish market comprises approximately 10,600 square feet with new docks, and is located just north of the marina. Other uses include 2 hotels, restaurants, retail shops and substantial cultural amenities. The smaller "Wave Hotel", at 12 stories with 175 rooms and 50 timeshare units, would be operated by the Conrad division of Hilton Hotels, and the larger "Lighthouse Hotel", at 22 stories and about 278,000 square feet with 250 standard rooms and 50 timeshare units, would be operated by the Regent Group, Approximately 137,000 square feet of retail and 01— 971 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission • Proposal for Development of Watson Island Page 4 commercial space, 14 restaurants comprising 84,000 square feet, and_ numerous public gardens constitute the other major features. Approximately 60% of the upland acreage is accessible for public use. The public and cultural features include a 2-1/2 acre rooftop garden, a 4,000 square 4 foot maritime museum gallery, the 100 -foot wide "Palm Tree Promenade" at the waterfront, a well -programmed festival terrace, and a floating concert stage. The proposer also offers a CivicArts Endowment Trust to fund operation of the public spaces as well as a CivicArts program geared to create works of art throughout the architecture of the development. The total project cost is estimated at $281,000,000, with 40% contributed by the developer and 60% to be obtained from lenders. Return to the City is as follows: $1 million per year for construction rent; and $2 million per year as the guaranteed minimum base rent plus 1 % of gross revenue from all project components and 2.5% from the sale of timeshare licenses. Calling its proposal "Miami Yacht Harbor", Swerdlow Marine Partners is an affiliate of Swerdlow Group with over $1 billion in assets, including several large local retail developments. Principals in this project are Michael Swerdlow, Manny Alonso-Poch, Randle Koragulu, James Courbier, Darryl Sharpton and Randy Hill. Primary components include an 115,000 square foot aquarium, a 217,000 square foot "marine expo" center (incorporating 27,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space), a minimum 57 -slip mega -yacht marina and a 100 -room hotel. This proposal is unique in that Swerdlow will act as master developer and will lease each component to a qualified tenant, such as Ripley's Entertainment, Inc., a subsidiary of the Jim Pattislon Group, for the destination aquarium, the BellPort Group for the mega -yacht marina, and Marine Expo Associates, LLC for the marine trade center. The marina features 5,700 linear feet of dock and all support facilities and services required for upscale mega -yachts, including catering and concierge. It will accommodate 57 100 -foot boat slips or 72 80 -foot slips. The required.fish market is located within the Marine Expo. This marine industry exposition and trade center would be the first marine -related wholesale/retail mart and showroom in the world and would feature flexible showroom space, outdoor & in -water displays, indoor exhibition area and meeting rooms. Prospective tenants are boat yards, boat equipment and marine parts manufacturers, brokers and related marine businesses, as well as restaurants, retail shops and the fish market. The two-level aquarium will contain over 1.3 million gallons of saltwater and freshwater exhibits, a restaurant/banquet facility, classrooms, meeting rooms and gift shop. The centerpiece is a 750,000 -gallon tank surrounding an underwater moving pathway. The 100 -room hotel is seen as a support facility to the 3 main attractions. The total project cost is estimated at $135,000,000, and, while stating that the development agreement would not be conditioned upon a 3`4 party lending institution, further detail of the financing plan was not presented. Return to the City was stated as a guaranteed ---base rent of $200,000 per year for the first 3 years, escalating $20,000 per year to a peak of $340,000 in year 10, plus 20% of tenant rents paid to the master developer and a 20% parking surcharge on the 1,150 -space parking garage. The proposal of Watson Island Partners, LLC, the "Four Seasons Resort and Marina", is a joint venture of the Millennium Partners (95%) and BAP Development, Inc. (5%), developers that have several years of prior collaboration on other significant projects in the City of Miami valued at over Y2 billion dollars. Principals include Phillip Aarons, Edward Werzel, Willy Bermello, Luis Ajamil and Henry Pino. Other development team members are: Gary Handel & Associates (hotel tower architects), Bermello• Ajamil & Partners (planning, architecture, landscape architecture and engineering), AquilaCo, Inc, and Bovis Lend Lease (construction, construction 0 .1 - 9 1411 Honorable Mayor and Albers of the City Commission • Proposal for Development of Watson Island Page 5 management) and Martha Schwartz, Inca (design). The project concept portrays a destination landmark in the form of a lighthouse -like 45 -story tower housing nearly 370 resort suites, with adjacent 60,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space and a 529 -space parking garage, surrounded by a 7 -acre open space park arrayed in a spiral, shell-like pattern and leading to a 30 -slip mega -yacht marina. The proposer reports that 55% of the project site will remain accessible to the public. Once completed, operators of the facilities include the French Riviera Port Authority for the marina, and the Millennium Partners for the Four Seasons resort and for restaurant/retail. In the hotel tower, 50 of the luxury suites will be set aside for overnight stays, and the remaining 319 suites are to be sold as fractional license units on a "right to use basis" for 45 days per year. The 45th floor of the tower will house a 5 -star restaurant open to the public and affording unobstructed views of the City and surroundings. Added restaurant use is accommodated off the _resort's atrium lobby, also open to the public. Approximately 34,200 square feet of retail space will be located along the park and water's edge providing a variety of shops, cafes and specialty stores. The main, 3 -story parking garage will be shielded from view and its structure will mimic the spiral shell pattern. The 7 -acre public park will feature a spiral patchwork of individually designed landscape themes and water features, leading residents and visitors outward toward the water and the waterfront promenade. The park also offers a small public amphitheater and both permanent and traveling art exhibits. The working fish market will have an open air, upper deck raw bar and will be served by a separate, accessible surface parking lot. The total estimated project cost is $237,500,000, with 35% to be provided by Millennium and 65% to be financed by lenders. In return for the lease, the proffer to the City is a base rent of $500,000 per year with a 3.5% per year increase for first 3 construction years, I% of gross revenue from both fractional sales and restaurant/retail operations, and 1% from future disposition or refinancing proceeds. EVALUATION REPORTS The Review Committee and the CPA firm were empowered to evaluate each proposals based solely on the criteria contained in the RFP. I have examined the independent written reports of the Review Committee, the CPA firm and the real estate consultant. These documents' accompany this memorandum to the Commission. Criteria contemplated by the Review Committee were: overall plan and design of the proposed development; feasibility, management and operation of the proposed development; return to the City; and extent of MinorityNVomen participation. The CPA and real estate consultant assessed these elements: the financial viability of the proposer, including prior record and experience; the viability of the project's financial plan, sources and structure; the short and long term economic and financial return to the City; the proposals' market analysis and marketing plans, the economic feasibility of each development; each project's management plan; and the creditworthiness of project partners and principals. This evaluation was conducted in July and August, and a videotape of the presentations made by each proposer was forwarded to your offices In August. Following preliminary meetings and proposer presentations, the Review Committee was provided reports by both the CPA and the real estate consultant. Based on each member's assessment of each proposal, the Review Committee subsequently voted to recommend only the proposal of Flagstone Properties, LLC. Some additional comments accompanied that recommendation and are noted in that document, which is enclosed. J — 971 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission Proposal for Development of Watson Island Page 6 The CPA, in its report, found each proposal to be viable and .reasonable, and each respondent to be creditworthy. In reviewing the Flagstone program, the CPA suggested that the hotels be designed and targeted to different but complimentary markets to mitigate potential competition; its hotel and retaillrestaurant market projections are supportable, although appear somewhat aggressive; and that financial estimates for the various components fall within acceptable ranges, even though certain projections place near the top end (hotel average daily rates, restaurant/retail sales) and another, hotel marketing expense, sits at the low end of the range. The CPA remarked that Flagstone's operating procedures and management plan were very thorough. Overall, PWC found Swerdlow's marketing plan to be limited, but consistent with the development proposed. Likewise, its operating and management plan appears adequate. Further, because detailed market assumptions and independent support data was not included for several components, the CPA was unable to properly evaluate and verify the economics of the Swerdlow proposal. The missing independent research included attendance and rental payment estimates for the aquarium, demand features and pricing for the marine expo, and occupancy and rental rates for the marina. Regarding the proposal from Watson Island Partners, the CPA found this entity creditworthy along with the others, but stated that the affiliation of the development with the Four Seasons was an imperative to mitigate the risk embodied in the fractional unit component of the project, given its size and scale as the largest operation of its kind. Among the CPA's other assessments for this proposals were: Its marketing plan was acceptable, although limited; the resort occupancy rates appeared somewhat aggressive but its average daily rate was supportable; financial estimates for the hotel/fractional license and marina components were within acceptable ranges; and market research for the retail/restaurant component was absent, thus the CPA could not evaluate this component on its own. The real estate consultant conducted a thorough evaluation of each proposal's return to the City in the form of rent and taxes over the lease term. In his analysis, Flagstone's proposal, even at a low level of success, still offers the City greater revenue than the other two proposals. Over the course of the lease term, the present value of combined revenue from lease payments and taxes were as follows, with the range representing the consultant's interpretation of low to high operating scenarios, given assumptions and limiting conditions: Flagstone Properties — from $24,200,000 to $73,900,000; Swerdlow Marine Partners- from $8,000,000 to $26,400,000; and Watson Island Partners — from $ 12,400,000 to $38,500,000. It should be noted that these figures do not include participation rent from the sale of fractional license units for any of the proposals, so actual revenue should be higher. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION After careful consideration of all the material compiled to date, I have elected to concur with the Review Committee. Based on my own analysis of the proposals and related reports, I recommend the proposal of Flagstone Properties, LLC as that which embodies the greatest • benefit to the City and its residents. This finding is founded on several key observations, in addition to the conclusions drawn by the CPA and other reviewers. JI - 9ri1. 0 • Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission Proposal for Development of Watson Island Page 7 • The Flagstone proposal presented all project aspects in extraordinary detail, and appeared extremely well thought out, resulting in a balanced 'and integrated development program. • The selection of project elements creates an array of attractions suitable to varied demographics and income levels, thus producing an overall destination and a true regional attraction. • The project reflects an architecturally appealing blend of uniquely designed mid -scale structures (14 stories and 22 stories), numerous landscaped areas, and public gathering places aptly conveys the "new urbanism" design, and thus was found to be the most aesthetically pleasing of the proposals received. • The scale of project structures and its well-proportioned streetscape design additionally establish strong relationships between components, exemplified by its entry boulevard that is bordered by active commercial and public uses, thereby connecting both vehicles and pedestrians to activities. • The proposal offers exceptional linkages to other projects on the island, demonstrated by the sailboat pond and playground located next to Children's Museum, and by its recommendation for "Stakeholders Council", an association of island tenants and others to facilitate marketing, security & other issues of mutual concern. • "Island Gardens provides extensive cultural arts and arts -in -public places components that are directly related to the South Florida community in their affiliations and forms. • The project offers public access throughout the site, as 60% of the upland area will be accessible to the general public, and its marina piers will also be accessible during the day, unlike the other proposals. • The project's comprehensive schedule of programmed public Events further maximizes the public use of the site, particularly the promenade, gardens and floating stage. • This proposal offers strong training, education and employment opportunities to Miami residents, such as its Skills Training Center that will function during construction, and then converted to the Employment Career Center for hospitality, retail, marine and leisure management fields. • The revenue from this proposal represents a significant return to the City and will have an extremely positive effect on the City's budget. In weighing the options of this difficult decision, certain other factors came to light that seemed to strengthen the position of the f=lagstone proposal. While the uses offered in the Swerdlow proposal were attractive, exciting and public -oriented, the proposal was vague in certain critical aspects. The hotel operator appeared not to have been selected and only limited market data was presented for the aquarium and expo. Furthermore, using this municipal property to test a first-ever Marine Expo, a significant project element with no financial track record and questionable potential for success, seems to be a risky venture for the City. Regarding the proposal of Watson Island Partners, again, this development program had several appealing aspects, particularly its 7 -acre park and significant view corridors. Nevertheless, the 45 -story height of the hotel tower seemed a major aesthetic drawback, Along - the same lines, the extent of the project's financial reliance on the sale of a large number of fractional license units not only lends an exclusionary character to this publicly owned property, but provides a declining, rather than increasing, revenue stream to the City over the lease term. Lastly, as with Swerdlow's Marine Expo, a fractional unit resort of the magnitude proposed by Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission Proposal for Development of Watson Island Page 8 Watson Island Partners is another untested development, upon which this project depends as its primary revenue source. It was therefore also set aside in favor of Flagstone Properties' "Island Gardens". ACTION REQUESTED Adoption of the attached Resolution to accept the proposal is necessary so that we may proceed to place the item before the voters on the November 6, 2001 election. As mandated by Charter Section 29-A(c), should the Commission elect not to accept the City Manager's recommendation, its remaining options are to reject all proposals or to go directly to the Review Committee for a second suggestion. However, this latter option would not allow the project to go forward in time for the November 6t' election, since today's hearing (September 17, 2001) was specifically selected by the Commission as the last possible date to meet the timetable imposed under law by the Miami -Dade County Supervisor of Elections. If the electorate approves the proposal, negotiations will immediately commence with . the successful proposer for the lease agreement. If authorized, these minimum terms and conditions will be included in the lease agreement: a) The term of lease shall not exceed forty-five (45) years with two fifteen (15) year renewal options. b) The successful proposer shall pay to the City an amount not less than $2,000,000 as the minimum annual guaranteed base rent, which may be adjusted annually subject to Consumer Price Index increases over the lease term, and, 1% of gross receipts from all project components after 3 years of operation plus 2.5% of gross receipts from fractional unit license shares. C) The successful proposer shall be responsible to construct improvements to the property in an amount not less than $281,000,000 as specified in its proposal and pursuant to the provisions of the RFP. .1. - 971 CITY OF MIAMI NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF WATSON ISLAND PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing will be held by the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida at a Special City Commission Meeting on Monday, September I7ei, 2001 at 9:30 am in the City Commission Chambers at City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida, for the purpose of discussing the proposals received in response to the City's Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the Watson Island Mega Yacht Marina, Fish Market and Mixed Use Development opportunity, a Unified Development Project ("UDP") on the Northwest Quadrant of Watson Island, and for the purpose of discussing the City Manager's recommendations regarding same; finther discussing and approving appropriate ballot language regarding said issue to be a referendum placed before the voters as a special election on the November 6, 2001 ballot. All interested persons are invited to appear and may be heard concerning this Ordinance. Should any person desire to appeal any decision of the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at this hearing, that person shall ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, including all testimony and evidence upon which any appeal may be based. (City Seal) Walter J. Foeman City Clerk 5EP--12-2001 13:46 September 10, 2001 R©L��—MIAMI,INC. • RAYSIDE MARKETPLACE 0 3055770306 P.02/02 Mr. Carlos Gimenez, City Manager via. Fax: (305) 416-1419 City of Miami 444 SW 2" Avenue Miami, Fl. 33130 Dear Mr. Gimenez: The Bayside Merchants Association has over the past few years seen and welcomed the tremendous improvements and growth in downtown Miami: the American Airlines Arena, Parrot Jungle's expansion to Watson Island and the redesign of Flagler Street. Each of these projects enhances the image of the downtown area and plays an integral part in a positive positioning strategy for the City of Miami. However, the racent proposals involving additional growth on Watson Island have caused concerns amongst the merchants here at Bayside. The latest Watson Island proposal we have seen includes a significant amount of retail development. This large retail component will have a negative effect on the improved downtown infrastructure as well as the potential of the Flagler Street redevelopment. We encourage you to review this proposal and balance the benefits of the City's current positive, fbcusird-Vowth strategy versus a development that would negatively affect all of the downtown retail merchants. J+ Sincerely, ..t/� j P,9, Ramon pere2 President C-0 �� aL 4.0 C0014 ...+Glu ToI .l �, G� Qaystde Merchants AsSociston, Inr., nn mmmia of rnn Russ Gnrnminy 4Q1 Ellsoaynre Blvd., R-106, Miami, Firyida 33132-1924 Submitted Into the public record In connection with Item ._(_ _. on (ZLI Walter Foeman City Clerk TOTRL. P.02 1. �7i City of Miami Watson Island NW Quadrant RFP Preliminary Proposal Evaluation Summary of Proposed Lease Terms Proposed Project( Island Gardens Developer Flagstone Properties anteed Base Rent struction Period Rent $1,000,000 per year "during construction" "between release of building permits and certificate of occupancy Base Rent upon $2,000,000 per year "as an annual payment" Completion, projections presented in proposal indicate annual increase of 3% Participation Rent 1.0% of Gross Revenues beginning after three years of operation financial projections in proposal indicate %age not applied to marina, retail/restaurant 2.5% of Gross Revenues from sale of time share licenses Pnt Value of Combined Lease and City Tax Revenues High $73,900,000 Medium $37,250,000 Low $24,200,000 istfo i -he Pub3:C Subm;rmed in Conneq%t,?n Valli 7-1 on TBCfl� ti KOM Waiter Foem n City clelitI r� Miami Yacht Harbor Watson Island Partners Swedlow Marine Partners I BAP/Millenium $200.000 per year $250,000 per year presented in proposal projections as "for 1st 3 years during construction" paid in all 3 years precompletion " no less than $200.000 $500,000 per year presented in proposal projections as $220,000 with a 3.5% annual increase in 1st year of operation, and increasing by $20,000 per year thereafter 20% of rent received by Master Developer 1.0% of Gross Revenues from sub -lease components "from fractional sales and ongoing "commencing upon substantial completion" resortfmarina operations 1.0% of Disposition or Refinancing Proceeds $26,400,000 $38.500,000 $12.500,000 $18.700,000 $8,000.000 $12,400.000 Note: All dollar figures in thousands; Estimated values are illustrative and do not represent appraised values See discussion in memorandum for interpretation of high, medium and low scenarios and assumptions and limiting conditions City of Miami Watson Island NW Quadrant RFP Preliminary Proposal Evaluation Summary of Proposed Lease Terms Proposed Project Island Gardens Developer Flagstone Properties G teed Base Rent .ruction Period Rent Base Rent upon Completion, $1,000,000 per year "during construction" "between release of building permits and certificate of occupancy" $2,000,000 per year "as an annual payment" projections presented in proposal indicate annual increase of 3% Participation Rent 1.0% of Gross Revenues beginning after three years of operation financial projections in proposal indicate %age not applied to marina, retail/restaurant 2.5% of Gross Revenues from sale of time share licenses Present Value of Combined Lease and City Tax Revenues High $73,900,000 Medium $37,250,000 Low $24,200,000 the public Sisba fitted into > onc>eci ori with in con C�2��— � I:e ,00 VVatter t••i aq CIA 7 Miami Yacht Harbor Watson Island Partners Swedlow Marine Partners I BAP/Millenium $200,000 per year presented in proposal projections as paid in all 3 years precomptetion "no less than $200,000 presented in proposal projections as $220,000 in 1 st year of operation, and increasing by $20,000 per year thereafter 20% of rent received by Master Developer from sub -lease components "commencing upon substantial completion" $26.400,000 $12,500,000 $8,000,000 Note: All dollar figures in thousands; Estimated values are illustrative and do not represent appraised values See discussion in memorandum for interpretation of high, medium and low scenarios and assumptions and limiting conditions $250,000 per year "tor 1st 3 years during construction" $500,000 per year with a 3.5% annual increase 1.0% of Gross Revenues "from fractional sales and ongoing resort/marina operations" 1.0% of Disposition or Refinancing Proceeds $38.500.000 $18,700,000 $12,400.000 u i Palm - Hibiscus Star Homeowners Association 152 1'alm ti"•cnuc, Miami Hcach, Florida 33139 September 16, 2001 Sutamittod into tale pub1W, RE: Watson Island Developmentrecord In conneCtlon wit?► Item J__ on � � Walter C� Clark Dear Mr. Manager: I am writing in order to express the concern of the residents of Islands. We are your neighbors to the east of Watson Island and are very concerned about the growth and planned development of the Island. It is very evident that you have failed to involve the City of Miami Beach or its nearest residents in your planning process even though your decisions will greatly impact our community. After a thorough independent review of the three proposals for the development of Watson Island, the Board of Directors of our Association is very concerned about the scope of the Flagstone proposal, which we understand was recommended by the selection committee. We urge the City of Miami to take into account the negative impact this particular proposal would have on the homeowners of Palm, Hibiscus and Star Islands as well as the City of Miami Beach. We fear that the introduction of two massive hotels and a huge shopping mall to Watson Island will negatively affect our homeowners in the following ways: • Drastic Increase in daily traffic — the project, which includes a 1,500 to 2,000 car parking facility, will certainly cause daily bottlenecks of traffic from patrons of the shopping center. Loss of views — the project's mammoth proportions and height will inevitably impede the views of Biscayne Bay from Macarthur Causeway for several hundred yards. Furthermore, many of our homeowners on the Western portions of Palm and Hibiscus Island will lose all or a portion of their Downtown Miami skyline views. • Noise and pollution generated by automobiles -- the increase of traffic to and from the shopping mall will create a great deal of noise and added pollution to this beautiful causeway, connecting Downtown Miami to South Beach. • Loss of open space — In comparison to the other two proposals, we found that the Flagstone proposal fell far short of providing the general non -shopping public with an acceptable amount of open space. 'their "Rooftop Gardens" cannot replace ground floor open areas along the waterfront, and should be considered a severe shortcoming of Flagstone's proposal compared to the other two. 01-. 971. Submitted Into the public record in connection wittl item I on —q4j,& Walter Foeman City Clerk We are certain that the Flagstone Project will have a detrimental effect on our homeowners, and as your neighbors, we ask that you and the City Commission revisit this decision carefully and choose a plan that will be beneficial to all. Thank you for your consideration in this important issue. If our Association or I can be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me at (305) 539-5110 or cell (305) 299-2617. Sincerely, ,, ..!! T.h,! . Tim W. Rose, Jr. Executive Director N71A IIA1VI) DEAJVERY • ADORNO & ZEDER A PPOrLSSIONAL A'ib: •T,pN P Phil J10'.1111 OA R.n•_d.r ..Llvf_ 501"l- MIAMI, urerMIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 1 ELLPHONr (305) $5a-5555 FACSIMILE(305) n--18-4'777 www. adorno.cm. September 13, 2001 Mr. Alejandro Vilarello City Attonicy City of Miami 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue 9th Floor Miami, Florida 33128 Re: Watson Island Mega Yacht, Fish Market, and Mixed Use Development Opportunity Request for Proposals ("RFP") Project Lear Mr. Vilarello: Our client, Watson Island Partners, LI,C, has decided not to proceed with the formal protest of the City Manager's recommendation of Flagstone Properties, LC. and objection to the Swerdlow Properties proposal. This decision was a difficult one as our client believes they provided the City of Miami not only the best proposal but (lie only one that was completely responsive to all of the material terms of the RIP. Our client has chosen to waive their fornial right to protest the City Manager's recommendation because it was evident that such a protest at this time would stay all proceedings with respect to the lUT and would have resulted in the City of Miami missing the. deadline with respect to its referendum. We however continue to vociferously urge you to award this contract to 'Watson island Partners, LLC. Submitted Into the public record In connection with Item ._,�._ on 19.11_710 01— 9 71 Walter Foeman City clerk 1-0171 LAUDCRI]At.1- HOCA PAI ori WC` -T PALM 13 f;nCH Mr. Alejandro Vilarello September 13, 2001 Page 2 We have enclosed a copy of our bid protests to both the Swerdlow and Flagstone proposals and urge you to take into consideration the issues raised therein before committing the City of Miami to a proposal that is not in the City's best interest. The Flagstone proposal is not economically feasible, will destroy the view corridor, increase traffic to unimaginable levels in the area, and fails to respond to material requirements of the RFP. In addition, Flagstone completely failed to comply with the minority participation requirements of the RFP thus creating a precedent for others to fail to comply with this requirement of your Code in future contracts with the City. The Swerdlow Properties proposal is totally non-responsive to the RFP as shown in the enclosed letter. We request that you consider re -bidding the contract under an RF11 that will provide more detailed requirements of the type of project and bidder that the City of Miami needs for a project of this type and magnitude or otherwise award this contract to Watson Island Partners, LLC, the only responsive and responsible bidder to this RFP. c: City of Miami Commissioners (w/enc:ls.) 388597 Sincerely ,yours, P.A. Al o I nyal y Submitted Into the public record in I connection tion ��wtith item _.� ...., on .f1_I.I A, , Walter Foeman City Clerk ADORNO & LEDER A H140f F.5$101,11kt, A$SQC1A'1 igrj 01-- 971 CITY 01 MIAMI COMMISSION Joe Carollo, Mayor Wi6do "Willy" Gort, Vice -Chairman Tomas Regalado, Commissioner Joe Sanchez, Commissioner Miur E. Teele, Jr., Commissioner Johnny L Winton, Commissioner Carlos k Gimenez, City Manager City of Miami Department of Real Estate and Economic Development Produced by the City of Miami General Servicos Administration Graphic Reproduction Division Submitted Into the public record in connection with Item _.I.,__ on �1 / Walter Foeman City Clerk . • ADORNO & ZEDER A Prof CS:10NAL-550CIAT;0N ::60l 50uttf akyll CRl. UArvI: :;IJI'rl. IGoo MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 YELEPIIONC (9051 85B-55515 1 AL:S;HAILF (30U) SSS -4777 www.adornn.com (305)860-7069 September 6, 2001 Ms. Meredith J. Nation Mr. Alejandro Vilarello Department of Real Estate & City Attorney Economic Development City of Miami City of Miami 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue - 9th Floor 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Miami, FL 33130 Re: Unified Development Project Proposal (RFP) for Watson Island Mega Yacht Marina and Mixed Use Develoamen !2Loje t" Dear Ms. Nation and Mr. Vilarello: This law firm represents Watson Island Partners, LLC ("Watson island Partners") in its response to the RFP for the Project. In accordance with Section 2-11.1(t) of the Code of Miami - Dade County, Florida (Cone of Silence) a copy of this correspondence is being filed with the City Clerk. This tetter shall serve as our client's formal notice of protest and written protest all in accordance with the RFP and Section 16-99 of the City Code with respect to the RFP proposal submitted by Flagstone Properties, LLC (the "Flagstone Proposal"). The Flagstone Proposal is non- responsive In numerous material areas. If allowed, each deviation from the requirements of the RFP set forth below will effect substantial competitive advantage In favor of Flagstone Properties, LLC and related project development team members (the "Flagstone. Development Team") to the detriment of Watson Island Partner's responsible and responsive proposal for the Project. Under the clear provisions of the Submittal Procedures and Deadline (RFP page 36) the Flagstone Proposal is ineligible for further consideration since it is "deficient In providing the required information" and must be rejected. Following is the factual and legal basis for our position: Submitted Into the public record I connection with Item r on _q�_� ry Waiter Faemam 01- 971 - City Clerk VORT LAUDERDALE. ' BOCA RAION WEST PALM MEACIt Ms. Meredith Nation and Mr. Alejandro Vilarello September 6, 2001 Page 2 1. The Flagstone Proposal Fails to Include Required RFP Response Forms and Falls to Comply with Minority Participation Requirements. The RFP at Pages 29, 30 and 33, and Sections 2-778, 18-141, 18-142 of the City Code require that each proposer under this RFP submit an affirmative action plan and comply with certain minority participation requirements/goals (collectively the "Affirmative Action Requirements"). The Flagstone Proposal did not comply with the Affirmative Action Requirements of the RFP and the Review Committee confirmed this in their review of the Flagstone Proposal. We will provide excerpts of the Review Committee meeting minutes confirming such determination as soon as they are available. Failure to comply with the Affirmative Action Requirement is not only a violation of the RFP but clearly shows a disregard for the needs of our very diverse community. Additionally, none of the Flagstone Development Team members have submitted executed or notarized Minority/Women Business Affairs Affidavits, contrary to the specific requirement for same set forth in RFP Page 36, Item Xlil. 2. The Flagstone Proposal Fails to Include Required Renderings of the Overall Site. The RFP provides on Page 32, Item No. 7, that a rendering of the overall site from the MacArthur Causeway perspective be included as part of the required project plan and project content requirements. The Flagstone Proposal is non-responsive to this specific RFP requirement. Although the basis for this non -responsiveness is unknown, one might suspect that such rendering was omitted because it would depict an aesthetically unattractive and displeasing view of their proposed development. 3. The Flagstone Proposal Is Non -Responsive to tho Financial Feasibility Requirements of the RFP. The Flagstone Proposal mentions in its Executive Summary that the City will receive a percentage of the timeshare sale proceeds, however, contrary to the RFP's Required Proposal Format, the stated commitment of annual lease payments to the City should be located in Section IX of the Flagstone Proposal, not in the Executive Summary. This error is material in light of the fact that no other reference in the Flagstone Proposal is made to this possible financial return to the City. Contrary to this assertion in the Executive Summary that the City will receive income from the sale of timeshare units, the Schedule of Financial Return to the City In the Flagstone Proposal, does not Include any income to the City from timeshare sales. Furthermore, the RFP requires on Page 34, Item No. IX, that the proposal include a cash flow analysis that "shall enable a clear understanding of the projected rents and any of e financial returns to the City ... " (emphasis added) However, the Flagstone Proposal does not Include any analysis of any gross revenue from the sale of timeshare units. Submitted Into the public record in connection with Item L_ ong1 r- � -s!- A D O R N O & Z E D E R Walter Foema,,np A r-1110FL iSIONAL ASSOCIATION City Clem 9 1W J Ms. Meredith Nation and Mr. Alejandro Vilarello September 6, 2001 Page 3 4. The Flagstone Proposal Fails to Respond to the Development Entity Requirements of the RFP. A. RFP Page 34, Item X(1), sets forth the requirement that the table of organizational structure of the Flagstone Development Team provide the names and affiliations of all principals, general partners, 5%+ shareholders, corporate officers, executives and top management for Flagstone Properties, LLC. Contrary to this requirement, the Flagstone Proposal fails to disclose this required information about the development entity so as to allow the City to conduct its background investigation of all Flagstone Properties, LLC principals or to verify that the development entity does not contain a member who has previously defaulted on a City Lease. (See RFP Page 34, Item X). B. RFP Page 34, Item X(2), requires the submission of resumes by all key individuals to be involved in the proposed devolopment. However, resumes for or any information related to the Flagstone Hotel Development Management affiliate, the Marina Concept/Environmental consultant, the Retail Consultant/Marketing, Retail/Economy Consultants, the Editor, the Cultural Affiliates, and other Flagstone Team Members as set forth in the organizational flow chart and in the Executive Summary are not included. Additionally, the Executive Summary refers to the following as members of the Flagstone Development Team but no required information or materials aro included in the Flagstone Proposal with regard to these team members: Conrad Hotels Hotel development & operations management Regent International Hotels Hotel development & operations management Alkas Retail Consultants Retail management . DMJM + Harris Hydraulics & marine engineers Kinkinis Communications, Inc. Public relations & communications consultants Espresso Holdings Food & beverage consultants C. For each member of the Flagstone Development Team, the Flagstone Response is required to include copies of that firm's current registration (RFP Pages 35 and 36, Item X(4)) as well as sufficient detail and project sheets describing each team member's and consultant's past experience in the development and management of comparable projects (RFP Pages 35 and 36, Item X(5)). The Flagstone Response is non-responsive to these RFP requirements as they relate to many of the team members and/or consultants. 5. The Flagstone Proposal is Non -Responsive with Respect to the Financial Capability Requirements of the RFP. A. The RFP requires the proposal to address whether the "respondent gr anv partic 12011118 team members have been involved in real estate related material litigation over the preceding five (5) years" (emphasis added) and also requires that the proposal confirm if the "respondent or any participating team members have ever filed for bankruptcy, or have owned or Submitted into thO public record i(1 connec n w th r� ACDORNO 8c ZEgtA�R ! on j GI JY!.�- A PROFCS514NAL ASSgCIA-1 IOW Walter Foeman — — -- — City Clerk — — -- Ms. Meredith Nation and Mr. Alejandro Vilarello September 6, 2001 Page 4 controlled projects that have been foreclosed, or have had fine levied by governmental agencies." (RFP Page 35-36, Item XI(6)). Other than a statement that Flagstone Properties, LLC and its related Bayraktar Group have not been involved in any legal disputes during the last five years, the Flagstone Proposal is silent with regard to controlled or owned projects, bankruptcy and fines for the respondent and is completely silent as to the other team members. B. On Page 35, subsection XI(5) thereof, the RFP requires that respondent identify the specific relationships with sources of equity/debt capital and their indication that the project outlined by RFP and the respondent Is "consistent with their investment criteria for a project of this size and type." However, the Flagstone Proposal includes only generic letters of interest from two local financial Institutions, none of which provide that the. Flagstone's intended project is "consistent with their investment criteria." 6. The Flagstone Proposal Is Non -Responsive by Violating the RFP Urban Design Principles and Guidelines. The fishmarket contained in the Flagstone Proposal violates Urban Design Principles and Guidelines by being located within the 100 feet waterfront setback set forth in Page 18 of the RFP. RFP Addendums II and VII specifically provides that restaurants within said setback would not be allowed, however the Flagstone Proposal provides in Page IV -8 that casual dining, in addition to wholesale and retail sales, will take place within the 100 feet waterfront setback. Furthermore, the Performance Barge component of the Flagstone Proposal is prohibited under RFP Addendum 11, Question and Answer 36, since it is not related to the operation of the marina and it is located within the 100 feet waterfront setback requirement of the RFP. 7. The Flagstone Proposal includes Timeshare Estates which are specifically prohibited in the RFP. The Club Regent Program Summary (Flagstone Response, Page V-19) provides that the underlying real estate "may be sold as Right -to -Use or meMbers may own an interest In trust or corporation that owns the Club and facilities" (emphasis added). The Club Regent Program Surnmary further provides that the common areas and amenities will e owned by the members via undivided interests therein or the common areas and amenities may be owne Irby the Club's Homeowners' Association for the bel3ef(t of itstin embers (emphasis added). The highlighted provisions contemplate a cooperative form of ownership and/or common area ownership that under Florida law constitute timeshare estates. Addendum V to the RFP, Questions & Answers No. 1 and 77, clearly prohibits as a Project component any "timeshare estate", as defined in the Florida Vacation Plan and Timesharing Act, Chapter 721, Florida Statutes. Section 721.05(32), Florida Statutes, clearly provides that an interest in (1) a condominium unit pursuant to the Condominium Act, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, or (2) a cooperative unit pursuant to Cooperative Act, Chapter 719, Florida Statutes, or (3) a trust that complies in all respects with the provisions of Section 721.08(2)(c)3, Florida Statutes, constitutes a timeshare estate. Conclusion. Submitted Into the pubiie record In conneolon with Item I on `r_11:2 A, I ADORNO 8C ZEDER WalterIoorm.-n A PROF h.SSIONAL ASSOC:IAT I1'31J city clor j 6 — 9 7 1 Ms. Meredith Nation and Submitted Into tho public Mr. Alejandro Vilarello reeord In eonneotlon with September 6, 2001 Item --L_ an_EUjJ_ L, Page 5 W,�Itor Foeman The Flagstone Proposal in not responsive on its face because it does not co@4rP ll material respects to the RFP. Each and every one of the above-mentioned submittal deficiencies are material non -responses to clear, mandatory and specific requirements of the RFP. Intercontinental Pronerties. Inc. v. State of Florida Deoartment of Health and Rehabilitative -Services. 606 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); E.M. Watkins and Company. Inc. v. ftard oE13!Qgents, 414 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1982, rev. denied 421 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1982) (responsive bids contains all required information). The Flagstone Proposal violates clear prohibitions established in the RFP and reiterated by the City Attorney by including timeshare estate Interests. The Flagstone Proposal violates the RFP prohibitions regarding the 100 foot waterfront setback in its design of the fishmarket/restaurant and performance barge. These violations of specific RFP prohibitions and non-compliance with the Project Plan site rendering requirements are not mere technical errors or irregularities that the City can waive, but rather variances that gives Flagstone Properties, LLC a substantial advantage over the other bidders and thereby restricting and stifling competition. Procacci Commercial Realty, Inc.. v. Department of Health and Human Services. 690 So. 2d 603 (Fla 1st DCA 1997); Marvin's Garden & Landscape Service. Inc.. v. DOL DOAH Case No. 85- 333713113;HarcyPepper and Associates. Inc. V. City of !Qaep Coral, 352 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977), (agency can not ignore specific instructions set forth in bid documents). Moreover, the Flagstone Proposal is materially deficient by omitting information specifically required by the RFP regarding various of Flagstone Development Tearn members. Without such missing information, a determination of whether the Flagstone Development Team is a responsible bidder under the standards set forth in the RFP can not be undertaken. Leslie Miller. Inc.. v. Arkansas. 352 U.S. 187, 77 S. Ct. 257, 1 L. Ed. 2d 231 (1956) (question of whether a bidder is responsible involves an evaluation of the bidder's experience, facilities, financial strength, technical organization, reputation, financial resources, and other factors); Qlty of 0 a Loeka v. T stees of Flumbing Industry Promotion Fund, 193 So.2d 29, 32 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1966). The RFP established the standard for a responsible respondent as "one that has the capability in all respects to fully perform the requirements set forth in the proposal and the proposed lease, and that has the integrity and reliability which will assure good faith performance." (RFP, Page 38). As mentioned in Items 4 and 5 above, the ownership structure of and ownership interests in the development entity are not included, and disclosure of and background information for numerous key individuals and/or development team members (managers, engineers and consultants) are totally lacking. In addition to being non-responsive, the omitted information undermines the ability of the City to verify that Flagstone Properties, LLC and its team members have the experience, facilities and reputation necessary for the faithful and competent performance of the proposed lease. Seg Engineering Contractors Assoc. of S. Florida. Inc_ v. Broward County, 26 Fla. L. WeeklY 12 1607. Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth herein, Watson Island Partners respectfully requests that the Flagstone Proposal be deemed non-responsive to the RFP and that Flagstone was a non -responsible bidder. It is Watson Island Partners' position that the Flagstone Proposal is not responsive to material, specific requirements of the RFP; that the Flagstone Proposal is ambiguous as to what, if any, income the City will derive from the sale of timeshare interests; that due to the non -responsiveness to the RFP Development Entity requirements, a determination can not be made as to the responsibility of the respondent as required by the RFP; that to ignore these material variances and other set forth in this protest would give Flagstone Properties, LLC a substantial advantage over the other RFP respondents; and that consequently the Flagstone ADORNO & ZEDER u i- 97'1 A PROFF%1SIONA1-. ASSOCIATION Ms. Meredith Nation and Mr. Alejandro Vilarelio September 6, 2001 Page 6 Proposal must be deemed ineligible for further consideration and rejected as required by the terms of the RFP and Florida law. All references to the RFP set forth in this bid protest are to the RFP published by the City, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Due to the fact that the Cone of Silence set forth in the RFP is still operative, I have filed this protest with you and not Judy Carter, the Chief Procurement Officer, as required by Section 18-99 of the City Code. We hereby request that you provide Ms. Carter with a copy of this protest In order to comply with the requirements of the City Code. If you believe that the City Code requires and that the Cone of Silence permits that we serve Judy Carter directly, please advise and we shall provide Ms. Carter with this bid protest immediately. cc: Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk RG M/370012.3l201216.0001 /07.29.01-Flagslana Respectfully submitted, /NN7D A e Submitted Into the public record to connection with Item on Lt Walter Foeman City Clerk ADORNO & ZEDER 01— 971 A PR7C.)F F5S10NAL ASSOCIATION %L, a �1- I 0 Submitted Into the PublIc record Ip connection with I 42 0: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY Propose, plan, design, develop, construct, lease and manage a state of dtie art mega yacht marina and mixed-use prajod on the Biscayne Say waterfront. LOCATION Approximately 10.6 acres of upland and 13.A acres of adjacent submerged land offered as is on Ifxs Northwest Quadrant of Watson Island, an 86 acre manmade island lying mid -way between the cities of Miami and Miami Beach, Florida. REQUIRED USE Mega yacht marina and marine related facilities. ACCEPTABLE ADDITIONAL USES Entertainment Destinations, Educational and/or Cultural, Hotel, Convention and/or Conference, Retail, Restaurants, Theoters, Recreation, Ancillary and Support Facilities. DENSITY 70 of load zoned C-1 with FAR of 1.72; remainder zoned PR with no density restriction. C"S FINANCIAL PEGU1REMENTS Proposals shall Include annual lease payments in the form of minimum annual guaranteed rent phis a percentage of grass revenues. MAXIMUM LEASE TEW 45 -year initial term and t,vo 15 -year renumal terms, with developer responsible for oh leasing, maintenance and management of the project. DEVELOPER SELECTION PROCESS One developer shall be selected lor exclusive lease negotiations fallowing a review process as set forth in section 18-87G) of ilia Miami City Code. HIOW TO OBTAIN RFP & REGISTER For registration as an official respondent and b receive a complete RFP package submit a non- refundoUe fee of $300 in the fonn of a cashier's check, money order, or official bank check pun contact information by mail to the address listed below. Only those who register can participate. INITIAL DEPOSIT REQUIRED An earnest money deposit of $100,000, in the form of a cashiers check, money order, letter of ac -Jit, or official bank check, is required lo occomparry the submittol of proposals and is (uRy refundable to developers not selected. OPT10t,KL PRE -SUBMITTAL Murch 6th, 2001 10:00 AM (EST) CONFERENCE & SIIT VISIT Location lu be provided by moil to registered respondents. PROPOSALS DUE tiro 20h, 2001, 5 00 PM FEST) SUbmitted into the public Miami cly Ball, City clews Office item in connection with Frit Floor Counter item �..�. on 3500 Pon American Drive Walter f=0eP11r1 Miami, FL 33133 oiler Cleric ADDMONAL DEPOSIT REQUIRED Additional $50,000 ran -refundable, deposit required from developer selected for exclusive negotialions. CONIACT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Meredith J. t4m;on Department of Real Estaie & Economic Vovelopmeot City of MiamI Riverside Center A44 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd floor rr Miami, fl. 33130 r� • • UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROCESS The Uriified Development Project ("UDP") process is a procedure by which the City of Miami (nay con- vey on interest in real property to the private sector for the development of improvements, which requires the private sector entity to provide a combi- nation of these services: planning and design, can- struction, l esing otxl management. ,Such projects are determined, by action of the Miami City Commission, to be Unified Development Projects. 29-Af cl of the City Charter rind Section 18- S7 of the Cifv Code provide legal guidelinac for flip UDP process, I IDP City Charter ona Lode Sections are included on the CD -ROM - The UDP process and all other business conducted with the City of Miami is subject to the Miami -Dade County Cone of Silence ordinances 98-106 and 99-1, which can be found on the CD-ROM. The Cone of SilenrF ordinance mandates that except for at r)ublic hearings and scheduled presentations, contact with the.Crty regarding this RFP of any asixect of a proposal by a respondent or any repre- sentative of a respondent shall be limited to written cornmUtllcafions until such time that a developer is recommended by ti,e City Manager to the Uty Commission. All questions or requests for additional information must be asked and answered in writing via certified mail. These answers will be provided in Ike form of addenda to this RFP. Any responses to such ques- tions or requests shall be furnished via certified mail to all registered RFP recipients within 10 days fol- lowing receipt of letter and will also be kept on file at the office of the City Clerk, Respondents who pur- chase an official copy of the RFP and submit the $300 fee will be considered "registered" to partici- pate in the UDP process. All business conducted with government agencies within the state of Florida, including the City of Miami, is subject to the Government in the Sunshine Law, Chapter 286 of the Florida Statutes, commonly referred to as fie "Sunshine Law". The Sunshine Law is included on the CD-ROM. Submitted Into the public record In conn e i n with item on Walter Foeman City Clerk 01- 97.x_ to tha Pobllc Submiin tted with in connec` on reCard�� �� G ItemWalter Foeman city clerk yt�i j . ,; CIL. VEC[Y, ftC�'C' .. -; '• �' arm}, X'. -i-: r.. t to tha Pobllc Submiin tted with in connec` on reCard�� �� G ItemWalter Foeman city clerk yt�i j . ,; • REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS This project has been identified by the City to be a Unified Development Project, for which review pro- cedures and the selection processes are established in the City Charter and Code. In accordance with those guidelines, the City Commission appoints a Review Committee from recommendations submitted by the City Manager and selects a Certified Public Accounting (CPA) firm, both to evaluaie submitted proposals. In addition, the City may elect to hire additional consultants as deemed necessary to appropriately evaluate and analyze proposals. Administrative Review City %inff shell initially review proposal submissions for completeness and compliance wrtrn all lormattrng and content requirements set torfh in the RFF. During this initial review, and prior to the start of delibera- tions by the Review Committee, respondents may be contacted to cure proposals that contain non -malari- al, non -substantive defects as determined solely by staff. If notified of such a deficiency, Iiia respondent shall correct such deficiency within five (5) working days of receipt of notification. Those submissions that comply with requirements will be deemed responsive. THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS The City has identified five (5), jactors that spall serve as threshold qualification standards tOc.this UDP process. ilii respondents are required to meet these standards to receive further consideration of their proposals. Resnondents are encouraged to fnc a �develorsment teams in ardor to assemble the requisite expertise, experience, finan- cial and management capability to meet these threshold requirements. As such, where applicable, these standards will be coptied to the development team as n wtiate: ui a manner that is comrtx3nsuraie with the allocation of resp nsinilnY within the team. C� Submitted Into the public record. In connegon W110 Item ..�..-on 112 1 Walter Foeman City Clerk Each respondent is expected to meet the following five (5) minimum requirements: 1. A minimum of 10 years experience managing and operating a marina of similar size and complexity. 2. A minimum of 10 years experience in the man- agement and operation of each use being pro- posed for the upland. 3. A leading role of principal responsibility or other demonstrated experience in the design of a project(s) of similar size, complexity and can straints as the facilities and uses proposed. 4. The successful development and financing of at least one project of similar size, complexity and uses with similar constraints. 5. At least one single project for which $20 million in tinancirKj was secured. Certified Public Accountant Review ,A Certified Public Accounting ("CPA") firm has been selected by the City Commission to evaluate each proposal, specifically assessing Ilia following elements: • The financial viability of the proposing entity, including prior record and experience. • The viability of the proposal's financial plan, -,sources and structure. • Tfie comparative short term and long range economic and fiscal return to the City. • The proposal's market analysis and marketing plan, • The economic feasibility of the proposed devel- opment. • Viability and appropriateness of management plan. • Credit worthiness of principals/partners of the proposing entity, including prior bankruptcies, if any. • REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS [hiring the course of its analysis, the CPA shall examine all materials provided by respondents and will conduct a full investigation of the financial back- ground of the individual members of the develop- ment team, including materials that may be avail- able from other sources such as Dunn & Bradstreet. The CPA shall present its findings regarding each proposal to fi%e Review Committee prior to said Review Committee completing its deliberations. The CPA shall render an independent report of its find- ings to the City Manager. The CPA currently selected is Price Waterhouse Coopers in conjunction will% Grou and Company, P.A. Minority and Women Business Affairs Policy Review The City of Miami will review tf%c materials provided by the respondent to verify ilia extent to which the cleveloprnent team encourages Female, Hispanic, and African American participation on the develop- ment team and in the management arid operotions hiring procedures proposed for the project. Review Committee Subsequent to staff review, $q. R-gview.Cammiitee shall evaluate each proposal deemed__resPQasiYQ. Tho Review Committee.siall be comorised of 5 pro- lessional City staff members in Itie fields of finance, building and zoning, urban design, and marina management plus 6_ rgpresentntives from fie private sector experienced in the financing and develop- ment of projects of this nature. In this process, the Review Committee shall rely prirnarily on the docu- mentation submitted in the proposal, but may also obtain critical information through a presentation by and interview of the development team. C� Submitted Into the public record In connection with Item ._ on Walter s'oeman City Clerk The Review Committee shall use the specific evalua- tion criteria and their respective assigned weights for purposes of rating and ranking the proposals, as defined below. Each Committee Member shall review each proposal specifically, noting the level of detail given to criteria of critical importance to the City and assign a numerical score accordingly. Each Review Committee Member shall determine a rank order based upon the numeric score achieved. The Review Committee shall arrive at a rank order of proposals based on the individual mornber's vote of its rank order. The Review Committee shall render a written report to the City Manoger of its evaluation of all respon- sive and responsible proposals. The Review Committee has the authority to recommend one or more, or none, of the proposals as it deems to be in the best interest of the City. The Committee's recom- mendation is accompanied by written justification of its findings. The City encourages all respondents to forrn appro- priate development teams in order to assemble ilia requisite expertise, experience, financial and man- agement capability to meet the evaluation criteria. As such, where applicable, these standards shall be applied to the development team as a whole, in a manner that is commensurate with the allocation of responsibility within the team. Each respondent is expected to address the following requirements: Evaluation Criteria OVERALL PIAN & DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Fulfillment of the City's established development objectives, design.guidelines and prograrn requirements. 01-- 971 • REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS Submitt©d into the public record in connection with Item ..._i— on —�--1 16-1 wafter Foeman city ciod( • Range and mix of uses and amenities; extent of proposed. facilities and services, and appeopri- public access and amenities, ateness of strategies to be utilized for attracting • Extent and commitment to public use objectives and strengthening those rnarkets. and goals. Management approach to ancillary operations Demonstrated commitment to public access and and businesses, particularly relative to stated �{ J water -related uses. experience and capabilities, and to the City's • Appropriateness and quality of clic design, objectives. • Quality of the merino design as it relates to the Extent and quality of programs for rnainte- berthing of mega yachts. nonce, security, public access, cultural/educa- • Appropriateness and relationship of upland tional programs, and public and customer sere- facilities to the marina. ices, as applicable. • Harmonious and/or complementary integration Developer experience and capability to fulfill the; of uses into the site. commitments stated in proposal • Successful, harmonious interface and/or con- rection to adjoining public property, projects, RETURN TO THE CITY and uses. • Imaginative and creative treatment of: public Annual lease payment including a guaranteed access, particularly at waterfront, other public minimum annual rental payment spaces, exterior space, circulation, view corri- Payment of a percentage of gross revenues. dors, landscaping, graphics and lighting. Dollar value, extent, and liming of capital • Creative and effective integration of art -in -pub- improvements. lic places comtx)nent. Any additional financial benefit to the City. • duality and sound principles of urban design Other non-fincricial benefits to the City. proposal. Likelihood and timing'of receiving financial and • Efficiency of site design and organization, and other benefits. compatibility of uses. EXTENT OF MINORITY PARTICIPATION FEASIBILITY, MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Minority/women participation within the pro- posing entity. • Appropriateness and practicality of stated Minority/women participation within the con - goals, objectives and policies of management sultonts to the proposing entity. plan. Subcontracting and hiring practices during can - Viability, practicality and comprehensiveness of struction. management plan, including such elements as Opportunities for minorities/vromen, hiring out - mission, operating parameters, operating budg- reach and Iraining opportunities in relation to et, revenue projections, cash flow analysis, per- leasing, management, operation and mainte- sonnet organization and staffing plan. nance of facilities. • Extent and feasibility of marketing plan, fornil- Affirmative action plans of development entity iarity with primary and secondary markets for members. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS SCORING VALUES G CRITERIA WEIGHTED VALUE Overall Plan & Design of Ifie Proposed Development 35 Feasibility, Management & Operarions of the Proposed Development 25 Return to the City 35 Extent of Minori /Women Participation 5 _ i Total 100 City Manager 1, 2001 _ Proposal Pre -Submission Conference The City Manager shall take into consideration the Pr sal Submission Deadline , 2001 Findings of both the CPA firm and the Review SemtemLker_13, 2.001 Adoption of Legislation Placing Selected Proposal on Ballot for Public Referendum Committee, and shall then recommend one or more, Submitted into the public November 6, 2001 or none, of the proposals to the City Commission,record The City in the reasons in connection with on all Manager shall state writing for his recommendation. waiter Foeman City Clerk City Commission The City Commission may.then accept the recom- mendation of the City Manager, may reject all pro- posols, or may seek a recommendation directly from Ike Review Committee. Should the Commission select a proposal and authorize exclusive lease negotia- tions, ballot language shall be drafted and submit- ted for a citywide public referendum vote. Anticipated Selection Schedule RFP /available to Public/Dole of Issuance 1, 2001 _ Proposal Pre -Submission Conference tr-abruary 6, 2001 Pr sal Submission Deadline , 2001 Recommendation From the City Manager to the City Commission _ SemtemLker_13, 2.001 Adoption of Legislation Placing Selected Proposal on Ballot for Public Referendum Se tembcr13, 2001 Public Referendum November 6, 2001 This schedule is subject to change. Walson tslonA Ranuest For Prorx-jsals 30 • SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT'S ,Submitted Into tho Aub1IC record in connect'ith LL � item Walter Foeman City Clerk Required Proposal Format Required Proposal Content Proposals should be submitted in a bound formal with tab dividers separating each section. Prospective dpveloners shall utilize the following outline, hendinas and numt,erinja to oreperr . their proposals, adding tabs and sub -tabs as neeued TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY If. PROJECT'S PUBLIC PURPOSE 111. VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF PROJECT IV. PROJECT PLAN V. OPERATING PLAN Vl. MARKETING PLAN MI. MARKET AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 1411. FINANCIAL PLAN IX. FINANCIAL. FEASIBILITY X DEVELOPMENT ENTITY A. FINANCIAL CAPACITY XII, DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE All. REQUIRED RFP RESPONSE FORMS XIY. ATTACHMENTS A minirnurn font size of 10 point, 1 inch margins, and single spocirx3 shall be utilized on all text docu- ments submitted. A total of 25 copies shall be sub- mitted consisting of 1 original, 23 bound copies with tabs, and I unbound copy without tabs for possible duplicating needs. All required drawings shall be submitted in the scale rioted with one (11 original mounted on boards no larger That 24" x 36" and 24 copies reduced pro- portionalely to an 11 " x 17" formai. A total of no more than 14 boards will be accepted. Models and photographs of models will not be accepted. TABLE OF CONTENTS Table listing sequential page location of Contents, Charts, Graphs and Illustrations I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Respondent must summarize the proposal providing an overview of the proposal document. Il. PROJECT'S PUBLIC PURPOSE Respondent must decnonstroie the range of public purpose(s) that ilia proposed project will achieve. 111. VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSED PROJECT Respar dent must summarize the vision, goals and objective of the proposed project, N PROJECT PLAN hrvject plan shall be prepared by a team of i1ataed, registered design professionals. The s 1- 971. • SUBMITTAL. REQUIREMENTS design professionals must strive to create a develop- ment with a meaningful sense of place. The project plan shall take into account the Urban Design Principles and Guidelines that Focus on a mixed-use waterfront development that emphasizes human scale, the pedestrian realm and public open spaces. The plan shall include: I 1. Narrative Description 2. Site Program Annlvsis inclvdirxg: • Overall site development including rnrarinn and vessr�l sizes that can be accominoaated. • Number and use of buildings, square footage (both gross and rentable), li�inht, and num- 6)r of floors for each. • Number; type, size, construction and descrip- tion of proposed operations by category. • Architectural and landscape arcliifecturol features. • Permitting and environmental issues. • Parking supply and demand. 3. Watson Island Site Plan Plan should illustrate ilia relationship and con- nectivity of file proposed project to other existing and planned projects on the island, Required scale - V : 200' 4. Proposed Project Site Plan including: • Land Use ✓ • Building Locations • Vew Corridors✓ • Vehicular/Pedestrian Access (public and private) • Marina I.ayout J Required scale= 1" : 40' 5. Proposed Londscar)e Plan Required scale = V : 40' • Submitted Into the public rem rd i onectton 011h� Item Waiter foeman City Clerk 6. Proposed Marina Plan • Piers • Wet Slips (noting vessel sizes that can be accommodated) • Dockage Marina Amenities Required scale ^ 1" : 40' 7. Renderings of Overall Site • rrom rsrscayne tray .,-' • From MacArthur Causeway • From Within Project (3 different renderings from this view will bP aceeptod) Illustrating: • Context • Landscape • Building Heights • Architectural Elements • Architectural Features • Landscape Features • Parks/Plazos/Greenways/Open Spaces %Waterfront Promenade • Signage 8, Optional Elevations Frye (5) Different Project Elevations Will Be Accepted (none required) V. OPERATING PLAN The proposal must include a narrative describing the management and operation of the entire proposed development. Respondents are reminded that file City intends Ihat the property be maintained and operated in a manner consistent with the highest industry standards for facilities of its type. The description Shall include, at miFlimum mission statement, an organizational chaii, brief outline of operatina oror.Mures, indication of which business- es are intended to be operated by devolonment k-om and wnicti businesses are intended to be sub- 01- 971 E E E Lim - Lim L Rr L b • SU0MITTAL REQUIREMENTS leased or.10 be operated under n monagernant eon - tract, sAlease requirements tit anyl, operating schedule, and maintenance program, including planned major maintenance ssf�edule. Additionally, a copy of the respondent's,currentLy effective Affirmative Action Program, in accoraance with City Code Sections 2-778 and 18-136 et seq., included an the CD-ROM. If independent management servic- es are to be involved, then the applicable forms included on the CD-ROM must be completed by management contractors. • Mission Statement • Organizational Chart • Operating Procedures • Management Plan • Management Team • Staffing Plan • Operating Schedule • Maintenance Program • Affirmative Action Program M. MARKETING PLAN Proposo� shall include a marketing plan that shall identify primary and secondary markets for each type of facility and/or service proposed and a description of the strategies to be utilized for ottract- ing and strengthening those markets such as how and where the activities/operations will be adver- tised, branding concepts, and potential comarket- ing opportunities. Specific discussion shall bn pre- sented as to morkr_tjnrg.stcategias to attract the targe vessel market. Similarly, the feasibility study should provide the rationale for the proposed mix of piers, dockage/ wet slips and marina amenities. V11. MARKET AND ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY Proposals shall include the following elements 0 d Into the pub" Submltte Ilion with I recon' 1^ n on item Walter V-peman City deft, allowing an understanding of their likely market and economic feasibility: A market analysis sufficient to establish the mar- ket support for, pricing and absorption of fho proposed uses, based upon analysis of demand generators, competitive supply, market pricing, competitive position and anticipated market share/capture. 76. analysis should specifically provide the raiiaoale t.Qr tho.nroposnrt mix of piers, dockage, wet slips and marina amenities. A projected development phasing schedule by �uilding and parcel An analysis of projected revenues and operating expenses broken out for each major component covering at a minimum the first ten years of operation. The analysis shall specify the hoses for these estimates. A written statement indicating the total dollar amount to be spent on perrttanent physical improvements to the property, including building improvements, site improvements, and program requirements associated with the development, including public spaces and amenities, as well cis that required for all start up costs and initial operating expenses. The development cost esti- mates shall be itemized to include significant .line items within the, major categories of hard, soft (including aevetopment tees), and financing costs, and .pllocated by project. compot ent rind building and phase. VIII. FINANCIAL, PLAN Proposals shall include a description of the Financing plan for the project, including a description arid esti- mation of rill ;orirce.s of construction and permanent debt and equity funds to be used in the project. Wan terms, target returns and oilier financing considerations should be presented. Prior to its 1- 971 33 Watson Islcul'i Request for Proposals SUBMiTTAL REQUIREMENTS exccut�on of p lease agreement, the Calx shall require written evidenco that the succ=shJ_r sKn- dent has received a,tirm_and irrevocable comrnit- rnenf of all funds necessory_to.cou rvd_ tquip,g nd initiate operation of file proposed project for a sta- bilization period determined by Ilie City. The City reserves the right to further evaluate and/or reject financing commitments when the term, the identity of the financing source or other aspect of such financ- ing is deemed not in the best interest of the City or the project. IX. FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Proposals shall include a cash flow onalysis(es) inte- grating revenues, operating expenses, developnx�_nt costs, and debt service for a minimum of the devel- opment period and first ten years of the project's operation.. Anctlysisfes) shall be presented in a fash- ion so as to enable a clear undrrsfanding of Iinan- ciol feasibility and financial inflaws and outflows �ottr on a buitdinq by buildrnq basis and -on inte- grated total bows over any phased c-fevelopment schedule, and shall also enable a clear unaer arund- ing of the projected rents and any other financial returns to Ilse City nvec.ti.ie.-projechQa_pet:rod. Financial Return to the City Proposals $hall include a stated commitment of annual lease -payments to the City in tho form of a minimurn guaranteed ren; onc' ,aercenfocief sl of gross revenues, and any other proposed Ir?ose nciy- ments, as well as a stated cammrtment to adhere to the City Charter renuwYnium for compensation equal to fair market volue. Proposals shall detail other tinancial benefits to the City such as estimated property luxes, and other non-financial benefits such as new jobs created. X. DEVELOPMENT ENTRY Respondents must have formed a development entity • Submitted Into thO ptubllc 11 recordin colrvrocdon Item + Walter Foeman City CierR that assembles the requisite expertise, experience, financial and management capability to develop a world-class marina and mixed use destination. For the purpose of this RFP "development -entities" are defined as Ilhe legal entity submitting the proposal and witli whom the City would enter info the lease- hold agreement for the property, if awarded. The City of Miami reserves the right to conduct a com- plete background investigation of tfre dayelonment entity and nll involved nrincinals, consultants, orid sub -consultants prior to the trnat selea,on or execu- tion of the lease. Develooment Entities that contain a mnmber whn t,ns oreviousfy detoulted ori a Liry limp i< ngt�liC�i til tn�pt ipufrt in this UD11 process. 1. Table of Or anizafion for Development Entity .� The organizational structure presented in graphic form depicting the proposing entity and its profes- sional consultants, including the names, affiliation and addresses of all principals. This includes any and all general partners, stockholders owning 5% or more of the corporate stock, corporate officers, and executives and top managoment of the development entity. A Certificate of Good Standing from the State of Florida shall be submitted for the develop - meet entity formed for the project. Z. RESUfTIE?S Resumes shall be included for. key_iridiYi6als to be involved in the proposed development. Resumes shall specify the role of the individual'in the relevant project. 3. References for All Deyelcipment Tearn Members Respondents shall provide not less that four (d) cur- rent references for each principal development team member who can attest to file members' relevant capability and experience. These references shall be contacted by the City. • SUBMITTAL. REQUIREMENTS A.. Licenses and CoLR2rote Registrbtions Individual Engineers, Architects and Landscape Architects must submit current Certificates of Registration or Licenses, and corporations or part- nerships in those fields must submit current Certificates of Authorization. Proposals shall also include for each firm a copy of the firm's current corporate registration. . cher Docurnentation as to Experience and Cona6ilitX Proposals shall include a narrative or outline that prnyjdr?S sufficient detail to describe the develop- ment teams and cons0tonts' consraeroore past experience in the development and monagernent of projects of similar scope and cortrplexity within fie same or clearly similar sphere of endeavor. Respondent's shall provide a detailed list of complel- ed projects, indicating the time required for cornple- tion, the completion date, the amount invested and financed for the project, a description of the pro- ject's elements and the role(s) played by each devel- opment team member that was involved. X. FINANCIAL CAPACITY Prove financial capacity so that a determination can be made that the development entity is capable of undertaking the project. Additionally, provide docu- mentation as to what regnsuCes-vil) hn riti6s,4_r0 provide equity for the orotect. A minimum of three (3) financial references thot have provided the development entity or members thereof with development financing shall be provid- ed, including a loan officer name or other specific contact, Additionally, evidence of possession of or access to • Submitted into the public recordIn aoon OJ ion with stern Walter Flan (-%�, clerk equity capital and financing resources to carry out. the proposed project shall be provided by submittal of the following: 1. Tile most recent available credit report. 2. Composition of current real estate portfolio, list- ing the following for each project: project name, type location (city, state), date completed, project size (rentable area}; value, debt, role (developer, operator, property rtxanager; etc.), ownership inter- est, and'occupancy rate. 3. Recent history, preferably within the last 2-3 years, in obtaining financing commitments, detailing type of project, financing source, amounts commit- ted, etc. Respondents may submit a written state- mentlsl from their financing source(s) describing past projects which said source has Financed for said responclent, detailing the amount of capital, the size of the project and any other pertinent informa- tion that will assist the City of Miami in cletennining the availability of equity or subordinate capital to fund fire project. d. List and description of all projects in the pitaeline including status, development schedule and financial commitment required of developer/operator, a detailed description of the project financing meth- ods, sources and amounts, and any working rela- tionship (on other projects) with members of the pro- posed learn (on this project). • , 5. Identification of specific relationships (and contact information) with sources of equity/debt capital and their inArntion that the nroiect outlined by the City and the resnandent w consistop) with their invest- ment criterin for rj_ornir-1 nf-illi $ize and type. b. Address whether the respondent or any partici- pating team members have been involved in any IN - 61. - 9"r':i 3S Worson Island Reuuesl for Proposals • SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS gation or other legal dispute regarding a real estate venture during the past five years. In the explana- tion, inctuae information regarding the outcome of any material litigation or dispute. Also, indicate if the respondooLor-any aarticipating team members have ever tiled i, -)r bankruptcy, or_have owned_or controlled projects ttlarwnave veep toreclosed, or have harl fines levied by governmental -agencies. Include the date of occurrence, contact person, tele- phone number and address. Respondents are encouraged to submit the below specified financial statements in their submittal in order to establish their copa6lity, but such submittal will not be required other than from the selected developer. An audited financial statement for the past four years of each principal and joint venture partici- pant, including statement of changes in financial position and statements of any parent organizations and any materially relevant subsidiary units, identi Eying any projects with negative cash flows, amount of developer's resource debt, any non-performing bans, and the amount of guarantees and/or contin- gent liabilities. If a development entity has been in business for more than 10 years, corporate financial statements will be accepted. Al. DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Respondent must provide a narrative accompanied by a graphic time line or schedule detailing all phases of the developmeni including developer due diligence, planning and design, permitting, con- struction, and operotions, The schedule must include an eMplanotion of how the phasing of the project was determined and a projection of the project completion time required following the development team receiving control of the site. Watson Island Request 6r Proi.osals 36 XIII, REQUIRED -RFP RESPONSE FORMS Reguired RFP response forms and a checklist of required rorms are included on the CD-RO-M. All relevant forms must be completea and placed in chis section. XIV. ATTACHMENTS Respondents may attach additional information as required. Tabs should be utilized as needed. Submittal Procedures and Deadline Submissions received in response to the RFP shall meet all requirements specified within the RFP. Submissions deficient in pcavidi gJie.Legulsed —tormatron shall be determined non-responsive by the City and sheill he rneorrihle for turther consrarra- 0-n A complete proposal subliiission package sriati be delivered to the City cis follows, One (1) original, twenty-three (2.3) copies of bound proposals, and one (1) unbound proposal in on 8- 1 /2"x l 1" format and one set of boord-mounted illustrative drawings not to exceed 24" x 36". Proposal submissions must be marked Unified Development Project Proposal for "WATSON ISLAND MEGA YACHT MARINA AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT" and addressed to: Meredith J. Nation Deportment of Real Estate and Economic Development Proposals must be received at: \%vo ` Office of the City Clerk k&6 GO do City of Miami, City Nall $V it1 \P d ;1�,t (First Floor Counter) t� y , 3500 Pan American Drive 'K Miami, Florida 33133 �- 971 • SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS by: 5:00 p.m. June 20th, 2001 The time deadline and proposal receipt location shall be strictly adhered to by the City. No propos- ols shall be received or accepted after 5:00 p.m., June 20th, 2001 or at any other City office location, other than the City of Miami Clerk's Office. Proposal submissions must be accompanied by a refundable deposit in the Form of a cashier's check, money order, letter of credit, or official bank check in the amount of $100,000 made payable to the City of Miami. The selected developer will be reim- bursed $50,000 if the project does not pass ilia required public referendum. Contact Information OFFICIAL LIST OF REGISTERED RESPONDENTS Anyone bidding must appear on our official list of those who purchased a copy of the RFP. This ensures that all potential respondents are advised of any changes made, and receive all notices, addendum, advisories, etc, regarding the RFP during the bid- ding period. Upon submission of the $300 cashier's check, money order, or official bank check for pur- chase of die RFP document, the contact name pro- vided by the check issuing entity will be placed on die official list of "registered" respondents, OPTIONAL PRE -PROPOSAL SUBMISSION CONFERENCE An optional "Pre -Proposal Submission Conference" and tour of the site shall be held at 10:00 AM, Tuesday, March 6th. The location of ilia conference will be provided by mail to all registered respon- dents. Questions from potential developers may be • addressed to City Staff at this meeting. Any ques- tions answered at Ilia meeting shall also be answered in writing Following the conkrence and shall be made available to all registered - respondents who purcl-oased ilia RFP. "CONE OF SILENCE" Except For public hearings and scheduled presenia tions, contact with the City regarding this RFP or any aspect of a proposal by a respondent or any repre- sentative of a respondent shall be limited to written communications until such tim i that a successful development team is. selected by the_City cbrnrnission. All questions or requests for addition* at information must be asked and answered in writ- ing by certified mail. The request must contain the RFP title, development entity norne, contact person name, address, phone number, and fax number. The City will respond within 10 days. Any responses to such auesticuu.nrrpnuests.shall 6e fvrnished to all respondents in the lorm of an adclendurn to tliis,RFR CITY MANAGER'S DESIGNEE FOR AODWOWAL INFORMATION Meredith J. Nation Department of Real Estate and Economic Development City of Miami AAA SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Flag Miami, FL 33130 Sub+mltted into the public record nne I n on With Tf item Nt,lt4r Fc�c,tcttt<n �1- 971 117 U/Ml I.1—A r,Ml1100 tnr Polrlol{rlk DISCLOSURE AND DISCLAIMER Any proposal deemed to be non-responsive or not responsible will be rejected. A responsible respon- dent is one that has the capability in all respects to fully perform the requirements set forth in the pro- posal and the proposed (ease, and that has the integrity and reliability which will assure good faith performance. A responsive respondent is one that has submitted a proposal tl►ot conforms in all mate- ria) respects to the RFP. Thus, for example, a propol al that has not substantiated Clic financial capability of a prospective respondent may be rejected. The City of Miami reserves the right to accept any proposals deemed to be in the best interest of the City, to waive any irregularities in any proposals, or to reject any or all proposals and tore -advertise for new proposals, in accordance with the applicable sections of the City Charter and Code. In its sole dis- cretion, the City may withdraw the RFP either before or after receiving proposals, may accept or reject proposals, and may accept proposals which deviate: from the RFP as it deems appropriate and in its best interest. In its sole discretion, the City may determine the qualifications and acceptability of any party or parties submitting proposals in response to this RFP. Pursuant to City Charter Section 29-A, sub -section (c)(6), the City reserves the right to reject all propos- als and Further, to terminate the UDP process and/or contract after a public hearing in the event of any substantial increase in the City's commitment of funds, property, or services, or in the event of any material alteration of any contract awarded under Subsection (c) Unified Development Projects, of Charter Section 29-A. This Request for Proposals ('RFP) is being furnished to the recipient by the City of Miarni ("City") for the recipient's convenience. Any action taken by the City in response to proposals made pursuant to this RFP or in nicking any awards or failure or refusal to make any award pursuant to such proposals, or in Submitted into the public record In connection with Item on ---91A 1)1 1 Walter Foeman City Clerk any cancellation of rnvards, or in any withdrawal at- cancellation rcancellation of this request for proposals, either before or after issuance of an award, shall be with- out any liability of obligation on the part of the City and its advisors. Following submission of a proposal, the applicant agrees to deliver such further details, information and assurances, including financial and disclosure data, relating to the proposal and the applicant including the applicant's affiliates, officers, directors, shareholders, partners and employees as requested by the City in its discretion. Any reliance on these contents, or on ony communi- cations with City officials or advisors, shall be of the recipients' own risk. Prospective bidders should rely exclusively on their own investigations, interpreta- tions and analyses in connection with this matter. The RFC' is being provided by the City and its advi- sors without any warranty or representation, express or implied, as to its contenl, its accuracy or com- pleteness. No warranty or representation is made by fine City or its advisors that any proposals con- forming with these requirements will be selected for consideration, negotiation or approval 11ie information contained in this RFP is published solely for the purpose of inviting prospective respon- dents to consider the development opportunity described herein. Prospective respondents should make their own investigations, projections, and con- clusions without reliance upon the material con- . Coined herein. The City and its advisors shall have no obligation or liability with respect to this RFP and the selection and award process or whether any award will be made. Any recipient of this RFP wlio responds here- to fully acknowledges all the provisions of this dis- closure and disclaimer and; is totally relying on said disclosure and disclaimer and agrees to be bound 01 97Jl_ -- 0 0 DISCLOSURE AND DISCLAIMER by the terms hereof. Any proposals submitted to the City or its advisors pursuant to this RFP are submit- ted of the sole risk and responsibility of the party submitting such proposal. The City shall not be liable for any brokerage or finders fee in connection with this RFP. The offering is made subject to correction of errors, omissions, or withdrawal from the market without notice, Information is for guidance only and does not constitute all or any pari of an agreement. Furthermore, until such time as a lease agreement is executed by the City, the selected respondent shall not fiave any vested rights, nor title or interest in the subject Property or in the clevelopment proposed thereon. The City and tfie recipient will be Bound only as, if Old when a proposal, as same may be modified, and the applicable definitive agreements perfaining thereto, are approved by the Mayor and City Commission and then only pursuant to the terms of Ile definitive o9reements executed among the par- ties. A response to this RFP, or all responses, may be accepted or rejected by the City for any reason, or for rro reason, without any resultant liability to the City or its advisors. The City is governed by the State of Florida Sunshine low and all proposals and supporting data shall be subject to disclosure as required by such law. All proposals shall remain confidential to the extent permitted by Florida Statutes, until the date and time selected for opening the responses. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the applicant agrees that in the event of a final unappealable judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction which imposes any liability arising out of this RFP or any response thereto or any action or inaction by the City or its advisors with respect thereto, the liability shall be 39 limited to $20,000.00 as agreed upon as liquidated damages. The previous sentence, however, shall not be construed to circumvent any of the other provi- sions of this disclosure and disclaimer which impos- es no liability on tfie City and its advisors. In the event of any differences in language between this disclosure and disclaimer and the balance of the RFP, it is understood that the provisions of this dis- closure and discloimer shall always govern. Further, any dispute among the City and the applicant shall be decided by binding arbitration in Miami -Dade County, Florida, before arbitrators sanctioned by and in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. • 1 Into the public g,acor tt ct record '1nn conon ne ROM --,—'-Walter Foemar+ City Cleo' Watson Island Rr:quust for Proposols Ll • ADORNO & ZEDER A PROFESSIONAL A550CIATION :'KOi SOUIH IIAYSHORr. ORtVL suite IC.00 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33133 1 FLLPHONF (305) 958-5555 FACSIMILE(305) B68-4777 vvww.ndornmr:om September 6, 2001 Submitted into the public record In, conn on with item `_.L— on 71( t Waiter Foeman City Clerk (305) 860-7069 Ms. Meredith J. Nation Mr, Alejandro Vilarelto Department of Real Estate & City Attorney Economic Development City of Miarni City of Miami 400 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 9th Floor 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor Miami, Florida 33128 Miami, FL 33130 Re: Unified Development Project Proposal (RFP) for Watson Island ec a Y@chta ins a an -Mx -ed, -Use. Development ("Project") Dear Ms. Nation and Mr. Vilarello: This law firm represents Watson Island Partners, LLC ("Watson Island Partners") in its response to the RFP for the Project. In accordance with Section 2-11.1(t) of the Code of Miami - Dade County, Florida (Cone of Silence) a copy of this correspondence is being concurrently filed with the City Clerk. This letter shall serve as our client's formal notice of protest and written protest all in accordance with the RFP and Section 18-99 of the City Code with respect to the RFP proposal submitted by Swerdlow Marine Partners, LLC (the "Swerdlow Proposal"). The Swerdlow Proposal is incomplete and non-responsive in numerous material areas. If allowed, each deviation from the requirements of the RFP set forth below will effect a substantial competitive advantage In favor of Swerdlow Marine Partners, LLC ("Swerdlow") and related project development team members (the "Swerdlow Development Team") to the detriment of Watson Island Partner's responsible and responsive proposal for the Project. Under the clear provisions of the Submittal Procedures and Deadline (RFP Page 36) the Swerdlow Proposal is ineligible for further consideration since it is "deficient in providing the required information" and must be rejected. Following is the factual and legal basis for our position: 1. The Swerdlow Proposal Is Indefinite, Ambiguous and Conditional. The Swerdlow Proposal is not responsive to the RFP since it specifically provides on Page 4 of its Executive Summary that its response should be literally taken as "no more than a confident, but tentative, commitment pending [a] final study." In the same page Swerdlow Marine Partners, LLC reserves the "right to make necessary changes to the scope of the Project and the financial terms that form the basis of our bid based upon conclusion of our continued study." To Jl" 971 1-017T I,AULCROAIF BOC:A BATON • WL51 I'AI.M 171f:ACH Ms. Meredith J. Nation and Mr. Alejandro Vilarello September 6, 2001 Page 2 accept and consider this non-responsive, incomplete and non-binding proposal would give Swerdlow Marine Partners, LLC a substantial advantage over the other bidders and thereby restrict or stifle competition. Procacci Commercial Realty. Inc.. Y. DpRartment of Health and Human Services, 690 So. 2d 603 (Fla 1 st DCA 1997); Marvin Garden & Landscape $gryice. Inc. y. DOT, DOAH Case No. 85-3337 BID (agency cannot Ignore specific instructions set forth in bid documents). 2. The Swerdlow Proposal Fails to Include Required Proposal Content. The Swerdlow Proposal is replete with missing and incomplete information and materials specifically required by the RFP. Numerous, but not exhaustive, instances of material deviations from the RFP requirements are presented below in summary fashion due to the extensive nature of the non -responsiveness of the Swerdlow Proposal A. Project Plan. The Swerdlow Response did not provide the following information, as required in Section IV on page 32 of the RFP: (i) Subsection IV(2) The overall site development chart did not include information regarding marina and vessel sizes that can be accomodated - Information on rentable square footage is not included. Information on number, type, size, construction and description of proposed operations by category is not included. Information on landscape architectural features is not included. Information on permitting and environmental issues is not included. (ii) Subsection IV(4) Proposed project plan did not include Information regarding land use, view corridors, vehicular/pedestrian acess (public and private) and marina layout. (iii) Subsection IV(5) Proposed landscape plan fails to present any Information regarding materials to be utilized. Submitted Into the public record in conned n with on Walter Foeman City Clerk ADORNO & ZEDER c — 9'71 A Pr;' JI-C.SSIONAL. ASSOClATIGN Ms. Meredith J. Nation and Mr. Alejandro Vilarello September 6, 2001 Page 3 (iv) Subsection IV(7) Rendering of overall site from MacArthur Causeway is not included One out of three required Renderings of Overall Site from within Project was included, and it fails to illustrate context, landscape, building heights, architectural elements, architectural features, landscape features, parks/plazas/greenways/open spaces/waterfront promenade and signage, as required. B. Operating Plan. The Swerdlow Response did not follow the requirements provided on page 32 and 33 of the RFP. Following is a list of the information required by the RFP, compared to the information presented: (i) Mission Statement - there is no mission statement, but rather a brief description of the "Master Development" (ii) Organization Chart - not included. (iii) Operating Procedures - information incorrectly included in description of each component of this project. (iv) Management Plan information included in description of each component of the project. (v) Management Team - misses an important member - the Hotel operator. (vi) Staffing Plan - not included, (vii) Operating Schedule - not included. (viii) Maintenance Program - not Included. (ix) Affirmative Action Program - not included for the Moga Yacht Marina and the Hotel management contractors. C. Marketing Plan. The Swerdlow Proposal does not include a plan identifying primary and secondary markets for each type of facility and/or service proposed, as required on page 33 of the RFP. Furthermore, Swerdlow limited its statements regarding marketing of the Hotel to provide that the hotel will be marketed through the hotel operator's marketing network. Note that the hotel operator has not even been selected. Submitted into tho public record in connection V11 Rev on A D O R N O & Z E D E R Walter Foem`9an J /f A ('! on::L';iIONAk. ASSOCWr ION City ClerkV " Y r• - Ms. Meredith J. Nation and Mr. Alejandro Vilarello September 6, 2001 Page 4 D. Financial Plan. E Submitted into the p"tic record tcn oneg an c/ I item J.--- Walter Foeman City Clerk Description of the financing plan for the Project is missing. There is no description of the financing plan for the Project, including any description and estimation of all sources of construction and permanent debt and equity funds to be used in the Project as required in accordance with subsection 8 on page 33 of the RFP. E. Financial Feasibility. Swerdlow did not include a minimum guarantee rent and percentage(s) of gross revenues as compensation to the City in accordance with and as required In subsection 9 on page 34 of the RFP. Moreover, Swerdlow did not commit to adhere to the City Charter requirement for compensation equal to fair market value, as required in accordance with subsection 9 on page 34. F. Development Entity. Swerdlow did not present a minimum of four current references for each principal development team members, as required in subsection X(3) on page 34, but rather presented a list of nine references for the development team as a group. G. Financial Capacity. (I) A list of three financial references that have provided the development entity or members thereof with development financing, was not presented, :gee section X(1) on page 35. (ii) Real Estate Portfolio does not provide all the information required in accordance with subsection XI (2) on page 35 of the RFP. Information not provided includes "debt, role (developer, operator, property manager, etc.), ownership interest and occupancy rate" of real estate listed. (Iii) Financing history is not presented, see subsection XI(3). Response to this subsection refers to response to Section 10.5, which refers to response to Section 10.2, which is a compilation of the resumes of the development team members. (iv) Pipeline projects list, see subsection X1(4), does not include the following required information: "development schedule and financial commitment required of developer/operator, a detailed description of the project financing methods, sources and amounts, and any working relationship (on other projects) with members of the proposed team (on this project)." (v) Financial Contact Information refers to response to Section 10,3 of the RFP, which is a list of the references for the development team. It does not ADORNO &. ZEDER A PHOFES51ONAI. SSOCIA1 ION 01- 971 • 0 Ms. Meredith J. Nation and Submitted Into the public Mr. Alejandro Vilarello record In connection with September 6, 2001 item_ _� one 7 f c i Page 6 r -Oo r Foernan .•. �`t�rl identify "specific relationships (and contact information) with sources of equity/debt capital and their indication that the project outlined by the City and the respondent is consistent with their investment criteria for a project of this size and type," as required by subsection XI(5) on page 35 of the RFP. H. Development Schedule, see RFP subsection XII on page 36. This section omits the narrative required to accompany the schedule presented. 1. Lastly, Swerdlow did not comply with the required Project component that requires art in public places, see RFP page 20. The Swerdlow Proposal in not responsive on its face because it does not conform in all material respects to the RFP. Each and every one of the above-mentioned submittal deficiencies are material non -responses to clear and specific requirements of the RFP. Intercontinental Properties, Inc v State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service, 606 So. 2d 380 -(Fla. 3d DCA 1992); E.M. Watkinsiand Company Inc v Board of Regents, 414 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1982), rev. denied 421 So.2d 67 (responsive bids contains all required information). The above -listed violations of specific RFP requirements are not mere technical errors or irregularities that the City can waive, but rather variances that gives Swerdlow a substantial advantage over the other bidders and thereby restricting or stifling competition. rocacc' Commercial Realty. lnc,. v. Deaartmgnt of Health and Human Services 690 So. 2d 603 (Fla 1st DCA 1997); Marvin's Garden & Landscape Service. Inc., v. DOT, DOAH Case No. 85-3337B1D, }may Pepper and Associates v. City of Cape Coral, 352 So.2d 1193 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977)(while agency has the discretion to waive technical errors deemed in its the best interest, it can not ignore specific instructions set forth in bid documents). Moreover, the Swerdlow Proposal is materially deficient by omitting information specifically required by the RFP regarding various of Swerdlow Development Team members. Without such missing information, a determination of whether the Swerdlow Development Team is a responsible bidder under the standard sat forth in the RFP can not be undertaken, e e Miller. Inc.. v. Arkansas. 352 U.S. 187, 77 S. Ct. 257, 1 L. Ed. 2d 231 (1956); City of Oaa Locka v. Trustees of Plumbing Industry Promotion Fund, 193 So. 2d 29, 32 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1966) (question of whether a bidder is responsible. Involves an evaluation of the bidder's experience, facilities, technical organization, reputation, financial resources, and other factors). The RFP established the standard for a responsible respondent as "one that has the capability in all respects to fully perform the requirements set forth in the proposal and the proposed lease, and that has the integrity and reliability which will assure good faith performance." (RFP, Page 38). As mentioned in Itoms 2(B) and 2(G) of this protest, the ownership structure of and ownership interests in the development entity are not included, and disclosure of and background information for numerous key individuals and/or development team members (managers, engineers and consultants) are totally lacking. In addition to being non-responsive, the omitted information undermines the ability of the City to verify that Swerdlow and its team members have the experience, facilities, financial strength and reputation necessary for the faithful and competent performance of the proposed lease. ,age Engineering_ Contractors Assoc. of 9. ELCjda, Inc.. v. Broward County 26 Fla. L. Weekly D 1607. ADORNO & ZEDER A PRC)VLS5Igt4At. AU.'CiCIATION Ms. Meredith J. Nation and Mr. Alejandro Vilarello September 6, 2001 Page 6 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, Watson Island Partners respectfully requests that the Swerdlow Proposal be deemed non-responsive and not responsible to the RFP. It is Watson Island Partners' position that the Swerdlow Proposal is not responsive to material, specific requirements of the RFP; that the Swerdlow Proposal is ambiguous as to what, if any, income the City will derive from the sale of timeshare interests; that due to the non -responsiveness to the RFP Development Entity requirements, a determination cannot be made as to the responsibility of the respondent as required by the RFP; that to ignore these material variances and others set forth in this protest would give Swerdlow Marine Partners, LLC a substantial advantage over the other RFP respondents; and that consequently, the Swerdlow Proposal must be deemed ineligible for further consideration and rejected as required by the terms of the RFP and Florida law. All references to the RFP set forth in this bid protest are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" Due to the fact that the Cone of Silence set forth In the RFP is still operative, I have filed this protest with you and not Judy Carter, the Chief Procurement Officer, as required by Section 18-99 of the City Code. We hereby request that you provide Ms. Carter with a copy of this protest in order to comply with the requirements of the City Code. If you believe that the City Code requires and that the Cone of Silence permits that we serve Judy Carter directly, please advise and we shall provide Ms. Carter with this bld protest immediately. Respectfully s bmitted, PNfnz, P.A. z cc: Walter J. Foeman, City Clerk RGM1379024-W20121(1,0001107.29.01 Submitted Into t'he public record In conn �h Item �on o !Walter Foernan AIDORNO & ZEDE.R • TABLE OF CONTENTS THE OPPORTUNITY .................. . .. 1 THE SETTING. ......... ... ......... 2 South Florida Map ................... 3 Neighboring Destinations .............. 4 Miami Area Map. ........ 5 Wotson Island ..................... 6 Existing Uses Site Plan .............. 7 Public -Private Projects in Development ... 8 Master Plan ..................... 9 THE SITE ......... , . I .... I ... I ....... 10 Property Specifications ............... 10 Existing Conditions ................... 10 Transportation and Accessibility ......... 11 Toning .......................... 12 Watson Island Zoning Map .......... 13 WATSON ISLAND'S PUBLIC PURPOSE ........ l A EMPOWERMENT AND ENTERPRISE ZONES ... 15 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES......... 17 Required Uses ..................... 17 Acceptable Uses . .............. . ... 17 Unacceptable Uses ..... . .... . ....... 17 Planning and Land Use Objc.clives ... , ... 17 Urban Design Principles and Guidelines ... IS Required Projed Components........... 19 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF OFFERING .... 21 City's Commitment of Funds, Services .... , 21 City's Commitment of Property .......... 21 • Submitted into the public record In connectt n with Item _�� on q+ 6 . Walter Foeman City Cielk Substantial Increase ................. 21. Fair Market Value .................... 21 Form of Lease Payments ............... 22 Lease Agreement ......... . ......... 22 REGULATORY PROCESS ................. 2.5 Public Referendum Approval ........... 25 State of Florida Internal Improvement Trust Fund Deed .................... 2.5 Development of Regional Impact......... 25 Design Review ..................... 25 Special Permit(s) ................. I ... 26 Building and Environmental Permits...... , 2.6 REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS ....... , 27 Administrative Review ...... . ....... • . 27 Certified Public Accountant Review ....... 27 Minority/Women Business Affairs Review .. 28 Review Committee .................. 23 Evaluation Criteria .................. 28 City Manager ...................... 30 City Commission .................... 30 Anticipated Selection Schedule . .. 30 SUBMITIAL REQUIREMEt-ITS .............. 31 Required Proposal Format ............ , 31 Required Proposal Content ............. 31 Submittal Procedures and Deadline ....... 36 Contact Information ................ 37 DISCLOSURE AND DISCLAIMER............ 38 APPENDICES LOCATED ON CD-ROM City of Miami Charter and Code Sections • Charter Section 29-A - Unified Development Projects • Charter Section 29-B - Unified Development Projects • Charter Section 29-C - Unified Development Projects • Code Section 18-87 • Code Section 18-136 et. Seq. - Minority and Women Business Affairs • Code Section 2-778 - Minority and Women Business Affairs Miami -Dade County Ordinances • Ordinance 98-106 - Cone of Silence • Ordinance 99-1 - Cone of Silence State of Florida Statutes • Chapter 286 - Sunshine Low • Section 380.06 - Development of Regional Impact Watson Island Capital Improvements Investment Summary Watson Island Policy Plan Public -Private Project Renderings • Parrot Jungle and Gardens of Watson Island, Prepared by Project Architects Koroglu Associates -Architects, P.A., December 2000 • Aviation facilities and Regional Visitors Center, Prepared by Project Architects Spillis Candela and Partners, DWM, December 2000 • Miami Children's Museum, Prepared by Project Architects Arquitectonica, December 2000 Quarterly Assessment Report, prepared by Alpha Engineers Corp. for the City of Miami, October 24th, 2000 DERM letter to the City of Miami regarding Quarterly Assessment Report, November 17th, 2000 City of Miami Zoning Codes • PR - Parks and Recreation • C-1 - liberal Commercial Miami Harbor Nautical Chart (#11-168), U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey, July 24, 1999, provided courtesy of Mcoptech, Andover; MA Deed No. 19447, Watson Island Watson Island Mega Yacht Marina Study, prepared by Bermello, Ajamil, R Partners, Inc. for the City of Miami, Oclober 2000 Recent Growth, Current Activity, and Economic Impacts of Mega Yachts in South Florida, prepared by Thomas J. Murray 8. Associates, Inc. for the Marine Industries ,Association of South Florida and the Broward Alliance, Inc.; October 1998 Urban Development Review Board General design Criteria City of Miami Required RFP Suhmission Forms News Articles relating to the Marina Industry Please note exhibits and appendices are included for informational purposes only and shall not be relied upon without further investigation. Submitted into the public rocor=on nnec O Wt hI Item tAt., 'ter f=oernan Cl 0 0, tw, �,-­` 7%;� 4 - If,.:- y�-�d­ " , , - '* ".- -5-- , -- - �w W,—p t. 41 VA j:gr-h 4 wix ­W� Jm" M. ,It' All, er 7,Y.4 SubmItted Into.. the­.pu,bIIc copn�;UQW with :.-.:record -in 13 a �j 'W AINVW, n: A -of) o'w.Mt ftaO;. 1MNYNlY. O -R4 0, tw, �,-­` 7%;� 4 - If,.:- y�-�d­ " , , - '* ".- -5-- , -- - �w W,—p t. 41 • THE SETTING One of the world's favorite playgrounds and at the forefront of pop culture, global commerce, fashion and entertainment, greater Miami offers visitors the cutting edge of urban chic combined with the beauty of a tropical paradise. For decades, visitors hove been drawn to die area. But in recent years, the tourism sector of the South Florida economy has increased attracting throngs of international visitors who are quickly beguiled by the area's colorful character and charms. Greater Miami has become a superstar among Ilia world's great travel destinations. In addition to being a world-renowned tourism des- tination, the region is a powerhouse in international trade and Financial services. Miami -Dade County is home to the largest concentration of domestic and international banks on the Fast Coast south of New York City. Approximately 100 commercial banks, thrift institutions, foreign bank agencies and Edge Act banks have facilities here. In the international banking sector, U.S., Canadian, British, German, Swiss, French, Spanish, .Japanese, Israeli, Brazilian and Venezuelan banks have offices in Miami -Dade County to serve offshore customers with personal or business ties to the region. In addition to banking, Miami -Dade County, thanks in part to its reputation as the Gateway to the Southern Hemisphere, is home to nearly 500 multi- national corporations that are largely responsible For producing a total merchandise trade of about $52 billion a year. Another gateway, die "Gateway for Connectivity", is quickly growing in South Florida with the recent arrival of the Miami Network Access Point ("NAP"), The dowr►town Miami NAP; die fifth and final access point in the network of access points to be developed in the United States, will provide telecommunications interconnectivity through Miami to regions of ilia world. T1he dovm- town Miami NAP is scheduled to be completed in lune 2001. • Submitted Into the public recordjLconnTi�n�jjjlh Item on Walter Foeman city Clerk Miami -Dade County hosts a unique mix of cultural institutions, from museums and arts organizations to neighborhood theater groups and dance compa- nies. Leading musical organizations include the Florida Philharmonic, New World Symphony, Florida Grand Opera, Concert Association of Florida, Miami Symphony Orchestra and Miami City Ballet. The Actors Playhouse, Area Stage, Coconut Grove Playhouse, Florida Shakespeare Theater, Teattro Avante and other theater groups present comedies, dramas and musicals. Additionally, the Jackie Gleason Theater on Miami Beach annually hosts a full season of Broadway shows, concerts, and dance performances. Miami -Made County has a comprehensive trans- portation network, designed to meet the needs of residents, travelers and area businesses. The coun- ty's internal transportation system includes Metrorail, a 2.1.1 mile aboveground transit system linking South Miami, Carol Gables, Brickell Avenue, Downtown Miami, the Medical Center, Northwest Dade and Hialeah. Metromover, a 4A mile auto- mated loop, carries passengers around downtown Miami, Brickell Avenue and the Omni areas. More than 540 square miles of Miami -Dade Counly are covered by Metrobus, which carries about 2.00,004 passengers daily. Tri -Rail is South Florida's com- muter railroad, operating seven days a week from 113 train stations along a 71 mile rail corridor. As the north -south spine of South Florida's transporta- tion network, trains run parallel to Interstate 95 ("1- 95") linking Miarni-Dade, Broward and Palin Beach counties. Miami International Airport is one of the busiest air-. ports in the world for both passengers and cargo traffic. Total passenger traffic reached 33.9 million in 1999, including 15.8 million international pas- sengers. More than 120 airlines servo Miami International Airport, flying passengers to more than 200 destinations on five continents, • THE OPPORTUNITY This Request for Proposals ("RFP") is an invitation from the City of Miami to qualified private real estate developers to create a world-class waterfront mixed-use commercial project on the Nortfnvest Quadrant of Watson Island along the Biscayne Bay waterfront. The property consists of approximately 10.6 acres of upland and 13.4 acres of adjacent submerged land, with 1,100 feet of bay frontage including dramatic views of downtown Miami, the Port of Miami cruise ship tenninals, and the American Airlines frena. The City intends to lease ilia property for develop- ment and operation under a long-term lease of forty-five years with the option of two, fifteen -year renewal terms. To accomplish the development of perhaps the most dramatic segment of waterfront land in South Florida, an integrated package of services from the private sector is sought including planning and design, construction, leasing, and management. The approved uses for the property, in any combi- nation, include entertainment destinations, educa- tionot and/or cultural facilities, marina and marine facilities, convention and/or conference facilities, hotel, retail, restaurants, theaters, recreation, and ancillary office, parking and other support facilities. Marina and marine facilities are required uses and must includee accommodations for vessels larger than BO feet, commonly known as "Mega Yachts". At a minimum, the majority of the marina must include accommodations and amenities for such mega yachts. The City encourages a portion of the upland to be utilized to service and support the marina development. A well-defined program for the subject properly must compliment the island's adjacent projects and form a compatible and synergistic link to the excite- ment of Downtown, South Beach, the Port of Miami, and the rest of South Florida. Given the island's • Submitted Into the public record in connection with item _-I— on -f 0 Wafter Foeman City ('lerk proximity to urban settings and access to deep water, optimal utilization of the waterfront is essen- tial to the success of the development. of key importance to the project will be its ability to achieve a balance between the various potential commercial uses and activities and the island's pub- lic purpose. The City of Miarni envisions Ilio completed island as a waterfront development with outstanding charac- teristics that emphasize human scale, public open spaces, and the pedestrian realm through the cre- ation of generous waterfront promenades, diverse open spaces and wide free -lined pathways that will enhance the commercial, recreational, cultural and maritime facilities developed. to serve greater Miami's residents and visitors. Much of the foundation for attaining an exceptional waterfront destination on Watson Island has already been laid. The City's $60 million capital improve- ments program, which will blend complimentary pu6lic-private components, is well underway on Watson Island. New roadway and infrastructure improvements are nearly complete- and a large, botanical gardens attraction project is underway that will play a vital role in anchoring the island as an entertainment destination. E SOUTH FLORIDA MAP • Submitted Into the public record in connection Item �-�-� do �1 W Walter FOeman CItY Cleric �. - 9'71. Neighboring Destinations BRICKED. Located south of die Miami River, Brickell is a high den- sity, mixed-use urban village with modern office build- ings, prestigious residential towers, entertainment cen- ters and some of the best restaurants Miarni has to offer. In die 1970's and 1983 Ys zoning changed to permit large-scale commercial development and the Edge Act bank laws transformed this prestigious neighborhood into the second largest international financial district in the United States with close to 5 million square feet of office space. Oeer 10,000 people live in Brickell's luxury high-rise condominiums and 1,000 new apartments and condo- miniums are currently under construction with more on the way. Towering office buildings and condominiums rising olrove a majestic boulevard mix with quiet, tree - lined streets to create a vibrant commercial energy while offering charm and relaxation. DOWNTOWN Miami's downtown is the largest commercial and retail district In South Florida. Ills estimated that a daily population of 240,000 persons work, visit, attend school, or shop in downtown Miami. Bayside Mkarketp(ace, a 250,000 sq.ft. retail specialty center, anchors die eastern edge of the central business district. This Rouse Company project was developed by a pub- lic-private partnership will) the City of Miami $trough a UDP selection process. Immediately to ilia north of Bayside lies the American Airlines Arena, home to the Miami Heat professional basketball franchise. The arena opened an New Year's Eve, 1999 and serves as a venue for sports, concerts, ice shows, and other enter- tainahent events. A pedestrian bridge is planned to cow nett Boyside and the arena. Plans are also in progress for the redevelopment of die thirty plus acre Bicentennial Park, directly north of the arena. Submitted Wo the public record in connec#9p. with Item 1_, on t I Wafter roeman City Clerk In the early 1970's, the completion of the Interstate -395 ('1.395"1 Expressway provided die northern portion of downtown Miami with direct access to and from 1-95, Miami International Airport and Miami Beach. This sup- ported new forge -scale development in the area. In die 1980's, Venetia, a high-density complex mixing residen- tial, lintel and retail uses was developed along Biscayne Bay. In the 1990's, access to the area was further improved with the completion of die Metromover, which provides diced transit connections with downtown and flre regional Metrorail system. Today these projects are joined by additional residential, hotel, and office uses. MEDIA ARTS DISTRICT This decade, plans are underway for the development of a new Perfomhing Arts Center (" PAC"I in the district. Media, arts, and entertainment related focilities are expected widi increasing demand as a spin-off from the existing local community collepe, Ole- Miami -Dade County Public Schcx3ls facilities, and file now PAC. The City of Miami, public agencies, and entertainment pro- duction entrepreneurs are working to transform the underdeveloped area within the district west of Biscayne Boulevard into a rAedia and Entertainment district, Roadway improvements, additianai parking, new parks and schools will support these new developments. PORT OF MIAMI The Port of Miarni is the largest anise passenger port in Ole woad and fourth largest container cargo port in North America. Over three million cruise ship passen- gers per year see Watson Island as tlrey depart for trop- ical ports of call. MiAMI BEACF1 Along MocArtliur Causeway to The cost is Miami Beach, an area internationally known for its famous South Beach and historic "Art Deco District' featuring renovat. ed historic Wels, outdoor cafe dining, shopping, and some of the world's most prominent night spots, 97j. Submitted Into the public record Iii connection with Item 1 on Ahaia Walter Foeman City Cleft 03 971 • WATSON ISLAND Midway between Miami and Miami Beach, this 86 acre island is located at the heart of Miami's desti- nations. In addition to the extraordinary view of all of its neighboring destinations, 80,000 cars per day traverse the island via the MacArthur Causeway, the major east -west roadway connecting the two cities. Deeded to the City of Miami by the State of Florida in 1949, the island -has remained largely undevel- oped for fifty years, serving primarily as open recre- ational space and a transportation terminal. These uses continue on the island and plans and construc- tion are underway to add new investments and pub- lic uses. WATSON ISLAND MARINA A marina with 45 wet slips, mooring piles and a rip -rap style concrete seawall is located in the north- west quadrant of the island. The marina currently houses a small commercial fishing Fleet that will he relocated by the City. This marina is located within the lands being offered in this RFP for redevelop - men[ as a mega yacht marina. BOAT CLUBS 71ke Miami Yacht Club and the Miami Outboard Club have existed on Watson Island since the 1940's. Located on the northeast and the southeast corner of the island, respectively, these non-profit operated boating facilities provide recreational activities and access to Biscayne Bay. CHALK'S OCEAN AIRWAYS Watson Island is licensed by the Florida Department of Transportation as a municipal airport and oper- ates as a seaplane base for Chalk's Ocean Airways, the oldest seaplane airline in the world with service to the Florida Keys, the Bahamas and the Caribbean. This historic and picturesque use is an icon of file Miami and South Florida history. This seaplane base is located to the south of the offered property, u Submitted Into the public record In connecti0 with Item �„ on "i I o Walter Foeman City Cleric 1 IELIPORT Watson island is licensed by the Florida Department of Transportation as a municipal heliport arid pro- vides a convenient landing zone for multiple heli- copter operators. PUBLIC BOAT RAMP A public boat launching facility is located on the east side of the island, midway between die two haat clubs. The ramp, docks and piers have been replaced at* this heavily used facility as part of a $.400,000 restoration. Further improvements are underway to the parking area including bstollation of lighting and landscaping. PARROT JUNGLE AND GARDENS OF WATSON ISLAND The newest addition to the island, Parrot Jungle and Gardens, is relocating to Watson Island from its present location in Miami -Dade County where it has been in business for over sixty years. The botanical garden attraction will offer more than 16 acres of lush tropical landscaping, animal and horticultural exhibits and demonstrations, dining, educational, conferencing, and banquet facilities. It is anticipat- ed that nearly a half million people will visit die popular attraction in Ilia first year after its opening on Watson Island, growing every year by an addi- tional 50,000 visitors per year, The attraction is scheduled to open in the summer of 2002. ICHIMURA MIAMI -JAPAN GARDEN This unique one -acre, public garden and contempla live setting was construded in the 1960's as a gift to Ole residents of Miami from a well-known Japanese businessman, the founder of what is now the Ricoh Corporation. The Japanese Garden is being relo- cated to a site south of its existing location as part of the commitment mad&by Parrot Jungle and Gardens to maintain the garden for the Cit/- Of— ity.cif— 971- F 1E L R E. 3R E V it WATSON ISLAND EXISTING USES SITE PLAN Submitted Into the Public rGCO°'d in connection Item -__ -- an -ajj wit Walter Foeman City Clerk PEN SPAC4 I\ ! PORT OF M1M11 � t -- 971. 1. i WATSON ISLAND Public -Private Projects In Development Watson Island has been the recipient of a significant amount'of development capital, both public and private. Please refer to the CD-ROM for die Watson Island Capital improvements Investment Summary, Ilio Watson Island Policy Plan, and to view render- ings of the public-private projects in development. AVIATION FACILITIES & REGIONAL VISITORS CENTER Proposed to be relocated to a 5.6 acre site at the water's edge immediately south of the property, Watson island's aviation facilities will be geographically redefined and physically upgraded to provide a state of the art aviation center for visitors and corporate travelers seeking access to downtown Miami, adjacent communities and Points beyond. A principal component of the project includes a new terminal building to support aviation activities including ticketing, baggage handling, a passenger waiting area, food and beverage concessions, and offices for U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, The lenninal building will also house a regional visitors center, managed and operated by the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors bureau, whose administrative offices will he located within the building. MiAMI CHILDREN'S MUSEUM The Miami Children's Museum, a 501 (c)3 not-for- profit organization, will be a regional cultural and educationol facility for South Florida families and tourists. The Miami Children's Museum is ilia next step in tito evolution of the Miami Youth Museum, which has been a community educational institution i Submitted into the public record iq conn item ! , on wl l Gj Walter Foeman CJty (3ierk for over fifteen years, providing interactive exhibits and programs, uniquely tailored and accessible to 16 diverse population of Miami. It is anticipated that the Museum will construct a 55,000 sq. ft., state -of -die -ort facility on Watson Island that will showcase interactive and themed exhibits based on local and regional features for residents and tourists. The three themes represented throughout Ilia facility will be community, culture and communication. WATSON ISLAND MASTER PIAN Submitted Into the public record in connection with Item .4— on .-.1.i1 Waitpr Foeman City Clerk - 971 • THE SITE The site offered for lease is the largest tract of unde- veloped commercially zoned waterfront land in downtown Miami, The property includes 10.8 acres of upland, with 1,1100 linear feet of shoreline, and 13.4 acres of adjacent submerged land with depths ranging from 8 to 15 feet. Property Specifications UPLAND Approximately 10.8 acres located in the nordtwest quadrant of the island. SUBMERGED LANDS Approximately 13.4 acres of bay bottom lands extending directly westward of the upland .portion from the existing marina. BOUNDARIES To the north of dee property is the MacArthur Causeway Bridge. The bridge connects to the MacArthur Causeway (1-3951, which forms the east- ern boundary of die property, The property is bor- dered on the west and south by the Port of Miami fuming basin, die Intercoastal Waterway, and the Government Cut channel Together, the upland parcel and the submerged lands described above, and depicted in the survey, enclosed with the complete RFP package, comprise tine property being offered to the successful development team for redevelopmenf under a long term lease and development agreement, Existing Conditions The property and its improvements are offered "as is, where is" 6y the City for development and long- term management. Existing in►provements and facili- ties located on the property are, not required to be retained as part of the proposed redevelopment of Submitted into the public j record In connocN�n with on ._.11.-7 a i Waiter Foeman City Clerk the site. Further discussion of lite City's commitment of property can be found in the Terms and Conditions of Offering section of this RFP. UTI LMES The City of Miami and other agencies have invested significant funds in recent years to improve the infra- structure on Watson Island. In 1998, the City com- pleted a $250,000 water main project that provides new fire safety lines with domestic water capability. This new service connects to Miami -Dade County's 36 inch water main located along the right-of-way of the former roadway, and consists of 12 inch pipe lying generally alongside the new access ramp road- ways on the north and south of the island. The serv- ice can be converted to domestic wafer upon pay- ment of appropriate fees. Additional water service is found near the existing marina Y,,here 20 inch and 12 inch water mains are located. A second project for new sanitary and stone sewers is nearly complete. This $2.89 million project con- silts of 12 inch and 16 inch farce mains running the length of the Venetian Causeway to Biscayne Island, tfren across die bay via a 12 inch force main to Watson Island. On Watson Island, a 12 inch force main and 8 inch PVC run along the MocAribur Cousewcry to the mid -point of the island where a new pumping station has been constructed. A 10 inch line connects from the pumping station to Ilie wast side of the island where 8 inch and 10 inch lines run to the northwest and southeast along the utilities easements. Capacity is estimated of 395,750 average gallons per day. The new system connects to the 72 inch sewer main interceptor located on die Miami mainland at N. Bayshore Drive and N.E. I5Ili Street. All work on Watson Island is complete. The force mains crossing the bay are currently under construction, Existing utilities may be relocated at the expense of dee successful developer, ul - 971 THE SITE SubMitted Into the public record in connec o �wl��h item -_.�, on-�L`L:l W?fter roeman ren.. f:fF+rlr WATER DEPTH The orea currently envisioned as the marina is accessed from lite Atlantic Ocean by the Miami Harbor main ship channel, The water depths in the submerged lands offered in this RFP range from 8' to 15'. According to boating manuals and depths of area mega yacht facilities, water depths for the largest vessels (150'4-) range from 8' to 1.4'-.4'. A marine chart is included on the CD-ROM. VEGETATION There are limited mitigation concerns for tree removal as there are no canopied trees or native vegetation on the site. Substantial landscape plant- ings and pedestrian open space shall be required in on effort to enhance the future development. ENVIRONMENTAL. CONDITIONS In 1994 a biolociical survey of the submerged land area of the marina was commissioned by the City of Miami and conducted by the Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Mancgement ("DERM"). The findings of the survey revealed "no significant epibenthic communities" and concluded with a qualified opinion that a mari- na to accommodate large cruising vessels, common- ly referred to as "mega -yachts," could be consf rvcted. In July 1998, the City removed an 8,000 -gallon obove-ground fuel storage tank that served tite heli- port facility. Regular post-removal inspection of soil conditions detected trace levels of petroleum con• tominants that were remediated by Ilse removal of approximately 101 cubic yards of soil, Two moni- toring wells were installed due to the groundwater contamination experienced at the site evidenced by tite sheen present in the groundwater in the pit. DERM requires an assessment on a quarterly basis to continue monitoring the ground water. An environriienfal consultant hired 6y the City is doing the monitoring. A copy of the most recent quarterly assessment report and related letter from DERM is included on the CD-ROM. The City -Is leas- ing the property "as is, where is" without any repre- sentation regarding the environmental condition of the site. Transportation and Accessibility The property is highly accessible by land, sea and air. The island is positioned within Biscayne Boy along the Intercoastal Waterway and Government Cut, the seaword section of the Miami Harbor, with a direct 40' deep access channel to the Atlantic Ocean used by the Port of Miami. Vehicular access is via the MacArthur Couseway, connected to the mainland by a recently reconstruct- ed high-level, fixed -span bridge. The Causeway provides direct access to Downtown Miami via Biscayne Boulevard and 1-95, The Miami International Airport is a quick drive alone express- way 1-95 and State Road 836. Eastward, the Causeway connects to Miami Beach. The Florida Deparhttent of Transportation has cont pleted construction of new access roads that have created a system of on and off -ramps to the MacArthur Causeway with landscaping and light- ing. This $2.06 million project was completed in July 1999. With 14te completion of the $37.7 million new causeway bridge in 1997, the island's main interior roadway now crosses under tfte bridge to link the north and south sides of the island. Additional island roadway improvements to improve circulation to the east side will be mode wish $132,000 in federal grant funds. Watson Island has a long history of aviation uses. Air access to Watson Island is available both through seaplane and helicopter service. The island is licensed by the Florida Department of Transportation as an international airport and as such, file Federal Aviation Administration regi 11_ 9 7 1 0 THE SITE air traffic to and from the island. Chalk's Ocean Airways seaplane base lies to the south of the prop- erty. This service and the existing small heliport located within the property will be combined and reconfigured into a new, full-service Aviation Facility and Visitors Center to be located to the south of the property. A new circulation road, described later in this RFP as the "Proposed Boulevard" is proposed to connect the Aviation Facility and upcoming adjacent projects to the causeway access road system and to provide access to the northwest quadrant parcel offered in this RFI? zoning Pursuant to the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance 11000 as amended, the property has two zoning designations. Approximately 70% of the upland is zoned C-1, Restricted Commercial, while lice remainder is zoned PR, Parks and Recreation, A Major Use Special Permit (MUSP) will be required for the project. There are no height or density limitations in land zoned PR. Land zoned C-1 allows the following: • FAR 1.72. • Density -- Maximum of 300 hotel units per acre. • Height -- None. Proposals must ensure that the development complies with all applicable zoning laws and conforms to Ile more restrictive uses of the RFP described later in this RFP as the "Acceptable Uses" within Project Goals and Objectives, For details of applicable requirements of the C-1 or PR zoning districts refer to the CD-ROM. A more detailed description of the MUSP can be found in the Regulatory Process section of ibis RFP. 0 Submlttod Into the publlo record In conn n with Item -L... on i /u1 Walter Foos?an GPS, cleric FLOOD ZONE A preliminary review of the upland shows most of the land Flood zoned "AE -9" with the excep- tion of the southeast part of the northwest quad- rant, which is Flood zoned "AE -11 ". All structures constructed at the site must conform to the "AE" Flood Zone requirements set forth by the City of Miami Code and the Federal Emergency Management Administration. The exact locations of the Flood Zones are depicted on the survey, enclosed with the complete RFP package. :d. — 9 7 :1. • WATSON ISLAND'S PUBLIC PURPOSE A critical development objective for all of Watson island is to balance publicly oriented uses with com- mercial development. The public purpose compo- nents may include: open space, public space, public use, recreation, educational, cultural, environmental, maritime, tourism, transportation, and government uses. Proposals are encouraged to incorporate a broad range of public and commercial uses that will attract many and varied users, and add a distinctive devel- opment to the destination appeal of Miami: STATE OF FLORIDA INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND DEED RESTRICTION A constraint governing the future use and develop rnent of Watson island is the 1949 deed of con- veyance from the Stole of Florida to the City of Miami. The.deed expresses certain limitations on the use of the island. The language of the deed restriction is as follows: deed is given and granted upon the express condition subsequent that the Grantee herein or its successors and assigns shall never sell or convey or lease the abov ascribed land or any_port Iher_eof to any private Person. tirm, or corporation (or any private use or puraose, it being the intention of this restriction that ilia said lands shall be used solely for public purposes, including municipal purposes and not otflerwise." Following execution of a lease agreement with the successful development team, a finding of public purpose or o waiver of the decd restriction must be obtained from the State of Florida Intemal Improvement Trust Fund Board of Trustees, The City shall, with the support of the successful development • Submitted Into tho public record in canner a with Item ,_..,�a an G Walter Foeman Qhl cte* team and on behalf of the project, petition the Board of Trustees for such a finding or a waiver of the deed restriction. In 1997 the City sought a waiver of these provisions from the Board of Trustees to permit the leasing of portions of the island to Parrot Jungle and Gardens of Watson Islar-rd, Inc. The waiver was granted on the basis that the proposed leasehold uses were in substantial conformance with the public interest and purpose of the island and in furtherance of munici- pal purposes. In 1998 and 2000, ilia City received a finding of compliance with the deed provisions for the proposed Aviation Facilities and Regional Visitors Center project and the Miami Citildren's Museum, respectively. Projects with a more commer- cial orientation located in other areas of the City have been granted waivers. Two such examples are Bayside Marketplace developed by the Rouse Company and Grove Harbour currently being devel- oped, both are waterf rant properties. The City, however, makes no representations and has no information as to whether such a waiver can be successfully obtained for this project. If ilia Board of Trustees denies a request for a waiver of tlhe deed restriction, the project shall be terminated. In the event of such a termination, ilio development team has no vested rights, nor title or int@rest in the property or to the developmerrt proposed thereon, nor a claim upon the City For any expenses incurred in the proposal process. Developers may choose to partner with local cultural or educational institutions to propose mutually bene- ficial opportunities to Fudlher create public purpose uses on ilia island, oI- 971 EMPOWERMENT AND ENTERPRISE ZONES In 1999, the United States Department of Housing and Urian Development designated the Miami- Dode County Empowerment Zone as one of only thirty-one Zone districts in the country. The purpose of the federal initiative is to create jobs and business opportunities by offering various tax credit and cash incentives. Nearly 75% of the Miami -Dade County Emooworment Zane lies in the City of Miami, includ- ing the downtown central business district and Watson Island. The Empowerment Zone Trust, a non-profit organization, is responsible for maximiz- ing the use of the federal dollars received. Watson Island is also located in on Enterprise zone, a designation created by the Florida State Legislature to provide financial incentives in targeted areas by offering property owners and/or tenants corporate and sales tax refunds and/or credits. There are over twenty-five Enterprise 'Lone counties or cities in Florida. Emnowerment and Enterprise Zonn incentives may be anolied for anri received concurrently. The City of Miami shall not accept pro- posals that are contingent on receiving any of the Zone benefits. Below is an overview of Ilia specific incentives that may be avoilabie: Empowerment Zone Incentives TAX EXEMPT BOND FINANCING A special tax-exempt bond, outside of Ilia state vol- ume cap, that may provide lower Ilion market inter- est rates for large-scale business expansion and job creation projects. INCREASED SECTION 179 EXPENSING Ali increase in Section 179 expensing that may [)to -- vide up to $37,000 for investments in capital and equipment. WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT A tax credit that may provide businesses with incen- tives of up to $2,400 for each eligible employee. 0 Submitted into the public record in connection with item _L_ on _2,U� Walter Foeman City Clerk WELFARE -TO -WORK CREDIT A credit that may provide businesses with an incen- tive to hire long-term famify assistance recipients. Considerable regulations and restrictions•apply to these incentives. For additional information on these incentives, review IRS publication 954, which explains how to determine if a particular business qualifies For specific zone incentives. The Empowerment Zone Trust can be contacted directly to discuss Empowerment Zone related ques- tions: Miami -Dade County Empowerment Zone Trust 140 W. Flogler Street, Suite 1107 Miami, FL 33130 305/372-7620 Enterprise Zone Incentives STATE PROPERTY TAX CREDIT A 9654 credit against corporate income tax up to $50,000 on any ad valorem property taxes not abated by local government may be available for up to five years. BUSINESS EQUIPMENT SALES TAX REFUND A sales tax refund that may provide up to $10,000 her piece of equipment. FLORIDA JOU CREATION TAX CREDIT A 15% credit against corporate income tax or sales and use tax on wages paid to each new employee wl,o is a resident of the zone. , BUILDING MATERIALS SALES TAX REFUND A sales tax refund that may provide up to $10,000 per business owner or tenant. Considerable regulations and restrictions apply to these incentives. For additional information an these incentives, review IRS publication 954, which explains how to detennine if a particular business qualifies for specific zone incentives. A nn 71 uI­._„ i4_4 0---4 kr Prnnosols i 0 Submitted Into the public record In connection with Item on Waiter Foeman r _ - PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES E TIVES . The City's development goals and objectives for Ilia site are to achieve a unique mix of uses, a signifi- cant and sustainable financial return to the City, and a landmark design. Further, it is die City's expecta- tion to completely reshape and redefine. Watson Island as an active people -gathering, public water- front destination. The City has carefully formulated 'the following objectives for this public-private partnership: Requires! Uses Given Ilia property's invaluable waterfront position on Biscayne Bay along the Intercoastal Waterway and the Government Cut section of the Miami Harbor channel, marina (wet slind rind marine facilities are specilically required as part of any oeyolonment program for the property, and must include accomrnnti�=�n� amenities for vessels 80 feet and larger, commonly known cis rnega yachts. One or all odditionol cu-ceptable uses lisled below may be accommodated within a respondent's proposed development program, so long as the Vision is achieved in a well-balanced plan. Acceptable Uses Acceptable uses for the development are listed below: Submitted Into the public r©cprd In conn©ctI=nwlthItem . onGi Walter Foeman Unacceptable Uses City Cleric Private clubs and residential uses shall not be con- sidered acceptable in PR or C-1 Planning and Land Use Objectives To develop a world-class marina capable of accom- modating vessels 80 feet and larger. To design a waterfront mixed use development lliat is worthy of its waterfront setting with ernpliasis ort human scale and public open space. To form a compolible link to the neighboring Downtown, Miami Beach, the Port of Miami, and the rest of South Florida. to enliance the overall public benefit derived from the property in terms of use, visibility, access, and financial return. To develop an array of uses that will attract increas- ing and varied segments of Ilia local, regional and visitor population and further develop the interno- lional destination appeal of Miami. ACCEPTABLE USES ZONING 'PR" PARKS & RECREATION "C-1" COMMERCIAL. Entertainment/Entertainment Destinations X X Educational aril/or Cullural Facilities _ X X Retail (including sole of equipment and accessories for boats) X X Restaurants X X _ _ _ Privately owned and/or operated Recreation Buildin s and Facilities _ � X X PI rounds, Play4iolds, Pana, Beaches X _ X Neighfxxhood Centers, Auditoriums, Libraries X X Art Galleries, Museun►s X _X Ancillaryand Su t Facilities such as Offices and Parking _ X _ X Hotel (including Convention and/or Conference Facilities) X The,ators � � X 01- 9"71. • PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Urban Design Principles and Guidelines GENERAL • Public access to the water's edge shall be paramount. • Continuous greenway/open space shall run the entire length of the waterfront. • Scenic vistas of the bay area shall be respected and enhanced. • Frequent and safe pedestrian connections to the waterfront must be assured. • The architecture and landscape architecture shall acknowledge the tropical climate of the region and contribute to the pedestrian, civic life of the project. USAGE. • Tho marina must provide accommodations for vessels of 80 feet and larger. • Private clubs will not be permitted. • Waterfront urban open spaces s}rall provide opportunities for passive recreation. VIEWS • Preserve exceptional views of the Port, bay and Miami skyline. • Provide optimum waterfront views from open spaces, plazas and parks. ACCESS • Provide continuous pedestrian access along the waterfront. • Provide the maximum public access to the waterfront. • Minimize pedestrian/vehicular conflict points. • Interior and perimeter walkways shall be a mini- mum of 10 feet in width. • Uninterrupted paths and walkways along the waterfront shall be o minimum of 15 feet in width. • Submitted Into the public record In connectfon item ---L— on h u Walter FoemarA City Cleric; • Provide waterfront overlooks. • Waterfront promenade shall include seating areas adjacent to the waters edge. • Creative use of street ligghfing andclistinctive exterior building -lighting is encouraged. • Pedestrian scale decorative lighting, low level path and landscape accent lighting shall be incorporated into the development including along the waterfront, public open spaces and marina. • All utility infrastructure shall be placed underground or within chases below grade. • Increase access to the waterside environment and provide uninterrupted connection to adjacent land uses and the WxArthur bridge underpass that includes a pedestrian pathway leading to the north side of the island. OPEN SPACES Provide a continuous variety of public open spaces along the waterfront including: Parks Plazas Walkways Edge Treatments Open spaces shall acknowledge the tropical climate of the region by providing significant shade through the use of substantial shade trees and specimen palm varieties. ARCHITECTURE The setback from flhe waterfront of all structures shall be a minimum of 100 feet: - Buildings sholl acknowledge the sub tropical climate of the region. Building's orientation shall address the specificity of the site along die waterfront with focus on ele- ments such as: Terraces Roof Gardens Entries Porches/Veranclas 3 A r: PROJECT GOALS Balconies Wide Roof Overhangs AND OBJECTIVES • Building intensity, mossing and articulotion shall respond to human scale and the pedestrian realm. • Building facades shall be varied and articulated to provide visual interest to pedestrians. In no case shall the waterfront facade of a building consist of an inarficulated blank wall. • Primary ground. floor commercial building entrances are strongly encouraged to face the waterfront, parks, plazas, open spaces, and pedestrian walkways, not parking lots. • Se condar-y entries frorn interior walkways are also encouraged. PARKING Parking shall riot be allowed alone the waterfront. • Parking struch.rres shall be articulated in such a way as to conceal the program. • it is suggested that parking structures shall face the island access rood system immediately adja- cent to the Mac, Arthur Causeway. • Parking Structures shall allow for retail/corr(mer- cial or other active uses on the ground floor fac- ing the pedestrian plazas and open spaces. LANDSCAPE Streets and walkways shall be planted with a continuous canopy of shade trees, flowering trees, or closely spaced specimen palms. Landscape shall be designed to compliment the architecture, to emphasize elements such as entrances, plazas, and open spaces, to frome views, and to visually screen service and utility areas. Identify a varied palette of tropical and Florida native plant materials that reflect the landscape of the region. SIGNAGE • Submitted Into th,a public record In connection with item _) on Waiter Foeman City Clerk Provide artistically designed educolional and interpretive signage along the waterfront and prominent urban open spaces to create aware- ness of the environment and bay ecosystems. Signage shall be designed to meet cornpati6ility, uniformity and size standards that do not com- pete with the architecture of the development or with the island wide signage system. Project shall participate in an island wide signage system. Required Project Components The City has established a number of program requirements that must be included in any proposed development project. All requirements are to be can- strucied at the deve(oper's sole expense; however, the City may assist the selected developer in pursuing grant funding, low interest rate loans, or other addi- tion) funds or services that may be available for the project at no additional cost to the City. MARINA A boat basin $hot has docks, moorings, supplies, and other facilities for boats is required and must be designed with specifications consistent with industry standards for a world-class marina. Recognizing morin manufacturing industry trends towards die expanding production of mega yacht vessels and the increased sizes of such vessels, the City is requiring that tlia marina shall accommodate vessels eighty (60) feet and lamer. Water -related uses assgciated will) the island such as commercial fishing and charter services may be included in the marina design. Fresh fish mar- kels may also be included in lire overall project design. The mix of marine -related uses shall be designed to provide the greatest possible economic impact in the community, Specific marina related objectives include: To develop the highest quality marina facilities, following the highest industry standaf for 9 7 j. i! �_I-..J n(.,r Pronnsats PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES berthing large vessels, that shall attract interria- tional and regional marine industry interests and optimize the use of the waterfront. • Utilize the available submerged property to maximize the economic potential of the site. • To develop upland facilities and activities that shoji compliment those of the proposed marina, as well as adjacent parcels within the island, and that serve to connect die various projects and experiences, • To optimize the use of submerged lands to creat,- the reatethe maximum number of wet slips to accommo- date mega yacht vessels. Funding for dredging and marina development may Le available through the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, A preliminary study of a potential mega yacht marina design for the site and a mega yacht economic impact study have been included on the CD-ROM. These stud- ies are included for informational purposes only and sholl not be relied upon without further investigation. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Respondents are required to incorporate oublic art projects within IIIc, clavetgpment that shaJI create enioy- y�tau eIbg_ ulli �r��y ,a= for vi :iiigg and livina in the Greater Minmi_irr-r%_ The amount of investment in public art shnll be $0.35 per square foot based on the amount of square footage of the gross floor area dedicaiea to commer- ciol uses. Artwork shall be unique, produced by a professional artist, and easily accessible to the public .for at least A0 hours each week. Examples of art projects to considur includo tangible creations by artists exhibiting the Highest quality of skill and aes- thetic principles, including but not limited to paintings, . 11 , . . f .. I. On Submitted Into tho public record In connection with its --L. _ on a.0_Lr L Walter Foeman City Clerk sculptures, glass works, statues, has reliefs, engrav- ings, carvings, frescoes, mobiles, murals, mosaics, fiber works, photographs, and drawings. . Building features and enhancements such as gates, benches and monuments, as well as landscape art enhancements such as fountains and walkways, shall be considered toward this requirement so long as the elements are designed by professional artists and ore not mass-produced. WATER TAXI LANDING A designated water taxi landing shall be provided by the selected developer as an amenity to enhance pub- lic access to tfie island and as a link to other area waterfront dining, entertainment and lodging destina- tions via watercraft. The water taxi landing shall Ix a minimum of forty (40) feet in length. PROPOSED BOO.EVARD A boulevard with a typical 70' cross-section, which includes a center median, adjacent to the southern boundary of the property offered in this RFP is pro- posed. The proposed boulevard will provide access to die western side of Watson Island and will create a substantially landscaped, grand entryway linking the clestinations on this side of the island. The successful respondent may be required to fund a proportionate share of the rood construction. The successful respon- dent shall be required to provide substantial landscape treatments to the leased area adjacent to, the boulevard. ISLAND SIGNAGE SYSTEM An island -wide pathfinder signage system is proposed to provide uniform and efficient directions that will lead visitors to all destinations on Watson Island. The successful respondent shall be responsible to find a proportionate share of this system. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF OFFERING City's Commitment of Funds, Services The City's participation in the proposed development is limited to a long-term (ease of the property. It is anticipated that the City shall not provide any funds or financing for the development contemplated by this RFP except as otherwise stated herein. The selected developer shall be required to provide all financing for the construction of improvements and operating expenses, to make lease payments that provide at least fair market value to the City, and to provide deposits or surety to guarantee required performance and peryments. City's Commitment of Property The property and its improvements arc. offered "cis is, where is" by the City for development and long term management. No representations or warranties whatsoever are made as to its condition, state or characteristics. Expressed warranties and implied wtarranties of fitness for a particular purpose or use and habitability are hereby disclaimed. Existing improvements and facilities located on the property are not required to be retained as a part of llie pro- posed redevelopment of the site. Testing, audits, appraisals, inspections, or other non- invasive testing that is necessary or desired to sub - mil a proposal, shall be at tho sole expense of Ilse prospective respondent. Reports regarding the property that the City may have in its possession are available as public records without representation or warranty. City -owned property is held in public trust and can- not be mortgaged, pledged, liened or subordinated in any way as a part of Iho tense agreement; how- ever, the leasehold interest may be mortgaged. All leasehold improvemanis shall Become the sole prop- • Submitted Into the public record In connectLon with item on -_.-. I I:) Ul Walter Foeman City Clerk erty of the City upon the expiration of the lease agreement. Substantial Increase In addition to any other right of termination avail- able, any substantial increase in the City's commit- ment of funds, property, or services, or any other material alteration of any contract awarded for a Unified Development Project shall entitle the City Commission to terminate any contract including the (ease after a public hearing. Prior to such public hearing, the Commission shall seek and obtain a report from the City Manager aril from the Review Committee that evaluated the proposals for said project, concerning the advisability of the City exer- cising its right. The City shall have no liability with regard to its exercise of said right and the selected respondent sliall bear all of its own costs With respect thereto. As stipulated in Subsection (e)(d) of Charter Section 29-A(c), "substantial increase" shall be defined as a 10% or more increase to the City's proposed com- mitment of funds, property and/or services, and "material alteration" shall be defined as a failure to comply will, all aspects of the proposal except as may be specifically permitted in writing by the City Manager. Charter Section 29-A(c) can be found on lie CD-ROM. Fair Market Value In accordance with Miami City Charter Seclion 29- B, the lease must provide the City with at least fair market value. Proposals shall include sufficient analyses of revenues, operating expenses and development costs to justify the proposed lease payments which must provide the City with at least "Fair Market Value based upon the proposed project. Ench state in its orotxosal that it agrees that annual lease payments shall meet fair market value, it tis proposal is accepted by the City. Ui- 9 �'I %41--, - I.I_-A 0.,,.,,,,,i Inc Prn(-Ascl Is C� TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF OFFERING Fair gicwicet value bnd the sufficiency of proposed %ase payments shall be date pined by an appraisal of the proposed project as performed by two State certified cteneral appraisers hired by file City. The nature of such renl.jhott, however. he an imnortnnt consideration in the competitive evaluation of alter- native financial proposals. Any rent, negotiated between the City and the successful developer must be confirmed as meeting the Fair market value requirement of the City Charter as determined by a State certified appraiser. Form of Lease Payments Pronosals shall include annual lease_ payments in the focm of c,n annual mi6mum.uv_Qrunter?rl rent, which must provide for periodic escalations. in addition to t(��inirt r ceuJi the City shall require rental oay- ments in the form of a percentage of dross revenues. Different percentages of gross revenues may be offered for tfie different operations included in the proposal. Percentages may be increased overtime. Additional rents such as participation in net proceeds on sales or refinancing are encouraged. The successful devolopment team may also 6e required to provide the City with the following rents: Construction period rent to be paid for the appro- priate period prior to project completion; Placeholder rent to be paid to maintain lease and devolopment rights to any parcels to be developed following the initial phase of development, if phased development is proposed. The City exlx:cts fair market value to be achieved from the escalating guaranteed minimum rents, with percentage of gross revenues and any additional proposed participation rents providing the City frith a share of the project financial upside. • Submitted Into the public record in connectionwith Item l on —L71v1 Afatller poeman, City Clerk Lease Agreement Upon the selection of a development proposal by file Miarni City Commission, the City shall negotiate a lease and development agreement with the desig- nated respondent for the use and development of the property according to the parameters of its pro- posal and this RFP. The City shall not consider a sale of the property. The actual terms of the lease shall be negotiated with City staff and care subject to final opprovaf by the City of Miami Commission and the State of Florida Emergency Financial Oversight Hoard, if applicable. The selected respondent shall have no vested rights, nor title or interest in the property or in the development proposed thereon until such time as a lease agreement is fully execut- ed, and then only in II►e manner stipulated therein. In nater to provide some- backciround information for nromP.ctive rlevalaners. the FolIQwincr section briefly describes some key lease terms. LEASE: TERM Titre term of the lease shall bo appropriate to the types of uses approved by the City and to the level and farm of investment, not to exceed forty-five (A5) Years with two (15) fihren-year renewals. City of Miami lease agreements clt:o ivror w P),ovlde for a paric<iof tirne during which the City retains posses- Sionx_fil. the 1es$ev I)os conloeted due diligew..P.nrid.has_Mly serured finanrin9_Udi- cient to undectnkr�_fire,.maonseddevelopment. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT Conditions that must be met prior to delivery of pas - session of the property to the lessee. Those condi- tions include, but are not limited to, roview by devel- oper of City's title to the property, approval of the lease by the State of Florida Internal Improvement Trust Fund, receipt and`opprovol by lihc City Manager of financing commitment(s) for construe - f1 971 E TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF OFFERING tion of the leasehold improvements, receipt by the City of an environmental condition acceptance notice, and approval by the City Manager of the development plans for the project. PROPERTY The property will be comprised of approximately 10.6 acres of upland and 13.4 acres of submerged land as identified in the Survey, enclosed with the complete RFP package. PROP05ED USES All proposed uses shall be consistent with and responsive to this RFP. MAINTENANCUREPAIRS During ilia lease term, the developer shall be responsible for all expenses associated with the property, including, but not limited to, maintenance, repairs, replacements, and operating expenses. LEASEHOLD MORTGAGE The lessee shall have the right during the lease term to encumber its leasehold estate by leasehold mort- gage for the sole purpose of securing financing for construction of the leasehold improvements and/or for long-term financing or refinancing of any such leasehold improvements. The lessee shall have no right to encumber the fee simple title of the City in and to the property or to the City's remainder or residual interest in the leasehold improvements. SUBORDINATION The City's fee ownership and rental income stream shall not be subordinated. • Submitted Into the public record in connection with Item —. on 171? id - Walter Foeman City Clerk TAXES AND IMPOSITIONS The developer shall be required to pay all govern- mental assessments, including assessments imposed by the City, franchise fees, excises, license and per- mit fees, levies, charges and taxes, including ad val- orem real estate taxes on the property under the completed project and the leasehold improvements, general and special, ordinary and extraordinary properly levied against the property and the improvements and/or the lessee's leasehold estate which constitute a lien on The property or the improvernents. The developer shall also be required to pay other applicable sales, parking and payroll taxes. In compliance with the Ciy, Charter, should a tax exemption be obtained for either the property and/or improvements, Ilia lessee shall be responsi- ble to pay an amount equal to what the City's por- tion of the ad valorem real property faxes would be if the property and/or the improvements did not obtain an exemption. The City's portion of real property taxes or other governmental assessments shall be due notwithstanding any incentives received from the County, State, or Federal Government. SECURITY DEPOSIT A security deposit will be required INSURANCE PAYMENT The lessee shall be required to maintain thr xighout the lease lerm insurance typical to the approved project (in amounts and with limits determined appropriate by the City, in a form and with carriers acceptable to the City), including, but not limited to, comprehensive general liability, workers' compensa- tion, all risk property insurance, automobile liability, personal property, business interruption, builder's risk, liquor liability, food and products liability, and ,,,. 1. .I n. .r_.. n__.. —ic TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF OFFERING any ollx!r insurance required ley low. bile City of Miami must be named as an additional insured. BONG REQUIREMENTS The lessee shall provide, or cause to be provided, to die City a perfonrrance bond issued by a responsi- ble surety company licensed to do businrss in Florida and satisfactory to the City, in the City's rea- sonable discretion, or other such instrument sotisfac- tory to the City. Such bond shall guarantee con- struction of the leasehold improvements at the prop- erty and shall be in an omount not less than 100% of the cost of said improvements. ENVIRONMENTAL. During the "clue diligence' period, the developer shall be required to conduct environmental site assessments, including sampling and testing of the soils, sediments and possibly Ilie cgroundwater. The developer shall be responsible for the removal or remediation of hazardous materials Ilrat are required by law to be removed or rerTlediOIL-Cl for the project, if any. Requirements for removal and remediation, if any, will depend on the construction plans proposed. The City may participate in the cost of any required removal of liaxardous materials and the parties shall negotiate the amount and nature of this participation. ASSIGNMENT The City shall have Ilio right to approve any assign- ment or transfer of the lease and intends to parlici- pate in any proceeds from any such assignment or transfer. No assignment or transfer of the lease, or any transfer of more than 15% of the stock, mem- bership interest or beneficial interest of the lessee, or cluu,ce of control for a public company, shall be permitted during the first five years of the lease agreement. The lease shall provide that of all times during the lease, the property.shall be managed by a qualified person, firm or corporation. NON-EXCLUSIVE USES All uses provided shall be non-exclusive uses. Development of me property into a mocea-use com- mercial venture shall not preclude the development of similar or the some uses by the City on any of its other properties. Submitted into the public record In connec�icjl ��!h Item __JL— °n -4 WeltEtr Foernan City Cleric 01- 971 • TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF OFFERING tion of the leasehold improvements, receipt by the City of an environmental condition acceptance notice, and approval by the City Manager of the development plans for the project. PROPERTY The property will be comprised of approximately 14.8 acres of upland and 13A acres of submerged land as identified in the Survey, enclosed witli the complete RFP package. PROPOSED USES All proposed uses shall be consistent with and responsive to this RFP. MAINTENANCE/RE=PAIRS During the lease term, the developer shall be responsible for all expenses associated with the property, including, but not limited to, rnaintenonce, repairs, replacements, and operating expenses. LEASEHOLD MORTGAGE The lessee shall have die right during the lease tenn to encumber its leaseliold estate by leasehold mort- gage for the sole purpose of securing financing for construction of the leasehold improvements and/or for long-term financing or refinancing of any such leasehold improvements, The lessee shall have no right to encumber tyre fee simple title of die City in and to the property or to the City's remainder or residual interest in the loosehold improvements. SUBORDINATION The City's fee ownership and rental income stream shall not be subordinated. • Submitted Into the public record in connection with Item ..I on _1111.114 Walter Foemanr City Clerk TAXES AND IMPOSITIONS The developer shctil be required to pay all govern- mental assessments, including assessments imposed by the City, franchise fees, excises, license and per- mit fees, levies, charges and taxes, including ad val- orem real estate truces on the property under the completed project and the leasehold improvements, general and special, ordinary and extraordinary properly levied against the property and the improvements and/or ilia lessee's leasalioki estate which constitute a lien on the property or the improvements. The developer shall also be required to pay other applicable sales, parking and payroll loxes. In compliance with the City Charter, should a tax exemption be obtained for either the property and/or improvements, the lessee shall be responsi- ble to pay an amount equal to vAiat the City's por- tion of the ad valorem real property taxes would be if die property and/or die improvements did not obtain an exemption. The City's portion of real property lazes or other governmental assessments shall be due notwithstanding any incentives received from Ike County, State, or Federal Government. SECURITY DEPOSIT A security deposit will be required. INSURANCE PAYMENT The lessee shall be required to maintain throughout the lease term insurance typical to the approved project (in amounts and with limits delermined appropriate by the: City, in a form and with carriers acceptable to the City), including, but not limited to, comprehensive general liability, workers' compensa- tion, all risk property insurance, automobile liability, personal properly, business interruption, builder's risk, liquor liability, food and products liability, and 971 . ... , I ......1. 0 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OT OFFERING any other insurance required by law. The City of Miami must be named as an additional insured. BOND REQUIREMENTS The lessee shall provide, or cause to be provided, to the City a performance bond issued by a responsi- ble surety company licensed to do business in Florida and satisfactory to file City, in the City's rea- sonable discretion, or other such instrument solisfac- tory to the City. Such bond shall guarantee con- struction of the leasehold improvements at the prop- erty and shall be in an amount not less than 100% of the cost of said improvements. ENVIRONMENTAL During the "due diligence" peariod, the developer sholl be required to conduct environmental site assessments, including sampling and testing of the soils, sediments and possibly the groundwater. The developer shall be responsible for the removal or rernediation of hazardous materials that are required by low to be removed or rornediated for the project, if any. Requirements for removal and remediation, if any, will depend on the construction plans proposed. The City may participate in the cost of any required removal of hazardous materials and the parties shall negotiate the amount and nature of this participation. ASSIGNMENT The City shall have the right to approve any assign- rnent or transfer of the lease and intends to partici- pate in any proceods from any such assignment or transfer. No assignment or transfer of the lease, or any transfer of more than 15% of the stock, mern- bership interest or beneficial interest of file lessee, or char Ue of control for a public company, shall be permitted during the first five years of the lease • agreement.. Tile lease shall provide that at all times during the lease, the property,shall be managed by a qualified person, firm or corporation. NON-EXCLUSIVE USES All uses provided shall be non-exclusive uses. Development or tr,e property into a mrxea-use com- merciol venture shall not preclude file development of similar or die same uses by the City on any of its other properties. ub%kc to the P �µith e dor, o op cyil� 00�, Woo �i *oke'C'M G�e� �! — 9'1l REGULATORY PROCESS The specific plans for the site will require various permits and approvals, and each respondent to the RFP is responsible for determining which permits and approvals will be required for the construction and operations at the site. The selected respondent, at its sole cost and expense, shall be responsible for acquiring all required permits, licenses, and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction, includ- ing, but not limited to, the City, Miomi-Dade County, the State of Florida, federal agencies and ali public utilities. Additionally, all improvements must comply with all opplicable building, fire, zoning, health and other code requirements. The following information is intended to help the respondent determine the applicable requirements orxi is not meant to be an exhaustive summary of all permits, licenses and approvals required. The City will assist the selected development team through expedited review procedures for City and State issued permits and approvals, to the exleni permit- ted by krw and regulations. Public Referendum Approval City of Miami Chatter Section 29-C — Watson Island provides that before any lease of lands on Watson Island can be entered into, the proposed transaction shall be approved by voters at a referendum. it is the City's intention to submit the proposed Ironsac- tion to a referendum vote on Novernber G, 2001, or at the earliest convenient, regularly scheduled, gen- eral election. If the proposed transaction is rejected by referendum Yate, the project shall be terminated. In the event of such a termination, the developer has no vested rights, or title or interest in the property or to the development proposed thereon, or a clairrm upon the City for any expenses incurred in the pro- posal process. Submitted into the public record In connec on with Item _.__(_ _ on 4-.1:� iW Walter Foeman City Clerk State of Florida Internal Improvement Trust Fund Deed Following the execution of the negotiated lease and development agreement for the project, and as a condition precedent of the lease, a finding of public purpose or a waiver of the deed restriction must be obtained from the State of Florida Interrx]) Improvement Trust Fund Hoard of Trustees. The City will, Willi t!)e,support of the selected developer, and on behalf of the project, petition the Board of trustees for such a finding or a waiver of the deet( restriction. Development of Regional Impact A Development of Regional Impact ("Dfti"), as defined in Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, is ony development that, because of its character; magni- tude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county. If it is determined that the proposed development is subject to DRI review and procedures (or a successor or similar law), the selected developer shall be solely responsible for making all applications and/or seeking oll outhoi i- zations required by law, of the developers sole cost and expense. Design Review The design of tho project shall be subject to review and approval by appropriate City departments and/or agencies until such time that building per- mits are issued. Such agencies may include the Waterfront Advisory Board and the Parks Advisory Board. c� — 9 7 J. i REGULATORY PRO(F5S Special Permit(s) Development of the. -site mcQY require a Major Uze Soecint Permit ("MUSP"1 to Lo is;vad frorn the City of Miami. The MUSP shall require tratlic studies, environmental impact as well as all design specifications. The MUSP process will take the project through several public meetings and advisory boards including: • large Scale Development Committee • Zoning Board and/or Planning Advisory Board • Urban Developrnent Review Board (The Urban Design Review Board General Design Criteria can be found on the CDROM) • City Commission Meeting -- Planning & Zoning Agenda • Miami -Dade County Shoreline Review (Required for Waterfront Projects) Building and Environmental Permits To the extent Ihat it is able, the City will expedite all City planning and building permitting for the development team due to the City's involvement os a }partner in the project and its location in the Empowerment Zone. The City will, if necessary, apply as on applicant or' co-opplicant to the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies for marina or other regulatory permits, Environmental permits may be required from the following agencies: • Miami -Dade County Depariment of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) Permit State of Florida Deporhnent of Environmental Protection (DEP) Site Assessment 6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Subrrtitted Into the public record in connection with Item on .,aj I ') / I Waltei Foeman City Clerk