HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-97-0493J-97-527
7/23/97
RESOLUTION NO.9 %" 4-9 3
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL RECEIVED
FROM GROVE HARBOUR MARINA AND CARIBBEAN
MARKETPLACE, LTD., SUBMITTED AUGUST 30, 1996, FOR
THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ENTITLED "DINNER
KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT", AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO BEGIN THE APPRAISAL PROCESS
AND ENTER INTO LEASE NEGOTIATIONS FIRST WITH SAID
FIRM, AND, IN THE EVENT THAT SUCH NEGOTIATIONS ARE
UNSUCCESSFUL, THEN WITH THE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSER,
HANGAR IN THE GROVE, INC.; DIRECTING THAT SAID
LEASE AGREEMENT BE IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE`
CITY ATTORNEY, BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE
CITY CHARTER AND CODE PROVISIONS, AND BE SUBJECT
TO FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION; FURTHER
PROVIDING THAT IN THE EVENT AN AGREEMENT WHICH IS
FAIR AND REASONABLE TO THE CITY CANNOT BE
REACHED, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED HEREIN, THE
CITY MANAGER SHALL DISCONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS AND
THIS SELECTION PROCESS SHALL TERMINATE WITHOUT
FINANCIAL OR LEGAL LIABILITY TO THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City Charter and Code provide for unified development projects
("UDP's"), for improvements to real property owned or to be acquired by the City, such
UDP's to consist of an integrated package of planning, design, construction, leasing.and/or
management services; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission pursuant to Resolution No. 96-360, adopted May
23, 1996, authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) on May 31, 1996, for
the development of commercial and recreational water -dependent facilities, with optional
facilities and ancillary related uses on approximately 13.5 acres of City -owned waterfront
(sty COPAMSION
DIETING OF
JUL 23 1997
Resolution No.
property known as the Dinner Key Boat Yard, located at 2640 South Bayshore Drive,
Miami, Florida, as a previously designated UDP; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission appointed members to a Review Committee and
selected the certified public accounting firm of Sharpton, Brunson and Company, P.A. to
evaluate proposal submissions; and
WHEREAS, on August 30, 1996, the City of Miami received three (3) proposals in
response to the RFP: Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Ltd., Hangar in the Grove, Inc., and
Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace, Ltd.; and
WHEREAS, said certified public accounting firm analyzed the proposals based upon
the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP and rendered a written report to the City
Manager; and
WHEREAS, the proposal of Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Ltd., was withdrawn July
21, 1997, at the request of said proposer; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager, taking into consideration the findings of the certified
public accounting firm and of the Review Committee, purports to make the
recommendation provided herein; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has transmitted to the City Commission his
recommendations and has included written reports from the aforementioned certified
public accounting firm and Review Committee; and
WHEREAS, the above actions and procedures have been performed in accordance
with applicable City Charter and Code provisions, particularly those pertaining to UDP's as
delineated in Charter Section 29A and Code Section 18-87;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA:
-2-
97- 493
•
11
Section 1 . The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution
are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this
Section.
Section 2. The proposal submitted by Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean
Marketplace, Ltd., for the Unified Development of commercial and recreational water -
dependent facilities, with optional facilities and ancillary related uses on approximately
13.5 acres of City -owned waterfront property known as the Dinner Key Boat Yard, located
at 2640 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida, is hereby accepted.
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to commence the
appraisal process and to negotiate an agreement with the selected proposer, said
agreement to be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to be in compliance with
applicable Charter and Code provisions, and to be further subject to the final approval of
the City Commission.
Section 4. In the event that such negotiations are unsuccessful, the City
Manager is hereby further authorized to then commence the appraisal process and to
negotiate an agreement with the alternative proposer, Hangar in the Grove, Inc.
Section 5. The herein selection of the proposer does not confer any contractual
rights to said proposer unless and until an agreement has been executed by the City of
�11Frun
Section 6. In the event that an agreement which is fair and reasonable to the
City cannot be reached with either proposer, the City Manager is hereby authorized to
discontinue negotiations and this selection process for the specified UDP shall terminate
without any financial or legal liability to the City.
Section 7. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
"d
4Y�ti I
ry r}r
3-
97- 493
Ll
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23-th day of JulY
ATTEST:
AALTER F AN
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
INDA K. KEARSON
ASSISTANT CITY ATTO NEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
L��&�,W�
W 1765:csk:LKK
. 1997.
E CAROLLO, MAYOR
ME
P7- 493
Nei hborhood Huth
nership
July 14, 1997
Walter Foeman, City Clerk
Office of the Mayor and City Commission
Miami City Fall
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
Dear Mr. Foeman:
This letter is to request your affirmative vote for the Shake -A -Leg Miami plan for the
former Coast Guard Seaplane Base in Coconut Grove.
Shake -A -Leg Miami is currently operating out of trailers on this property and doing a
great job with limited resources in serving the needs of the people of Miami and
surrounding communities. They are offering wonderful programs to our community
and if you approve this plan they will do even bigger and better things. This is truly a
community oriented project and will open up Biscayne Bay to people who currently do
not have the means to enjoy this resource.
Shake -A -Leg Miami has significant community support and it would be a wonderful
legacy for you to create this International Water Sports Center for the recreational use
of the residents of Miami. This building has become an eyesore on the waterfront,
please vote yes so we can turn it into a showplace and demonstrate what can be done
when public and private groups work together.
Please vote yes on this project. We need your support.
Si cerely
Cott oro
Fin LOfficer
SM/la-m
SM/shkleg
7600 Corporate Center Drive • Miami, Florida 33126-1216 9 7 493
PO Box 025680 o Miami, Florida 33102-5680
Miami, FL
Redistricting Plan 5-5d i
Total Population & Population Above 18 �
Plan
;tstr_:cr
tt]PW
whiterm
Plan
7284D
223G
Plar 5-5d
2
71543
22211
P3an 5-SJ
3
73948
S645
Plan --Sd
4
7023.4
7636.
Plan 5-Scl
JS
49°76
6022
348S48
41752
blacks-rd
hisp
ttlaopt
whitOWA
blackNht
hiyp %
62411
792a
101.575790
3.c3£9742
85.6A2320
10.084130
16914
31421_
99.797120
11,045666
23.641726
43.919041
554
67332
103.1Z0903
7.633741
0.744175
31.D53169
1,07
6230S
97.948685
10.874301
D.152337
89.425232
8333
55174
97,504717
8.60$S62
11.908029
78.844,18a
fr8a15 223964
P'Aar.
Flan
District
tLIpap
rbiLeISNH
blackigNit
hisp IS
ttl-pogpt
whi.teLSAIM
blackIRSHt
hisn 18k
Plan
5-5d
5-5d
Sri
2
72940
1922
19591
5G77
1U1.575?50
4-058620
$3.602921
k1.9879�2
Plan
5-5d
3
71543
1964E
i1474
2557£
99.767121)
34.292D99
2D.025B31
i4.a693D3
Plan
5-5d
4
?3948
3940
363
54685
103 120903
6.490S43
D.613SS4
92.4310B4
Plan
5-5d
1j
70239
5347
79
52913
17.-449695
9.139702
D.135036
90.274CO2
5yQi9
3915
5597
4399
-----------------
97-S84717
7.28515€
1Lz-415930
81.69E63E
356548
34672
57104
182448
---------
---- ---------------
----------
-----
0
maaa-lo
-- ---- - ---
- ----------
Public
97- 493
DINNER KEY WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
HANGAR IIY THE GROVE
GROVE FfARE3GR MARIWA
PROPOSED MINIMUM RENT
AND TAXES
ASSUMPTION: NPV @ 6%
YEAR 1
$300,000.00
$445,722.00
YEAR 2
$300,000.00
$457,594.00
YEAR 3
$300,000.00
$535,322.00
YEAR 4
$300,000.00
$547,915.00
YEAR 5
$504,123.00
$564,354.00
YEAR 6
$505,299.50
$581,285.00
YEAR 7
$509,405.50
$598,723.00
YEAR 8
$513,594.00
$619,208.50
YEAR 9
$568,197.50
$637,784.00
YEAR 10
$596,945.00
$656,919.00
YEAR 11
$526,667.50
$444,808.50
YEAR 12
$531,200.50
$449,153.00
YEAR 13
$536,325.00
$453,627.59
YEAR 14
$540,541.50
$458,236.42
YEAR 15
$545,352.33
$462,983.51
YEAR 16
$550,259.38
$467,873.02
YEAR 17
$555,264.56
$472,909.21
YEAR 18
$560,369.86
$478,096.48
YEAR 19
$565,577.25
$483,439.38
YEAR 20
$570,888.80
$488,942.56
YEAR 21
$576,306.57
$494,610.83
YEAR 22
$581,832.70
$500,449.16
YEAR 23
$587,469.36
$506,462.63
YEAR 24
$593,218.75
$512,656.51
YEAR 25
$599,083.12
$519,036.21
YEAR 26
$605,064.78
$525,607.30
YEAR 27
$611,166.08
$532,375.51
YEAR 28
$617,389.40
$539,346.78
YEAR 29
$623,737.19
$546,527.18
YEAR 30
$630,211.93
$553,923.00
YEAR 31
$636,816.17
$561,540.69
YEAR 32
$643,552.49
$569,386.91
YEAR 33
$650,423.54
$577,468.52
YEAR 34
$657,432.02
$585,792.57
YEAR 35
$664,580.66
$594,366.35
YEAR 36
$671,872.27
$603,197.34
YEAR 37
$679,309.71
$612,293.26
YEAR 38
$686,895.91
$621,662.06
YEAR 39
$694,633.83
$631,311.92
YEAR 40
$702,526.50
$641,251.28
CUMMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUES
TEN (10) YEARS
$3,103,123.10
$4,073,724.86
TWENTY (20) YEARS
$5,346,715.56
$5,979,337.14
THIRTY (30) YEARS
$6,722,953.24
$7,172,599.94
FOURTY (40) YEARS
$7,575,540.71
$7,935,852.05
9'�- 4ful3 City Clerit.
07-21-97
Grove Harbour
Loan Amount:
Term of Loan:
Amortization Method:
PMT Due Date
$3,500,000.00
300
Normal, 360 DN
Payment Amount
Loan Date: ®
Annual Interest Rate:
Interest Compounded:
Interest
Principal
08-01-1997
9.000%
Monthly
Balance
1 09-01-97
29, 371.87
26,250.00
3,121.87
3,496, 878.13
2 10-01-97
29,371.87
26,226.59
3,145.28
3,493, 732.85
3 11-01-97
29,371.87
26,203.00
3,168.87
3,490, 563.98
4 12-01-97
29,371.87
26,179.23
3,192.64
3,487, 371.34
1997 totals 117,487.48
104,858.82
12,628.66
5 01-01-98
29,371.87
26,155.29
3,216.58
3,484,154.76
6 02-01-98
29,371.87
26,131.16
3,240.71
3,480,914.05
7 03-01-98
29,371.87
26,106.86
3,265.01
3,477,649.04
8 04-01-98
29,371.87
26,082.37
3,289.50
3,474,359.54
9 05-01-98
29,371.87
26,057.70
3,314.17
3,471,045.37
10 06-01-98
29,371.87
26,032.84
3,339.03
3,467,706.34
11 07-01-98
29,371.87
26,007.80
3,364.07
3,464,342.27
12 08-01-98
29,371.87
25,982.57
3,389.30
3,460,952.97
13 09-01-98
29,371.87
25,957.15
3,414.72
3,457,538.25
14 10-01-98
29,371.87
25,931.54
3,440.33 _
3,454,097.92
15 11-01-98
29,371.87
25, 905.73
3,466.14
3,450,631.78
16 12-01-98
29,371.87
25, 879.74
3,492.13
3,447,139.65
1998 totals 352,462.44
312,230.75
40,231.69
17
01-01-99
29,371.87
25,853.55
3,518.32
3,443,621.33
18
02-01-99
29,371.87
25,827.16
3,544.71
3,440,076.62
19
03-01-99
29,371.87
25,800.57
3,571.30
3,436,505.32
20
04-01-99
29,371.87
25,773.79
3,598.08
3,432,907.24
21
05-01-99
29, 371.87
25, 746.80
3,625.07
3,429,282.17
22
06-01-99
29,371.87
25,719.62
3,652.25
3,425,629.92
23
07-01-99
29,371.87
25,692.22
3,679.65
3,421,950.27
24
08-01-99
29,371.87
25,664.63
3,707.24
3,418,243.03
25
09-01-99
29,371.87
25,636.82
3,735.05
3,414,507.98
26
10-01-99
29, 371.87
25,608.81
3,763.06
3,410,744.92
27
11-01-99
29,371.87
25,580.59
3,791.28
3,406,953.64
28
12-01-99
29,371.87
25,552.15
3,819.72
3,403,133.92
1999 totals
352,462.44
308,456.71
44,005.73
29
01-01-00
29,371.87
25,523.50
3,848.37
3,399,285.55
30
02-01-00
29,371.87
25,494.64
3,877.23
3,395,408.32
31
03-01-00
29,371.87
25,465.56
3,906.31
3,391,502.01
32
04-01-00
29,371.87
25,436.27
3,935.60
3,387,566.41
33
05-01-00
29,371.87
25,406.75
3,965.12
3,383,601.29
34
06-01-00
29,371.87
25,377.01
3,994.86
3,379,606.43
35
07-01-00
29,371.87
25,347.05
4,024.82
3,375,581.61
36
08-01-00
29,371.87
25,316.86
4,055.01
3,371,526.60
37
09-01-00
29,371.87
25,286.45
4,085.42
3,367,441.18
38
10-01-00
29,371.87
25,255.81
4,116.06
3, 363, 325.12
39
11-01-00
29, 371.87
25,224.94
4,146.93
3,359,178.19
40
12-01-00
29, 371.87
25,193.84
4,178.03
3, 355, 000.16
2000 totals
352,462.44
304,328.68
48,133.76
41
01-01-01
29, 371.87
25,162.50
4,209.37
3,350,790.79
42
02-01-01
29,371.87
25,130.93
4,240.94
3,346,549.85
43
03-01-01 '
29,371.87
25,099.12
4,272.75
3,342,277.10
44
04-01-01 .UAbM" !stg='t:'
ftnto, thhv PublIC
29,371.87
25,067.08
4,304.79
3,337,972.31
45
05-01-01pn,, f, q in
`i it
29,371.87
25,034.79
4,337.08
3,333,635.23
46
06-01 01 , -
a33—q�
29,371.87
25,002.26
4,369.61
3,329,265.62
47
07-01 0141
_ a`t .• LL_
29,371.87
24,969.49
4,402.38
3,324,863.24
48
08-01-01
VP.ilter Foernal..1
-
29,371.87
24,936.47
4,435.40
3,320,427.84
49
09-01-01
GttYa CHC-14K
29,371.87
24,903.21
4,468.66
3,315,959.18
50
10-01-01
29,371.87
24,869.69
4,502.18
3,311,457.00
51
11-01-01
29, 371.87
24,835.93
4,535.94
3,306,921.06
52
12-01-01
29, 371.87
24, 801.91
4,569.96
3,302, 351.10
2001
totals
352,462.44
299,813.38
52,649.06
Page 1
97- 493
07-21-97
PMT Due Date payment Amount Interest ` Principal Balance
53
01-01-02
0 29,371.87
24,767.63
4,604.24
3,297,746.86
54
02-01-02
29,371.87
24,733.10
4,638.77
3,293,108.09
55
03-01-02
29,371.87
24,698.31
4,673.56
3,288,434.53
56
04-01-02
29,371.87
24,663.26
4,708.61
3,283,725.92
57
05-01-02
29,371.87
24,627.94
4,743.93
3,278,981.99
58
06-01-02
29,371.87
24,592.36
4,779.51
3,274,202.48
59
07-01-02
29,371.87
24,556.52
4,815.35
3,269,387.13
60
08-01-02
29,371.87
24,520.40
4,851.47
3,264,535.66
61
09-01-02
29,371.87
24,484.02
4,887.85
3,259,647.81
62
10-01-02
29,371.87
24,447.36
4,924.51
3,254, 723.30
63
11-01-02
29, 371.87
24,410.42
4,961.45
3,249, 761.85
64
12-01-02
29, 371.87
24,373.21
4,998.66
3,244, 763.19
2002 totals
352,462.44
294,874.53
57,587.91
65
01-01-03
29,371.87
24,335.72
5,036.15
3,239,727.04
66
02-01-03
29,371.87
24,297.95
5,073.92
3,234,653.12
67
03-01-03
29,371.87
24,259.90
5,111.97
3,229,541.15
68
04-01-03
29,371.87
24,221.56
5,150.31
3,224,390.84
69
05-01-03
29,371.87
24,182.93
5,188.94
3,219,201.90
70
06-01-03
29,371.87
24,144.01
5,227.86
3,213,974.04
71
07-01-03
29, 371.87
24,104.81
5,267.06
3,208,706.98
72
08-01-03
29,371.87
24,065.30
5,306.57 _
3,203,400.41
73
09-01-03
29,371.87
24,025.50
5,346.37
3,198,054.04
74
10-01-03
29,371.87
23,985.41
5,386.46
3,192,667.58
75
11-01-03
29, 371.87
23,945.01
5,426.86
3,187,240.72
76
12-01-03
29,371.87
23, 904.31
5,467.56
3,181, 773.16
2003 totals
352,462.44
289,472.41
62,990.03
77
01-01-04
29,371.87
23,863.30
5,508.57
3,176,264.59
78
02-01-04
29,371.87
23,821.98
5,549.89
3,170,714.70
79
03-01-04
29,371.87
23,780.36
5,591.51
3,165,123.19
80
04-01-04
29,371.87
23,738.42
5,633.45
3,159,489.74
81
05-01-04
29, 371.87
23,696.17
5,675.70
3,153, 814.04
82
06-01-04
29,371.87
23,653.61
5,718.26
3,148,095.78
83
07-01-04
29,371.87
23,610.72
5,761.15
3,142,334.63
84
08-01-04
29,371.87
23,567.51
5,804.36
3,136,530.27
85
09-01-04
29,371.87
23,523.98
5,847.89
3,130,682.38
86
10-01-04
29, 371.87
23,480.12
5,891.75
3,124, 790.63
87
11-01-04
29, 371.87
23,435.93
5,935.94
3,118,854.69
88
12-01-04
29, 371.87
23, 391.41
5,980.46
3,112, 874.23
2004 totals
352,462.44
283,563.51
68,898.93
89
01-01-05
29,371.87
23,346.56
6,025.31
3,106,848.92
90
02-01-05
29,371.87
23,301.37
6,070.50
3,100,778.42
91
03-01-05
29, 371.87
23,255.84
6,116.03
3,094,662.39
92
04-01-05
29,371.87
23,209.97
6,161.90
3,088,500.49
93
05-01-05
29,371.87
23,163.75
6,208.12
3,082,292.37
94
06-01-05
29,371.87
23,117.19
6,254.68
3,076,037.69
95
07-01-05
29,371.87
23,070.28
6,301.59
3,069,736.10
96
08-01-05
29,371.87
23,023.02
6,348.85
3,063,387.25
97
09-01-05
29,371.87
22,975.40
6,396.47
3,056,990.78
98
10-01-05
29, 371.87
22, 927.43
6,444.44
3,050,546.34
99
11-01-05
29, 371.87
22, 879.10
6,492.77
3, 044, 053.57
100
12-01-05
29,371.87
22,830.40
6,541.47
3,037,512.10
2005 totals
352,462.44
277,100.31
75,362.13
101
01-01-06
29, 371.87
22, 781.34
6,590.53
3,030, 921.57
102
02-01-06
29,371.87
22,731.91
6,639.96
3,024,281.61
103
03-01-06
29,371.87
22,682.11
6,689.76
3,017,591.85
104
04-01-06
29,371.87
22,631.94
6,739.93
3,010,851.92
105
05-01-06
29,371.87
22,581.39
6,790.48
3,004,061.44
106
06-01-06
29,371.87
22,530.46
6,841.41
2,997,220.03
107
07-01-06
29,371.87
22,479.15
6,892.72
2,990,327.31
108
08-01-06
29,371.87
22,427.45
6,944.42
2,983,382.89
109
09-01-06
29,371.87
22,375.37
6,996.50
2,976,386.39
110
10-01-06
29, 371.87
22,322.90
7,048.97
2, 969, 337.42
111
11-01-06
29, 371.87
22,270.03
7,101.84
2,962,235.58
112
12-01-06
29, 371.87
22,216.77
7,155.10
2,955, 080.48
Page 2
97- 493
07-21-97
PMT Due Date A&ayment Amount Interest Principal Balance
2006 totals 2 352,462.44 270,036 22 82,431.62
113
01-01-07
29,371.87
22,163.10
7,208.77
2,947,871.71
114
02-01-07
29,371.87
22,109.04
7,262.83
2,940,608.88
115
03-01-07
29,371.87
22,054.57
7,317.30
2,933,291.58
116
04-01-07
29,371.87
21,999.69
7,372.18
2,925,919,40
117
05-01-07
29,371.87
21,944A0
7,427.47
2,918,491.93
118
06-01-07
29,371.87
21,888.69
7,483.18
2,911,008.75
119
07-01-07
29,371.87
21,832.57
7,539.30
2,903,469.45
120
08-01-07
29,371.87
21,776.02
7,595.85
2,895,873.60
121
09-01-07
29,371.87
21, 719.05
7,652.82
2, 888, 220.78
122
10-01-07
29,371.87
21,661.66
7,710.21
2,880,510.57
123
11-01-07
29, 371.87
21,603.83
7,768.04
2,872,742.53
124
12-01-07
29,371.87
21, 545.57
7,826.30
2,864,916.23
2007 totals
352,462.44
262,298.19
90,164.25
125
01-01-08
29,371.87
21,486.87
7,885.00
2,857,031.23
126
02-01-08
29,371.87
21,427.73
7,944.14
2,849,087.09
127
03-01-08
29,371.87
21,368.15
8,003.72
2,841,083.37
128
04-01-08
29,371.87
21,308.13
8,063.74
2,833,019.63
129
05-01-08
29,371.87
21,247.65
8,124.22 -
2,824,895.41
130
06-01-08
29,371.87
21,186.72
8,185.15
2,816,710.26
131
07-01-08
29, 371.87
21,125.33
8,246.54
2,808,463.72
132
08-01-08
29,371.87
21,063.48
8,308.39
2,800,155.33
133
09-01-08
29,371.87
21,001.16
8,370.71
2,791,784.62
134
10-01-08
29, 371.87
20, 938.38
8,433.49
2,783, 351.13
135
11-01-08
29, 371.87
20,875.13
8,496.74
2,774, 854.39
136
12-01-08
29, 371.87
20,811.41
8,560.46
2, 766, 293.93
2008 totals
352,462.44
253,840.14
98,622.30
137
01-01-09
29,371.87
20,747.20
8,624.67
2,757,669.26
138
02-01-09
29,371.87
20,682.52
8,689.35
2,748,979.91
139
03-01-09
29,371.87
20,617.35
8,754.52
2,740,225.39
140
04-01-09
29,371.87
20,551.69
8,820.18
2,731,405.21
141
05-01-09
29,371.87
20,485.54
8,886.33
2,722, 518.88
142
06-01-09
29,371.87
20,418.89
8,952.98
2,713,565.90
143
07-01-09
29,371.87
20,351.74
9,020.13
2,704,545.77
144
08-01-09
29,371.87
20,284.09
9,087.78
2,695,457.99
145
09-01-09
29,371.87
20,215.93
9,155.94
2,686,302.05
146
10-01-09
29,371.87
20,147.27
9,224.60
2,677, 077.45
147
11-01-09
29, 371.87
20,078.08
9,293.79
2,667,783.66
148
12-01-09
29, 371.87
20,008.38
9,363.49
2,658,420.17
2009 totals
352,462.44
244,588.68
107,873.76
149
01-01-10
29,371.87
19,938.15
9,433.72
2,648,986.45
150
02-01-10
29,371.87
19,867.40
9,504.47
2,639,481.98
151
03-01-10
29,371.87
19,796.11
9,575.76
2,629,906.22
152
04-01-10
29,371.87
19,724.30
9,647.57
2,620,258.65
153
05-01-10
29,371.87
19,651.94
9,719.93
2,610,538.72
154
06-01-10
29,371.87
19,579.04
9,792.83
2,600,745.89
155
07-01-10
29,371.87
19,505.59
9,866.28
2,590,879.61
156
08-01-10
29,371.87
19,431.60
9,940.27
2,580,939.34
157
09-01-10
29,371.87
19,357.05
10,014.82
2,570,924.52
158
10-01-10
29,371.87
19,281.93
10,089.94
2, 560, 834.58
159
11-01-10
29, 371.87
19, 206.26
10,165.61
2,550,668.97
160
12-01-10
29,371.87
19,130.02
10,241.85
2,540,427.12
2010 totals
352,462.44
234,469.39
117,993.05
161
01-01-11
29, 371.87
19,053.20
10, 318.67
2,530,108.45
162
02-01-11
29,371.87
18,975.81
10,396.06
2,519,712.39
163
03-01-11
29,371.87
18,897.84
10,474.03
2,509,238.36
164
04-01-11
29,371.87
18,819.29
10,552.58
2,498,685.78
165
05-01-11
29,371.87
18,740.14
10,631.73
2,488,054.05
166
06-01-11
29,371.87
18,660.41
10,711.46
2,477,342.59
167
07-01-11
29,371.87
18,580.07
10,791.80
2,466,550.79
168
08-01-11
29,371.87
18,499.13
10,872.74
2,455,678.05
Page 3
97- 493
07-21-97
PMT Due Date AWayment Amount Interest ® Principal Balance
169
09-01-11
— 29,371.87
18,417.59 "
10,954.28
2,444,723.77
170
10-01-11
29,371.87
18, 335.43
11, 036.44
2,433,687.33
171
11-01-11
29,371.87
18,252.65
11,119.22
2,422, 568.11
172
12-0.1-11
29,371.87
18,169.26
11, 202.61
2,411, 365.50
2011 totals
352,462.44
223,400.82
129,061.62
173
01-01-12
29,371.87
18,085.24
11,286.63
2,400,078.87
174
02-01-12
29,371.87
18,000.59
11,371.28
2,388,707.59
175
03-01-12
29,371.87
17,915.31
11,456.56
2,377,251.03
176
04-01-12
29,371.87
17,829.38
11,542.49
2,365,708.54
177
05-01-12
29,371.87
17,742.81
11,629.06
2,354,079.48
178
06-01-12
29,371.87
17,655.60
11,716.27
2,342,363.21
179
07-01-12
29,371.87
17,567.72
11,804.15
2,330,559.06
180
08-01-12
29,371.87
17,479.19
11,892.68
2,318,666.38
181
09-01-12
29, 371.87
17,390.00
11,981.87
2,306,684.51
182
10-01-12
29,371.87
17,300.13
12,071.74
2,294,612.77
183
11-01-12
29, 371.87
17,209.60
12,162.27
2,282,450.50
184
12-01-12
29, 371.87
17,118.38
12,253.49
2,270,197.01
2012 totals
352,462.44
211,293.95
141,168.49
185
01-01-13
29,371.87
17,026.48
12,345.39 -
2,257,851.62
186
02-01-13
29,371.87
16,933.89
12,437.98
2,245,413.64
187
03-01-13
29,371.87
16,840.60
12,531.27
2,232,882.37
188
04-01-13
29,371.87
16,746.62
12,625.25
2,220,257.12
189
05-01-13
29,371.87
16,651.93
12,719.94
2,207,537.18
190
06-01-13
29,371.87
16,556.53
12,815.34
2,194,721.84
191
07-01-13
29,371.87
16,460.41
12,911.46
2,181,810.38
192
08-01=13
29,371.87
16,363.58
13,008.29
2,168,802.09
193
09-01-13
29,371.87
16,266.02
13,105.85
2,155,696.24
194
10-01-13
29,371.87
16,167.72
13,204.15
2,142,492.09
195
11-01-13
29, 371.87
16, 068.69
13, 303.18
2,129,188.91
196
12-01-13
29, 371.87
15, 968.92
13,402.95
2,115, 785.96
2013 totals
352,462.44
198,051.39
154,411.05
197
01-01-14
29,371.87
15,868.39
13,503.48
2,102,282.48
198
02-01-14
29,371.87
15,767.12
13,604.75
2,088,677.73
199
03-01-14
29,371.87
15,665.08
13,706.79
2,074,970.94
200
04-01-14
29,371.87
15,562.28
13,809.59
2,061,161.35
201
05-01-14
29, 371.87
15,458.71
13, 913.16
2,047, 248.19
202
06-01-14
29,371.87
15,354.36
14,017.51
2,033,230.68
203
07-01-14
29,371.87
15,249.23
14,122.64
2,019,108.04
204
08-01-14
29,371.87
15,143.31
14,228.56
2,004,879.48
205
09-01-14
29,371.87
15,036.60
14,335.27
1,990,544.21
206
10-01-14
29,371.87
14, 929.08
14,442.79
1,976,101.42
207
11-01-14
29,371.87
14,820.76
14,551.11
1,961,550.31
208
12-01-14
29,371.87
14,711.63
14,660.24
1, 946, 890.07
2014 totals
352,462.44
183,566.55
168,895.89
209
01-01-15
29,371.87
14,601.68
14,770.19
1,932,119.88
210
02-01-15
29,371.87
14,490.90
14,880.97
1,917,238.91
211
03-01-15
29, 371.87
14, 379.29
14,992.58
1,902,246.33
212
04-01-15
29,371.87
14,266.85
15,105.02
1,887,141.31
213
05-01-15
29,371.87
14,153.56
15,218.31
1,871,923.00
214
06-01-15
29,371.87
14,039.42
15,332.45
1,856,590.55
215
07-01-15
29,371.87
13,924.43
15,447.44
1,841,143.11
216
08-01-15
29,371.87
13,808.57
15,563.30
1,825,579.81
217
09-01-15
29,371.87
13,691.85
15,680.02
1,809,899.79
218
10-01-15
29, 371.87
13,574.25
15, 797.62
1,794,102.17
219
11-01-15
29,371.87
13,455.77
15,916.10
1,778,186.07
220
12-01-15
29, 371.87
13,336.40
16,035.47
1,762,150.60
2015 totals
352,462.44
167,722.97
184,739.47
221
01-01-16
29, 371.87
13,216.13
16,155.74
1,745, 994.86
222
02-01-16
29,371.87
13,094.96
16,276.91
1,729,717.95
223
03-01-16
29,371.87
12,972.88
16,398.99
1,713,318.96
224
04-01-16
29,371.87
12,849.89
16,521.98
1,696,796.98
9 1— 493 Page 4
07-21-97
PMT Due Date payment Amount Interest ` Principal Balance
225
05-01-16
"r 29,371.87
12,725.98
16,645.89
1,680,151.09
226
06-01-16
29,371.87
12,601.13
16,770.74
1,663,380.35
227
07-01-16
29,371.87
12,475.35
16,896.52
1,646,483.83
228
08-01-16
29,371.87
12,348.63
17,023.24
1,629,460.59
229
09-01-16
29,371.87
12,220.95
17,150.92
1,612,309.67
230
10-01-16
29, 371.87
12, 092.32
17,279.55
1,595, 030.12
231
11-01-16
29, 371.87
11,962.73
17,409.14
1,577,620.98
232
12-01-16
29,371.87
11,832.16
17,539.71
1,560,081.27
2016 totals
352,462.44
150,393.11
202,069.33
233
01-01-17
29,371.87
11,700.61
17,671.26
1,542,410.01
234
02-01-17
29,371.87
11,568.08
17,803.79
1,524,606.22
235
03-01-17
29,371.87
11,434.55
17,937.32
1,506,668.90
236
04-01-17
29,371.87
11,300.02
18,071.85
1,488,597.05
237
05-01-17
29,371.87
11,164.48
18,207.39
1,470,389.66
238
06-01-17
29,371.87
11,027.92
18,343.95
1,452,045.71
239
07-01-17
29,371.87
10,890.34
18,481.53
1,433,564.18
240
08-01-17
29,371.87
10,751.73
18,620.14
1,414,944.04
241
09-01-17
29,371.87
10,612.08
18,759.79
1,396,184.25
242
10-01-17
29,371.87
10,471.38
18, 900.49
1,377,283.76
243
11-01-17
29, 371.87
10,329.63
19,042.24
1, 358, 241.52
244
12-01-17
29,371.87
10,186.81
19,185.06 -
1,339,056.46
2017 totals
352,462.44
131,437.63
221,024.81
245
01-01-18
29,371.87
10,042.92
19,328.95
1,319,727.51
246
02-01-18
29,371.87
9,897.96
19,473.91
1,300,253.60
247
03-01-18
29,371.87
9,751.90
19,619.97
1,280,633.63
248
04-01-18
29,371.87
9,604.75
19,767.12
1,260,866.51
249
05-01-18
29,371.87
9,456.50
19,915.37
1,240,951.14
250
06-01-18
29,371.87
9,307.13
20,064.74
1,220,886.40
251
07-01-18
29, 371.87
9,156.65
20,215.22
1,200, 671.18
252
08-01-18
29,371.87
9,005.03
20,366.84
1,180,304.34
253
09-01-18
29,371.87
8,852.28
20,519.59
1,159,784.75
254
10-01-18
29,371.87
8,698.39
20,673.48
1,139,111.27
255
11-01-18
29, 371.87
8,543.33
20, 828.54
1,118,282.73
256
12-01-18
29, 371.87
8,387.12
20,984.75
1,097,297.98
2018 totals
352,462.44
110,703.96
241,758.48
257
01-01-19
29,371.87
8,229.73
21,142.14
1,076,155.84
258
02-01-19
29,371.87
8,071.17
21,300.70
1,054,855.14
259
03-01-19
29,371.87
7,911.41
21,460.46
1,033,394.68
260
04-01-19
29,371.87
7,750.46
21,621.41
1,011,773.27
261
05-01-19
29,371.87
7,588.30
21, 783.57
989,989.70
262
06-01-19
29,371.87
7,424.92
21,946.95
968,042.75
263
07-01-19
29,371.87
7,260.32
22,111.55
945,931.20
264
08-01-19
29,371.87
7,094.48
22,277.39
923,653.81
265
09-01-19
29,371.87
6,927.40
22,444.47
901,209.34
266
10-01-19
29,371.87
6,759.07
22,612.80
878,596.54
267
11-01-19
29,371.87
6,589.47
22,782.40
855, 814.14
268
12-01-19
29,371.87
6,418.61
22,953.26
832, 860.88
2019 totals
352,462.44
88,025.34
264,437.10
269
01-01-20
29,371.87
6,246.46
23,125.41
809,735.47
270
02-01-20
29,371.87
6,073.02
23,298.85
786,436.62
271
03-01-20
29, 371.87
5,898.27
23,473.60
762, 963.02
272
04-01-20
29,371.87
5,722.22
23,649.65
739,313.37
273
05-01-20
29,371.87
5,544.85
23,827.02
715,486.35
274
06-01-20
29,371.87
5,366.15
24,005.72
691,480.63
275
07-01-20
29,371.87
5,186.10
24,185.77
667,294.86
276
08-01-20
29,371.87
5,004.71
24,367.16
642,927.70
277
09-01-20
29,371.87
4,821.96
24,549.91
618,377.79
278
10-01-20
29, 371.87
4,637.83
24, 734.04
593, 643.75
279
11-01-20
29, 371.87
4,452.33
24, 919.54
568, 724.21
280
12-01-20
29,371.87
4,265.43
25,106.44
543,617.77
2020 totals
352,462.44
63,219.33
289,243.11
9 d— 493 Page 5
07-21-97
PMT Due Date AftFayment Amount Interest A11L Principal Balance
281
01-01-21
29,371.87
4,077.13
25,294.74
518,323.03
282
02-01-21
29,371.87
3,887.42
25,484.45
492,838.58
283
03-01-21
29,371.87
3,696.29
25,675.58
467,163.00
284
04-01-21
29,371.87
3,503.72
25,868.15
441,294.85
285
05-01-21
29,371.87
3,309.71
26,062.16
415,232.69
286
06-01-21
29,371.87
3,114.25
26,257.62
388,975.07
287
07-01-21
29,371.87
2,917.31
26,454.56
362,520.51
288
08-01-21
29,371.87
2,718.90
26,652.97
335,867.54
289
09-01-21
29,371.87
2,519.01
26,852.86
309,014.68
290
10-01-21
29,371.87
2,317.61
27,054.26
281, 960.42
291
11-01-21
29,371.87
2,114.70
27,257.17
254,703.25
292
12-01-21
29,371.87
1,910.27
27,461.60
227,241.65
2021totals
352,462.44
36,086.32
316,376.12
293
01-01-22
29,371.87
1,704.31
27,667.56
199,574.09
294
02-01-22
29,371.87
1,496.81
27,875.06
171,699.03
295
03-01-22
29,371.87
1,287.74
28,084.13
143,614.90
296
04-01-22
29,371.87
1,077.11
28,294.76
115,320.14
297
05-01-22
29,371.87
864.90
28,506.97
86,813.17
298
06-01-22
29,371.87
651.10
28,720.77
58,092.40
299
07-01-22
29,371.87
435.69
28,936.18
29,156.22
300
08-01-22
29,374.89
218.67
29,156.22 _
0.00
2022 totals
234,977.98
7,736.33
227,241.65
Grand totals
8,811,564.02
5,311,564.02
3,500,000.00
9 '7 - 493 Page 6
July 21, 1997
Ms. Elaine Marchant
Customer Service Representative
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA
15615 N.W. 67 Avenue
Miami Lakes, Florida 33014
Re: Humberto Fernandez, Deceased
Social Security No. 263-15-7327
Certificate of Deposit No. 01-312-204-0562032
Dear Ms. Marchant:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation of last week, the
following are the items which you advised are required of First
Union National Bank in order to disburse the monies in the above
referenced certificate of deposit to our client, Judith K.
Fernandez, the surviving spouse and beneficiary of the deceased:
1. Certified copy of the Petition for Summary
Administration; and
2. Certified copy of the death certificate.
Should First Union require anything further, please list the
items in writing to us.
Very truly yours,
RASCO, REININGER & PEREZ, P.A.
Luis A. Perez, Esq.
For the Firm
LAP/tss
trustest\ 1797-1 \ firstu .721
9'7- 493
07-21-97
Grove- Harbour
i
Loan Amount:
$3,500,000.00
Loan Date:
Term of Loan:
300
Annual Interest Rate:
Amortization Method:
Normal, 360 DN
Interest Compounded:
PMT Due Date
Payment Amount
Interest
Principal
1 09-01-97
27, 013.57
23, 333.33
3,680.24
2 10-01-97
27, 013.57
23, 308.80
3,704.77
3 11-01-97
27,013.57
23,284.10
3,729.47
4 12-01-97
27,013.57
23,259.24
3,754.33
1997 totals 108,054.28
93,185.47
14,868.81
5
01-01-98
27,013.57
23,234.21
3,779.36
6
02-01-98
27,013.57
23,209.01
3,804.56
7
03-01-98
27,013.57
23,183.65
3,829.92
8
04-01-98
27,013.57
23,158.12
3,855.45
9
05-01-98
27,013.57
23,132.41
3,881.16
10
06-01-98
27,013.57
23,106.54
3,907.03
11
07-01-98
27, 013.57
23, 080.49
3,933.08
12
08-01-98
27,013.57
23,054.27
3,959.30
13
09-01-98
27,013.57
23,027.88
3,985.69
14
10-01-98
27,013.57
23, 001.30
4,012.27
15
11-01-98
27, 013.57
22, 974.56
4,039.01
16
12-01-98
27, 013.57
22,947.63
4,065.94
1998totals
324,162.84
277,110.07
47,052.77
17
01-01-99
27,013.57
22,920.52
4,093.05
18
02-01-99
27,013.57
22,893.24
4,120.33
19
03-01-99
27,013.57
22,865.77
4,147.80
20
04-01-99
27,013.57
22,838.11
4,175.46
21
05-01-99
27,013.57
22, 810.28
4,203.29
22
06-01-99
27,013.57
22,782.26
4,231.31
23
07-01-99
27,013.57
22,754.05
4,259.52
24
08-01-99
27,013.57
22,725.65
4,287.92
25
09-01-99
27,013.57
22,697.06
4,316.51
26
10-01-99
27,013.57
22,668.29
4,345.28
27
11-01-99
27,013.57
22,639.32
4,374.25
28
12-01-99
27,013.57
22,610.16
4,403.41
1999 totals
324,162.84
273,2 44.71
50,958.13
29
01-01-00
27,013.57
22,580.80
4,432.77
30
02-01-00
27,013,57
22,551.25
4,462.32
31
03-01-00
27,013.57
22, 521.50
4,492.07
32
04-01-00
27,013.57
22,491.55
4,522.02
33
05-01-00
27,013.57
22,461.41
4,552.16
34
06-01-00
27,013.57
22,431.06
4,582.51
35
07-01-00
27,013.57
22,400.51
4,613.06
36
08-01-00
27,013.57
22,369.76
4,643.81
37
09-01-00
27,013.57
22,338.80
4,674.77
38
10-01-00
27, 013.57
22, 307.63
4,705.94
39
11-01-00
27,013.57
22,276.26
4,737.31
40
12-01-00
27, 013.57
22, 244.68
4,768.89
2000 totals
324,162.84
268, 975.21
55,187.63
41
01-01-01
27,013.57
22,212.88
4,800.69
42
02-01-01
27,013.57
22,180.88
4,832.69
43
03-01-01
27,013.57
22,148.66
4,864.91
44
04-01-01 U,"'�'"""
''' : ' 1� 4" ' tRW3 Pg; bltC
27,013.57
22,116.23
4,897.34
45
05-01-01.•n� 1Ar �0.y�
is A: '4.. C. 4o�'�� Ydti'th
27,013.57-
22,083.58
4,929.99
46
06-01-01
3
27,013.57
22,050.71
4,962.86
47
07-01-01=
m
27,013.57
22,017.63
4,995.94
48
08 01-01
_s„ .: •".,,;,,;1„"ra�'1
„
27,013.57
21,984.32
5,029.25
49
09-01-01
27,013.57
21,950.79
5,062.78
50
10-01-01
a
U`' `, _
27,013.57
21,917.04
5,096.53
51
11-01-01
27,013.57
21,883.06
5,130.51
52
12-01-01
27,013.57
21, 848.86
5,164.71
2001 totals
324,162.84
264,394.64
59,768.20
9'7Y- 493
07-21-97
PMT Due Date AMayment Amount Interest AIM Principal Balance
53
01-01-02
—" 27,013.57
21,814.43
5,199.14
3,266,965.32
54
02-01-02
27,013.57
21,779.77
5,233.80
3,261,731.52
55
03-01-02
27,013.57
21,744.88
5,268.69
3,256,462.83
56
04-01-02
27,013.57
21,709.75
5,303.82
3,251,159.01
57
05-01-02
27,013.57
21,674.39
5,339.18 '
3,245,819.83
58
06-01-02
27,013.57
21,638.80
5,374.77
3,240,445.06
59
07-01-02
27,013.57
21,602.97
5,410.60
3,235,034.46
60
08-01-02
27,013.57
21,566.90
5,446.67
3,229,587.79
61
09-01-02
27,013.57
21,530.59
5,482.98
3,224,104.81
62
10-01-02
27,013.57
21,494.03
5,519.54
3,218,585.27
63
11-01-02
27,013.57
21,457.24
5,556.33
3,213, 028.94
64
12-01-02
27, 013.57
21,420.19
5,593.38
3,207,435.56
2002 totals
324,162.84
259,433.94
64,728.90
65
01-01-03
27,013.57
21,382.90
5,630.67
3,201,804.89
66
02-01-03
27,013.57
21,345.37
5,668.20
3,196,136.69
67
03-01-03
27,013.57
21,307.58
5,705.99
3,190,430.70
68
04-01-03
27,013.57
21,269.54
5,744.03
3,184,686.67
69
05-01-03
27,013.57
21,231.24
5,782.33
3,178,904.34
70
06-01-03
27,013.57
21,192.70
5,820.87
3,173,083.47
71
07-01-03
27, 013.57
21,153.89
5,859.68
3,167, 223.79
72
08-01-03
27,013.57
21,114.83
5,898.74 -
3,161,325.05
73
09-01-03
27,013.57
21,075.50
5,938.07
3,155,386.98
74
10-01-03
27,013.57
21, 035.91
5,977.66
3,149,409.32
75
11-01-03
27,013.57
20,996.06
6,017.51
3,143, 391.81
76
12-01-03
27,013.57
20,955.95
6,057.62
3,137,334.19
2003 totals
324,162.84
254,061.47
70,101.37
77
01-01-04
27,013.57
20,915.56
6,098.01
3,131,236.18
78
02-01-04
27,013.57
20,874.91
6,138.66
3,125,097.52
79
03-01-04
27,013.57
20,833.98
6,179.59
3,118,917.93
80
04-01-04
27,013.57
20,792.79
6,220.78
3,112,697.15
81
05-01-04
27, 013.57
20, 751.31
6,262.26
3,106,434.89
82
06-01-04
27,013.57
20,709.57
6,304.00
3,100,130.89.
83
07-01-04
27,013.57
20,667.54
6,346.03
3,093,784.86
84
08-01-04
27,013.57
20,625.23
6,388.34
3,087,396.52
85
09-01-04
27,013.57
20,582.64
6,430.93
3,080,965.59
86
10-01-04
27,013.57
20,539.77
6,473.80
3,074,491.79
87
11-01-04
27,013.57
20,496.61
6,516.96
3,067,974.83
88
12-01-04
27,013.57
20,453.17
6,560.40
3,061,414.43
2004 totals
324,162.84
248,243.08
75,919.76
89
01-01-05
27,013.57
20,409.43
6,604.14
3,054,810.29
90
02-01-05
27,013.57
20,365.40
6,648.17
3,048,162.12
91
03-01-05
27,013.57
20, 321.08
6,692.49
3,041,469.63
92
04-01-05
27,013.57
20,276.46
6,737.11
3,034,732.52
93
05-01-05
27,013.57
20,231.55
6,782.02
3,027,950.50
94
06-01-05
27,013.57
20,186.34
6,827.23
3,021,123.27
95
07-01-05
27,013.57
20,140.82
6,872.75
3,014,250.52
96
08-01-05
27,013.57
20,095.00
6,918.57
3,007,331.95
97
09-01-05
27,013.57
20,048.88-
6,964.69
3,000,367.26
98
10-01-05
27,013.57
20,002.45
7,011.12
2, 993, 356.14
99
11-01-05
27,013.57
19,955.71
7,057.86
2,986,298.28
100
12-01-05
27, 013.57
19, 908.66
7,104.91
2,979,193.37
2005 totals
324,162.84
241,941.78
82,221.06
101
01-01-06
27, 013.57
19,861.29
7,152.28
2,972,041.09
102
02-01-06
27,013.57
19,813.61
7,199.96
2,964,841.13
103
03-01-06
27,013.57
19,765.61
7,247.96
2,957,593.17
104
04-01-06
27,013.57
19,717.29
7,296.28
2,950,296.89
105
05-01-06
27,013.57
19,668.65
7,344.92
2,942,951.97
106
06-01-06
27,013.57
19,619.68
7,393.89
2,935,558.08
107
07-01-06
27,013.57
19,570.39
7,443.18
2,928,114.90
108
08-01-06
27,013.57
19,520.77
7,492.80
2,920,622.10
109
09-01-06
27,013.57
19,470.81
7,542.76
2,913,079.34
110
10-01-06
27,013.57
19,420.53
7,593.04
2,905,486.30
111
11-01-06
27, 013.57
19,369.91
7,643.66
2, 897, 842.64
112
12-01-06
27,013.57
19,318.95
7,694.62
2,890,148.02
Page 2
97- 493
07-21-97
PMT Due Date AwRayment Amount Interest Principal Balance
0
2006 totals 324,162.84 235,117.49 89,045.35
113
01-01-07
27,013.57
19,267.65
7,745.92
2,882,402.10
114
02-01-07
27,013.57
19,216.01
7,797.56
2,874,604.54
115
03-01-07
27,013.57
19,164.03
7,849.54
2,866,755.00
116
04-01-07
27,013.57
19,111.70
7,901.87
2,858,853.13
117
05-01-07
27,013.57
19,059.02
7,954.55
2,850,898.58
118
06-01-07
27,013.57
19,005.99
8,007.58
2,842,891.00
119
07-01-07
27,013.57
18,952.61
8,060.96
2,834,830.04
120
08-01-07
27,013.57
18,898.87
8,114.70
2,826,715.34
121
09-01-07
27,013.57
18,844.77
8,168.80
2,818, 546.54
122
10-01-07
27, 013.57
18,790.31
8,223.26
2, 810, 323.28
123
11-01-07
27, 013.57
18, 735.49
8,278.08
2, 802, 045.20
124
12-01-07
27,013.57
18,680.30
8,333.27
2,793,711.93
2007 totals
324,162,84
227,726.75
96,436.09
125
01-01-08
27,013.57
18,624.75
8,388.82
2,785,323.11
126
02-01-08
27,013.57
18,568.82
8,444.75
2,776,878.36
127
03-01-08
27,013.57
18,512.52
8,501.05
2,768,377.31
128
04-01-08
27,013.57
18,455.85
8,557.72
2,759,819.59
129
05-01-08
27,013.57
18,398.80
8,614.77 -
2,751,204.82
130
06-01=08
27,013.57
18,341.37
8,672.20
2,742,532.62
131
07-01-08
27, 013.57
18,283.55
8,730.02
2,733,802.60
132
08-01-08
27,013.57
18,225.35
8,788.22
2,725,014.38
133
09-01-08
27,013.57
18,166.76
8,846.81
2,716,167.57
134
10-01-08
27,013.57
18,107.78
8,905.79
2,707,261.78
135
11-01-08
27, 013.57
18,048.41
8,965.16
2,698,296.62
136
12-01-08
27, 013.57
17,988.64
9,024.93
2,689,271.69
2008 totals
324,162.84
219,722.60
104,440.24
137
01-01-09
27,013.57
17,928.48
9,085.09
2,680,186.60
138
02-01-09
27,013.57
17,867.91
9,145.66
2,671,040.94
139
03-01-09
27,013.57
17,806.94
9,206.63
2,661,834.31
140
04-01-09
27,013.57
17,745.56
9,268.01
2,652,566.30
141
05-01-09
27, 013.57
17,683.78
9,329.79
2, 643, 236.51
142
06-01-09
27,013.57
17,621.58
9,391.99
2,633,844.52
143
07-01-09
27,013.57
17,558.96
9,454.61
2,624,389.91
144
08-01-09
27,013.57
17,495.93
9,517.64
2,614,872.27
145
09-01-09
27,013.57
17,432.48
9,581.09
2,605,291.18
146
10-01-09
27, 013.57
17, 368.61
9,644.96
2,565,646.22
147
11-01-09
27,013.57
17, 304.31
9,709.26
2,585,936.96
148
12-01-09
27,013.57
17,239.58
9,773.99
2,576,162.97
2009 totals
324,162.84
211,054.12
113,108.72
149
01-01-10
27,013.57
17,174.42
9,839.15
2,566,323.82
150
02-01-10
27,013.57
17,108.83
9,904.74
2,556,419.08
151
03-01-10
27,013.57
17,042.79
9,970.78
2,546,448.30
152
04-01-10
27,013.57
16,976.32
10,037.25
2,536,411.05
153
05-01-10
27,013.57
16,909.41
10,104.16
2,526,306.89
154
06-01-10
27,013.57
16,842.05
10,171.52
2,516,135.37
155
07-01-10
27,013.57
16,774.24
10,239.33
2,505,896.04
156
08-01-10
27,013.57
16,705.97
10,307.60
2,495,588.44
157
09-01-10
27,013.57
16,637.26
10,376.31
2,485,212.13
158
10-01-10
27,013.57
16,568.08
10,445.49
2,474,766.64
159
11-01-10
27,013.57
16,498.44
10, 515.13
2,464,251.51
160
12-01-10
27,013.57
16,428.34
10, 585.23
2,453,666.28
2010 totals
324,162.84
201,666.15
122,496.69
161
01-01-11
27,013.57
16, 357.78
10,655.79
2,443,010.49
162
02-01-11
27,013.57
16,286.74
10,726.83
2,432,283.66
163
03-01-11
27,013.57
16,215.22
10,798.35
2,421,485.31
164
04-01-11
27,013.57
16,143.24
10,870.33
2,410,614.98
165
05-01-11
27,013.57
16,070.77
10,942.80
2,399,672.18
166
06-01-11
27,013.57
15,997.81
11,015.76
2,388,656.42
167
07-01-11
27,013.57
15,924.38
11,089.19
2,377,567.23
168
08-01-11
27,013.57
15,850.45
11,163.12
2,366,404.11
Page 3
97- 493
07-21-97
PMT
Due Date
ayment Amount
Interest
Principal
Balance
169
09-01-11
27,013.57
15,7-16.03
11,237.54
2,355,166.57
170
10-01-11
27,013.57
15,701.11
11,312.46
2,343,854.11
171
11-01-11
27,013.57
15,625.69
11, 387.88
2,332,466.23
172
12-01-11
27,013.57
15,549.77
11,463.80
2,321,002.43
2011 totals 324,162.84
191,498.99
132,663.85
173
01-01-12
27,013.57
15,473.35
11,540.22
2,309,462.21
174
02-01-12
27,013.57
15,396.41
11,617.16
2,297,845.05
175
03-01-12
27,013.57
15,318.97
11,694.60
2,286,150.45
176
04-01-12
27,013.57
15,241.00
11,772.57
2,274,377.88
177
05-01-12
27,013.57
15,162.52
11,851.05
2,262,526.83
178
06-01-12
27,013.57
15,083.51
11,930.06
2,250,596.77
179
07-01-12
27,013.57
15,003.98
12,009.59
2,238,587.18
180
08-01-12
27,013.57
14,923.91
12,089.66
2,226,497.52
181
09-01-12
27,013.57
14, 843.32
12,170.25
2,214, 327.27
182
10-01-12
27,013.57
14,762.18
12,251.39
2,202, 075.88
183
11-01-12
27,013.57
14, 680.51
12, 333.06
2,189, 742.82
184
12-01-12
27, 013.57
14, 598.29
12,415.28
2,177,327.54
2012 totals 324,162.84
180,487.95
143,674.89
185
01-01-13
27,013.57
14,515.52
12,498.05 -
2,164,829.49
186
02-01-13
27,013.57
14,432.20
12,581.37
2,152,248.12
187
03-01-13
27,013.57
14,348.32
12,665.25
2,139,582.87
188
04-01-13
27,013.57
14,263.89
12,749.68
2,126,833.19
189
05-01-13
27,013.57
14,178.89
12,834.68
2,113,998.51
190
06-01-13
27,013.57
14,093.32
12,920.25
2,101,078.26
191
07-01-13
27,013.57
14,007.19
13,006.38
2,088,071.88
192
08-01-13
27,013.57
13,920.48
13,093.09
2,074,978.79
193
09-01-13
27,013.57
13,833.19
13,180.38
2,061,798.41
194
10-01-13
27,013.57
13,745.32
13,268.25
2,048, 530.16
195
11-01-13
27, 013.57
13, 656.87
13, 356.70
2,035,173.46
196
12-01-13
27, 013.57
13, 567.82
13,445.75
2,021,727.71
2013 totals 324,162.84
168,563.01 -
155,599.83
197
01-01-14
27,013.57
13,478.18
13,535.39
2,008,192.32
198
02-01-14
27,013.57
13,387.95
13,625.62
1,994,566.70
199
03-01-14
27,013.57
13,297.11
13,716.46
1,980,850.24
200
04-01-14
27,013.57
13,205.67
13,807.90
1,967,042.34
201
05-01-14
27, 013.57
13,113.62
13,899.95
1,953,142.39
202
06-01-14
27,013.57
13,020.95
13,992.62
1,939,149.77
203
07-01-14
27,013.57
12,927.67
14,085.90
1,925,063.87
204
08-01-14
27,013.57
12,833.76
14,179.81
1,910,884.06
205
09-01-14
27,013.57
12,739.23
14,274.34
1,896,609.72
206
10-01-14
27,013.57
12,644.06
14, 369.51
1,882,240.21
207
11-01-14
27,013.57
12, 548.27
14,465.30
1, 867, 774.91
208
12-01-14
27,013.57
12,451.83
14, 561.74
1,853,213.17
2014 totals
324,162.84
155,648.30
168,514.54
209
01-01-15
27,013.57
12,354.75
14,658.82
1,838,554.35
210
02-01-15
27,013.57
12,257.03
14,756.54
1,823,797.81
211
03-01-15
27,013.57
12,158.65
14, 854.92
1, 808, 942.89
212
04-01-15
27,013.57
12,059.62
14,953.95
1,793,988,94
213
05-01-15
27,013.57
11,959.93
15,053.64
1,778,935.30
214
06-01-15
27,013.57
11,859.57
15,154.00
1,763,781.30
215
07-01-15
27,013.57
11,758.54
15,255.03
1,748,526.27
216
08-01-15
27,013.57
11,656.84
15,356.73
1,733,169.54
217
09-01-15
27,013.57
11,554.46
15,459.11
1,717,710.43
218
10-01-15
27, 013.57
11,451.40
15, 562.17
1,702,148.26
219
11-01-15
27, 013.57
11,347.66
15, 665.91
1,686,482.35
220
12-01-15
27,013.57
11,243.22
15, 770.35
1,670, 712.00
2015totals
324,162.84
141,661.67
182,501.17
221
01-01-16
27, 013.57
11,138.08
15,875.49
1,654, 836.51
222
02-01-16
27,013.57
11,032.24
15,981.33
1,638,855.18
223
03-01-16
27,013.57
10,925.70
16,087.87
1,622,767.31
224
04-01-16
27,013.57
10,818.45
16,195.12
1,606,572.19
Page 4
97- 493
07-21-97
PMT Due Date payment Amount Interest + Principal Balance
225
05-01-16
!" 27,013.57
10,710.48 'r
16,303.09
1,590,269.10
226
06-01-16
27,013.57
10,601.79
16,411.78
1,573,857.32
227
07-01-16
27,013.57
10,492.38
16,521.19
1,557,336.13
228
08-01-16
27,013.57
10,382.24
16,631.33
1,540,704.80
229
09-01-16
27,013.57
10,271.37
16,742.20
1,523,962.60
230
10-01-16
27, 013.57
10,159.75
16,853.82
1,507,108.78
231
11-01-16
27,013.57
10,047.39
16, 966.18
1,490,142.60
232
12-01-16
27,013.57
9,934.28
17, 079.29
1,473, 063.31
2016 totals
324,162.84
126,514.15
197,648.69
233
01-01-17
27,013.57
9,820.42
17,193.15
1,455,870.16
234
02-01-17
27,013.57
9,705.80
17,307.77
1,438,562.39
235
03-01-17
27,013.57
9,590.42
17,423.15
1,421,139.24
236
04-01-17
27,013.57
9,474.26
17,539.31
1,403,599.93
237
05-01-17
27,013.57
9,357.33
17,656.24
1,385,943.69
238
06-01-17
27,013.57
9,239.62
17,773.95
1,368,169.74
239
07-01-17
27,013.57
9,121.13
17,892.44
1,350,277.30
240
08-01-17
27,013.57
9,001.85
18,011.72
1,332,265.58
241
09-01-17
27,013.57
8,881.77
18,131.80
1,314,133.78
242
10-01-17
27,013.57
8,760.89
18,252.68
1,295, 881.10
243
11-01-17
27,013.57
8,639.21
18, 374.36
1,277, 506.74
244
12-01-17
27,013.57
8,516.71
18,496.86 _
1,259,009.88
2017 totals
324,162.84
110,109.41
214,053.43
245
01-01-18
27,013.57
8,393.40
18,620.17
1,240,389.71
246
02-01-18
27,013.57
8,269.26
18,744.31
1,221,645.40
247
03-01-18
27,013.57
8,144.30
18,869.27
1,202,776.13
248
04-01-18
27,013.57
8,018.51
18,995.06
1,183,781.07
249
05-01-18
27,013.57
7,891.87
19,121.70
1,164,659.37
250
06-01-18
27,013.57
7,764.40
19,249.17
1,145,410.20
251
07-01-18
27, 013.57
7,636.07
19, 377.50
1,126, 032.70
252
08-01-18
27,013.57
7,506.88
19,506.69
1,106,526.01
253
09-01-18
27,013.57
7,376.84
19,636.73
1,086,889.28
254
10-01-18
27,013.57
7,245.93
19, 767.64
1,067,121.64
255
11-01-18
27, 013.57
7,114.14
19, 899.43
1,047,222.21
256
12-01-18
27,013.57
6,981.48
20, 032.09
1,027,190.12
2018 totals
324,162.84
92,343.08
231,819.76
257
01-01-19
27,013.57
6,847.93
20,165.64
1,007,024.48
258
02-01-19
27,013.57
6,713.50
20,300.07
986,724.41
259
03-01-19
27,013.57
6,578.16
20,435.41
966,289.00
260
04-01-19
27,013.57
6,441.93
20,571.64
945,717.36
261
05-01-19
27,013.57
6,304.78
20, 708.79
925,008.57
262
06-01-19
27,013.57
6,166.72
20,846.85
904,161.72
263
07-01-19
27,013.57
6,027.74
20,985.83
883,175.89
264
08-01-19
27,013.57
5,887.84
21,125.73
862,050.16
265
09-01-19
27,013.57
5,747.00
21,266.57
840,783.59
266
10-01-19
27, 013.57
5,605.22
21,408.35
819,375.24
267
11-01-19
27,013.57
5,462.50
21, 551.07
797, 824.17
268
12-01-19
27, 013.57
5,318.83
21,694.74
776,129.43
2019 totals
324,162.84
73,102.15
251,060.69
269
01-01-20
27,013.57
5,174.20
21,839.37
754,290.06
270
02-01-20
27,013.57
5,028.60
21,984.97
732,305.09
271
03-01-20
27,013.57
4,882.03
22,131.54
710,173.55
272
04-01-20
27,013.57
4,734.49
22,279.08
687,894.47
273
05-01-20
27,013.57
4,585.96
22,427.61
665,466.86
274
06-01-20
27,013.57
4,436.45
22,577.12
642,889.74
275
07-01-20
27,013.57
4,285.93
22,727.64
620,162.10
276
08-01-20
27,013.57
4,134A1
22,879.16
597,282.94
277
09-01-20
27,013.57
3,981.89
23,031.68
574,251.26
278
10-01-20
27, 013.57
3,828.34
23,185.23
551,066.03
279
11-01-20
27,013.57
3,673.77
23, 339.80
527, 726.23
280
12-01-20
27, 013.57
3,518.17
23,495.40
504,230.83
2020 totals
324,162.84
52,264.24
271,898.60
Page 5
97- 493
07-21-97
PMT Due Date moment Amount Interest ANk Principal Balance
281
01-01-21
27,013.57
3,361.54 "'
23,652.03
480,578.80
282
02-01-21
27,013.57
3,203.86
23,809.71
456,769.09
283
03-01-21
27,013.57
3,045.13
23,968.44
432,800.65
284
04-01-21
27,013.57
2,885.34
24,128.23
408,672.42
285
05-01-21
27,013.57
2,724.48
24,289.09
384,383.33
286
06-01-21
27,013.57
2,562.56
24,451.01
359,932.32
287
07-01-21
27,013.57
2,399.55
24,614.02
335,318.30
288
08-01-21
27,013.57
2,235.46
24,778.11
310,540.19
289
09-01-21
27,013.57
2,070.27
24,943.30
285,596.89
290
10-01-21
27,013.57
1,903.98
25,109.59
260,487.30
291
11-01-21
27, 013.57
1,736.58
25,276.99
235,210.31
292
12-01-21
27, 013.57
1,568.07
25,445.50
209,764.81
2021 totals
324,162.84
29,696.82
294,466.02
293
01-01-22
27,013.57
1,398.43
25,615.14
294
02-01-22
27,013.57
1,227.66
25,785.91
295
03-01-22
27,013.57
1,055.76
25,957.81
296
04-01-22
27,013.57
882.71
26,130.86
297
05-01-22
27,013.57
708.50
26,305.07
298
06-01-22
27,013.57
533.13
26,480.44
299
07-01-22
27,013.57
356.60
26,656.97
300
08-01-22
27,011.49
178.88
26,832.61
2022 totals
216,106.48
6,341.67
209,764.81
Grand totals
8,104,068.92
4,604,068.92
3,500,000.00
184,149.67
158,363.76
132,405.95
106,275.09
79,970.02
53,489.58
26,832.61
0.00
97- 493
Page 6
!'r
t
t•:
1HARPTON, BRUN vl & COMPANY, P.A.
_ERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
ONE SOUTHEAST THIRD AVE., SUITE 2100
MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131
TELEPHONE: (305) 374-1574 / FAX: (305) 372-8161
E-MAIL: sbc@netrunnecnet
December 24, 1996
Mr. Ed Marquez, City Manager
City of Miami
444 Southwest 2nd Avenue, 10th Floor
Miami, Florida 33138
Dear Mr. Marquez:
ONE EAST BROWARD BLVD., SUITE 1110
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33301
TELEPHONE: (954) 467-5490 / FAX: (954) 467-6184
o
Attached is our analysis of the proposals for the Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment,
Unified Development Project at 2640 South Bayshore Drive, Miami, Florida.
The purpose of our engagement was to evaluate the proposals submitted using the CPA
firm evaluation criteria outlined in the request for proposals. These criteria include the
experience and capability of the proposers, the financial viability of the development teams,
the proposed financing strategies and the comparative short and long range returns to the
City. We were also to assess each proposer's market analysis and evaluate the economic
feasibility of the proposed development.
The procedures we performed included:
• Reading of the request for proposals
• Reading of individual proposals
• Attendance at all Review Committee meetings
• Attendance at proposers' oral presentations
Our report is based solely on the information included in the proposals and supplemented
by comments of a clarifying nature only, made at the oral presentations.
Although we have reviewed the projections and assumptions included in the proposals, our
purpose was not to validate individual amounts or assumptions but to evaluate the
proposals taken as a whole. We have not compiled or examined any of the prospective
financial information included in the proposals. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion
or any other form of assurance on any of the prospective financial information or
assumptions included in the proposals.
9'7- 493
SHARPTON, BRUN®N & COMPANY, P.A. •
Mr. Ed Marquez
December 24,,1996
Page 2
This report is intended solely for the use of the City of Miami and should not be used for
any other purpose, including financing for the Unified Development. This restriction is not
intended to limit the distribution of this report which, upon acceptance by the City of Miami,
is a matter of public record.
We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to be of service to the City of Miami.
Very truly yours,
SHA�,PT)QN, BRUNSON & COMPANY, P.A.
I
DKS/rm
Enc.
4731
9� 493
•
•
1.0 01AMLI TA
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
2640 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE
DINNER KEY WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
DECEMBER 1996
97- 493
CITY OF MIAMI
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
DINNER KEY WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS k
Page
Introduction i
Summary Findings (Exhibit 1) 1
Organization Structure, Financial Capability and Proposed Financing
of Capital Costs 2
Experience of Proposers and Capability of Development Teams 8
Economic Viability and Evaluation of Assumptions
Economic Return to the City
Proposal Summaries
12
15
19
97- 493
fl�
•
Introduction
The City of Miami has invited interested parties to submit Unified Development Project
proposals for development of commercial and recreational water -dependent facilities, and
ancillary related uses on up to 13.5 acres of City waterfront property and adjacent bar
bottom lands located at 2640 South Bayshore Drive, Miami (the "Unified Development").*
A Request for Unified Development Proposals ("RFP") relating to the Project was issued
by the City of Miami in June 1996. The RFP outlines information to be included in the
proposals and the proposal evaluation criteria.
Following the unified development resolution, the City of Miami Commission appointed a
Review Committee to evaluate the proposals within the criteria established by the RFP.
The Review Committee is to provide a written report to the City Manager. The Commission
approved Sharpton, Brunson & Company, P.A. to analyze each proposal relative to certain
criteria contained in the RFP.
Three (3) proposals were received by the City in response to the RFP. The proposers
were: Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Ltd. (Atlantic Clipper), Hangar in the Grove, Grove
Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace, LLC (Grove Harbour). Each proposer made
an oral presentation to the Review Committee on October 29, 1996.
This report is based solely on the proposal documents and comments of a clarifying nature
only, made at the oral presentations.
The remainder of this report outlines our findings with regard to information presented in
response to the RFP criteria which we were to evaluate.
A summary of significant findings is scheduled on Exhibit 1, on the following page.
9?- 493
EXHIBIT I
FINANCIAL VIABILITY
VIABILITY OF FINANCING STRATEGIES
ECONOMIC RETURN TO CITY OF MIAMI
MARKET ANALYSIS AND MARKETING PLAN
SUMMARY FINDINGS
Hangar in the Grove
NEW ENTITY (1) (2)
APPEARS REASONABLE
RANKED 3rd
APPEARS THOROUGH AND
REASONABLE
ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT TRANSIENT REVENUES FROM
SLIPS APPEAR OPTIMISTIC.
EARLY OPERATING CASH
DEFICITS COULD POSE MAJOR
PROBLEMS.
VIABILITY OF.MANAGEMENT PLAN APPEARS REASONABLE
(1) ENTITY NEWLY FORMED. NO PRIOR FINANCIAL HISTORY.
(2) PRINCIPALS APPEAR CAPABLE OF INVESTING INDICATED EQUITY
(A) NO EQUITY COMMITMENT INDICATED
Grove Harbour Marina Atlantic Clipper
NEW ENTITY (1) (2) NEW ENTITY (1) (A)
APPEARS REASONABLE NO STRATEGY
INDICATED
RANKED 2nd RANKED 1st
VERY GENERAL VERY GENERAL
CASH FLOW POSITION IS
POSITIVE; HOWEVER, PRO
FORMA DOES NOT
REFLECT DEBT SERVICE
PAYMENTS. NUMBER OF
SLIPS (284) VERY
OPTIMISTIC, MAY BE
DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP
AS PLANNED.
CASH FLOW PRO
FORMA IS POSITIVE.
FORECAST DOES NOT
REFLECT ANY DEBT
SERVICE OR
PREFERRED RETURN
TO SHAREHOLDERS IF
ALL EQUITY DEAL.
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
A P P E A R
UNDERSTATED.
VERY GENERAL. NO VERY GENERAL. NO
DETAIL OPERATING PLAN DETAIL OPERATING
PLAN
lit
PrInaipa
Hugh Westbrook, Michael Moore
Alan Lima, Felix Lima
Sylvester Stallone, Steve
Felix Sabates,
Perry, Manny Medina,
Robert Christoph
Rosario Kennedy
111")nvestment{ 6NMI
$9,420,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
'i �jo j C 1
x..€. {
2 To 4 ears
Y
1 '/s ears
Y
within two 2 ears
O Y
4L�as g
40 years
40 years
40 years
(with option to terminate
s�
in year 20)
;IV[in ma tt1RBtli
$100,000 first 4 years ($800,000 deferred)
$350,000 years 1-10
,M miEac.; ea,"
$300,000 year (5 - 9 years)
$300,000
$400,000 years 11-20
$300,000 + portion of $800,000 deferred (10-20 years)
$500,000 years 21-30
$300,000 year (21-40 years)
$600,000 years 31-40
ZONE-�r��Sj�ao&Y
46,775 (including 5,000 for restaurant)
50,000.
17,000 (marina related)
53,000 (film studio)
140
Boats#orag+�
99
144
144
i�eVgl0 �ie
Boatyard, Marina, Market Place and Restaurant
Boatyard, Marina,
Marina, Film Institute,
QN,
Marketplace
Boatyard
e�
Approximately $23
(2)
Approximately $31 million (3)
oith
Approximately $20 million
million
IMP'
Corporation
Corporation (LLC)
Limited Partnership
$1,884,000 (over 4 years)
$1,500,000
not determinable
>=inahCiig S'rt�g s ;�, Equity 20% Equity 30%
>.� Private Debt 80% Private Debt 70% not determinable
Includes soft costs.
1) not audited or independently verified
2) includes general partner and one (1) limited partner
3)Includes corporate investor
A) Does not include City contribution which could range from $1.4 to $2.4 million
B) RFP references, two (2) year period
)7- 493
i
ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE, FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
AND PROPOSED FINANCING OF CAPITAL COSTS
The proposals for the Unified Development Project include a description of the organization
of the entity proposing to be the developer and lessee of the site.
The City of Miami's Request for Proposals also requires submission of "complete and
substantiated evidence of the proposer's financial capacity to undertake the. project
proposed."
Schedules which contain the following information for each proposer are included on
subsequent pages:
• A description of the proposer's organization structure.
• The names of all general and 'limited partners and their proposed or actual
ownership percentages and any pertinent affiliates.
• The extent of financial information provided and an indication of whether the
information was compiled by a certified public accountant.
• Comments on and extracts of pertinent financial data.
• The proposed financing of development costs.
None of the financial information included in the proposals has been audited. An audit is
an independent verification of the information included in financial statements. Several of
the proposers indicated that the financial statements were compiled by an accountant. A
compilation does not include any testing or verification of amounts or disclosures. The
statements are solely the representation of management of the company or the individuals,
as applicable. In certain instances, the financial statements of the individuals did not
include a deduction from net worth for income taxes which would be paid if assets were
liquidated. In those cases, net worth may be overstated, but there is insufficient
information to quantify the amount of the overstatement, if any.
In general, most of the letters from banks concerning an interest in the proposed financing
of the project are not firm commitments. As is prudent business practice, the lender must
ascertain that the lease was awarded, that building permits will be issued, that all
applicable financial data is thoroughly reviewed, and must perform other credit underwriting
procedures before a loan can be granted.
97- 493
•
ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE, FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
AND PROPOSED FINANCING OF CAPITAL COSTS
GROVE HARBOUR MARINA
ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE
The proposer will be a limited liability corporation.
• The corporate stock ownership is as follows:
Southern Cross Marinas LC 30%
(Florida Limited Liability Company)
Harbour Management Group Inc. 70%
(Florida Corporation)
• The respective Company's ownership is as follows:
Southern Cross
Robert Christoph
Carlos Lucasa
Julio G. Rebull
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
Harbour Manaaement Grouo
Alan Lima
Felix Lima,
Antonio Zamora, Jr.
Monty Morse Sabates
Carl Straw
Grove Harbour provided financial statements for individual principals or shareholders of the
entities that make up the proposing venture. Financial statements on the corporations
making up the proposing venture, Southern Cross Marinas, LC and Harbour Management
Group, Inc. were not presented.
The proposal includes financial statements for five (5) of the six (6) individuals that
apparently meet the financial disclosure requirement. The financial statement of Mr. Felix
Sabates, an owner with greater than a 5% interest, is omitted. However, recent media
sources (as documented in the proposal) indicate Mr. Sabates has a substantial net worth.
Net worth of the shareholders is $23 million exclusive of Mr. Sabates. None of the financial
statements have been audited or otherwise independently verified.
97- 493
ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE, FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
AND PROPOSED FINANCING OF CAPITAL COSTS
GROVE HARBOUR MARINA
-i
PROPOSED FINANCING OF CAPITAL COSTS
• Development costs are projected to be approximately.$5,000,000.
• The proposing entity is anticipated to provide equity of $1.5 million.
• A letter from Republic Bank indicates
verifications are made, final approval
bank's loan policies and guidelines.
that after appropriate documentation and
(for $3,900,000) will be contingent on the
• A second letter from Eastern National Bank indicates their bank is interested in
financing the project. A third letter from First Union provides a credit reference for
Mr. Sabates. Financial statements of Southern Cross or Harbour Management
Group, Inc. were not provided. Therefore, specific data on the proposing entity is
not sufficient to demonstrate the entity's financial capability.
• Terms for debt financing are not disclosed.. Based on the proposer's estimated
cash flow (before debt service, depreciation and taxes) it would appear they would
be able to service the debt from operations only if amortization terms for the
principal was at least 15 years.
• Additional costs of $1,400,000 to $2,400,000 for marina renovations associated with
restoring previous slips may be subsidized by the City of Miami.
EVALUATION
Bank financing of $3.5 million is estimated in the proposal. Based on the proposed equity
investment and the cumulative net worth of the individual shareholders, this level of
financing, appears reasonable and should be sufficient to complete the capital construction
program outlined in the proposal.
97- 493
ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE, FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
AND PROPOSED FINANCING OF CAPITAL COSTS
HANGAR IN THE GROVE
..:14
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The proposing entity is a corporation.
Corporate ownership is as follows:
# of Shares
Ownership
Hugh Westbrook
9,000
82%
Michael Moore
1,000
9%
Kendrick Meek
300(A)
3%
Domingo Gomez
300(A)
3%
Gonzalo and Marisel Diaz
300(A)
3%
10.900
100%
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
Hangar in the Grove is a new entity. No statements on the entity were provided. Financial
statements were presented by Mr. Westbrook and Mr. Moore. Mr. Westbrook's financial
statements had not been compiled or reviewed by a CPA; Mr. Moore's financials had been
reviewed .by a CPA. Aggregate net worth is reported at $20.5 million.
PROPOSED FINANCING OF CAPITAL COSTS
• Development costs are projected to be approximately $9,420,000. .
• A bank has expressed an interest in financing the project.
Proposed terms of financing are as follows:
Equity contribution $1,884,000
.Loan Amount $7,376,678
Term 25 years
Interest Rate 11 %
• Additional costs of $1,400,000 to $2,400,00 for marina renovations associated with
restoring previous slips may be subsidized by the City of Miami.
97- 493
ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE, FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
AND PROPOSED FINANCING OF CAPITAL COSTS
HANGAR IN THE GROVE
EVALUATION
Based on the proposed equity investment and the cumulative net worth of the principals,
the level of term financing seems reasonable and should be sufficient for the proposed
development.
97- 493
ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE, FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
AND PROPOSED FINANCING OF CAPITAL COSTS
ATLANTIC CLIPPER
;h
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The proposer will be a limited partnership consisting of one (1) general partner and four
(4) limited partners. The general partner, Atlantic Foundation, Inc. owns 30% of the
proposed venture. Terremark Centre, Inc. owns 28% of the venture. Terremark Centre,
Inc. is a Florida limited partnership. It was formed for the purpose of developing, owning,
and operating an office tower located in Coconut Grove, Florida. It also operates several
residential units. The partnership is nine (9) years old. The remaining three (3) partners
are individual businessmen and have a 42% equity interest.
The venture is newly formed for this project. A formal agreement among the partners was
not evidenced in the proposal.
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
The general partner submitted a financial statement indicating a net equity of $1,000. The
president of the general partnership indicated a mid six -figure net worth. One of the four
(4) limited partners, Terremark Centre, submitted a financial statement. Terremark Centre
indicates a net capital position of approximately $30.5 million. The other limited partners
did not submit financials. The strength of the proposer currently lies with Terremark.
Complete assessment of the partnership capability is not possible without data from other
owners whose interest excels 5%.
PROPOSED FINANCING OF CAPITAL COSTS
No financing strategy was indicated in the proposal. The estimated cost of the
development is $8,400,000. At the oral presentation, the proposer indicated they may or
may not seek outside financing. The ability and willingness of the partners to put up all the
equity must be determined by the city.
EVALUATION
Without a definitive financing plan, the financing strategy cannot be assessed.
97- 493
EXPERIENCE OF PROPOSERS AND CAPABILITY OF
DEVELOPMENT TEAMS
This portion of the report contains a summary of the information contained in the proposals
regarding the proposers' experience and the demonstrated capability of the development
teams. Because the details supporting this summary are included in the proposals, they
have not been reproduced fully in this report. The purpose of the following information is
to summarize the key aspects of the proposers' and development teams' experience and
capabilities which appear most relevant to the Unified Development.
97493
EXPERIENCE OF PROPOSERS AND CAPABILITY OF
DEVELOPMENT TEAMS
GROVE HARBOUR MARINA
-14
The proposer is comprised of two entities: Southern Cross Marinas, Inc. and Harbour
Management Group, Inc. No information is provided regarding the specific experience of
Southern Cross and Grove Harbour. The resumes of the presidents of the two shareholder
companies, Mr. Felix Lima and Mr. Robert Christoph indicate significant experience in the
development of residential and commercial real estate projects, as well as marine
experience.
Pan Coast/Albaisa, is the architectural firm for the development and has experience in
designing a number of notable South Florida environmental projects. No specific marine -
related experience is mentioned.
Civil and environmental engineering will be provided by the firm of Milian, Swain &
Associates, Inc. As detailed in the proposal, the firm's work is principally in the area of
design, permitting and construction management of roads, drainage, water and restoration
programs. No specific marina experience is discussed.
The general contractor for the facility will be Jessla Corporation. The firm is owned by one
of the proposer's principals, Mr. Felix Lima. The proposal lists several projects which were
constructed under the direction of Mr. Lima. It is not indicated what these developments
total cost were or when they were completed. The development. type listed is commercial
and residential.
RCI Marine, Inc. will serve as general manager of the Grove Harbour facility. RCI is owned
by one of the proposer's principals, Mr. Robert Christoph. Mr. Christoph has significant
marina operations and developer experience. He currently manages a large Miami Beach
marina. His accomplishments have been documented in the news media.
Mr. Carl B. Straw is listed as a marina consultant. His resume indicates he has more than
25 years of marine related experience.
Aaron Zaretsky is listed as a market consultant. From his resume, it appears he has
tremendous market place development and management experience. The resume
indicates he is an entrepreneur and consultant to a number of market place centers
throughout"the country.
97- 493
EXPERIENCE OF PROPOSERS AND CAPABILITY OF
DEVELOPMENT TEAMS
HANGAR IN THE GROVE
The proposer is a newly formed corporation. The corporate shareholders are two well
known businessmen in the Miami community, Mr. Hugh Westbrook and Mr. Michael Moore.
They are key executives in their respective companies. The management and operating
team for the proposer are recognized leaders in their respective industries. ,
Merrill Stevens, one of South Florida's oldest and modern, full service marine repair
establishments will be the operator of the developments' hangar and outdoor boatyard
repair facilities. They will manage all boatyard operations.
Harrison Construction Company/CW Construction, a 70 year old construction firm will
oversee the development of the project.
The Allen Morris Company, almost four decades old, will be the master property manager
for the development, coordinating the activities of the boatyard, marina, and marketplace.
They will also provide security and maintenance services for the development.
Two (2) firms have been identified in the proposal to organize and stabilize the marketplace
and. pier operations. Public Market Partners, Inc. and Commercial Realty Resources will
provide these services as consultants to the development. These firms specialize in public
marketplace consulting. Marina Management Services, Inca will manage the day-to-day
operations of the marina and fueling facility. From the proposal it appears the company
is approximately 10 years old and services its clients through its two principal officers, Mr.
Dennis Kussman and Mr. Ronald Stroud.
Carr Smith Associates is the project's architects, planners and engineers. They area multi -
disciplined firm providing consulting services in urban planning, environmental
assessments, community involvement and civil engineering.
97- 493
11
EXPERIENCE OF PROPOSERS AND CAPABILITY OF
DEVELOPMENT TEAMS
ATLANTIC CLIPPER
Wolfberg, Alvarez and Partners is the project architect and engineer and is the second
largest full service architecture and engineering firm in South Florida. The proposal
represents that the firm has been ranked as recently as 1996, in a national publication and
received numerous awards for outstanding service. One of the firm's signature projects
is the restoration of Viscaya Art Museum. Specific waterfront experience was not listed in
the proposal.
M.N.R.E. Management and Consulting will operate the marina. The proposal gave very
limited information as to past relevant experience of this company.
Jones Boatyard, Inc. will operate the boatyard. Little or no historic or relevant experience
was documented in the proposal on the company.
Terremark Realty will manage the market and retail component of the development. No
specific experience is mentioned in the proposal.
Spencer Franklin will manage production operations
amount of relevant experience in the industry.
His resume lists a tremendous
97- 493
ECONOMIC VIABILITY AND EVALUATION OF ASSUMPTIONS
GROVE HARBOUR MARINA
The proposal includes pro forma operating information for a 10 year period. The projection
was not examined by a certified public accountant. The proforma operating resdh
assume a 3% increase in revenues and approximately 3.4% for expenses each year.
A market analysis to support the pro forma operating results was prepared by related
parties to the proposer, Grove Harbour Management Group and JGR & Associates. Grove
Harbour, Inc. proposes to operate the wet and dry storage facilities and fuel operations.
They propose to rent to other operators, the remaining facilities, which is market place and
selected retail space.
Grove Harbour shows the following major revenue categories for the first year of full lease -
up (year two):
Percentage of
Description Revenues
Marina 37%
Boatyard 35%
Market Place Lease 28%
The Grove Harbour slip storage component was by far the largest of all proposers with
approximately 284 slips. The City of Miami may have a. difficult time getting permits for 284
slips. A reduction in slips will adversely impact revenues of this development. The City's
department of development along with planning and zoning will work with the State of
Florida on a final number. This would pose a major problem if the City of Miami is limited
to permitting a lesser number.
After construction, projected revenues from dry and wet storage represent 22% of
revenues. It assumes a 90% occupancy rate over the base 10 year period. Although the
market analysis does not discuss slip rental rates, the rates appear reasonable.
Rental rates for the retail space were not supported with market data. The marina and
boatyard is to be operated by RCI, Inc. This entity is owned by one of the principals.
Although the rental rate for the market place was not supported with market data, it does
not appear unreasonable.
The operating plan calls for 40 employees. Net cash before debt service, depreciation and
taxes is positive. It averages approximately $750,000 annually over the initial 1.0 year
operating period. The proposal does not indicate a debt service structure. A debt service
structure with terms greater than 15 years appears necessary for this projects' success.
The development has a diversity of revenue sources. Obviously, any significant downward
shift in occupancy rates will have a negative impact on cash flows.
97- 493
ECONOMIC VIABILITY AND EVALUATION OF ASSUMPTIONS
HANGAR IN THE GROVE
The proposal gives proforma operating data for a 14 year period. The projection is not
examined by a'certified public accountant. Revenues appear to stabilize in year 2003 (or
the 7th period); this is after the marketplace and pier reach the 90% occupancy level.
A market analysis to support the proforma operation assumptions was performed by the
proposer. Operating assumptions are fairly detailed. Hangar in the Grove shows the
following major revenue categories:
Marina 47%
Boatyard 4%
Marketplace 49%
Although the operating assumptions are fairly detailed, the proposer indicates that
substantially all of the marina slip rental rates will be "transient" rates. This assumption
appears somewhat unreasonable and contrary to the market strategy for the development.
It appears that seasonal and annual rates may be more appropriate for the indicated local
market strategy. The latter rates would reduce revenues and impact development cash
flows. There is a cash operating deficit during the developments' first five (5) year period.
No specific mention. is made how this deficit, estimated at approximately $3,799,000, is to
be funded by the proposer. Given the amount of estimated construction cost per square
foot, it could be argued that some development period interest is already included in the
capital improvements cash flow forecast in the proforma and should not be included in the
operating statement. Either way, a significant cash deficit may still exist.
Contingent upon satisfactory reconciliation of the above issues, the development proforma
as shown in the proposal may not be economically feasible.
IQ 97- 493
•
•
ECONOMIC VIABILITY AND EVALUATION OF ASSUMPTIONS
ATLANTIC CLIPPER
The studio component of the development represents 63% of the revenues for the project
and the majority of operating profit for the development. Specifics to support the revenue
and operating expense data were not included in the proposal. A monthly production
budget for Metro -Dade was presented. Operating assumptions for the development as a
whole were very general.
The proposal does not indicate a financing strategy for the estimated $8,400,000 in
development cost.
Additionally, it appears that the development cost to build an additional 92 slips are not
included in project cost. These slips could cost around $1,000,000. The proposer also
indicated in the oral presentation that soft costs would probably be higher than estimated
in the proposal.
Obviously, a sound financing strategy and grasp of development costs are necessary to
ensure a successful project. The City must ensure these matters are satisfactorily
addressed.
97- 493
a
ECONOMIC RETURN TO THE CITY
The most significant economic benefits that accrue to the City are the annual lease
payments, property tax payments and the value of the capital improvements to the Unified
Development site.
h
The terms of the leases indicated by the proposers are very similar, basically 40 year
terms. A summary comparison of lease terms is provided on Exhibit III.
An analysis was performed which computed minimum rents and property tax payments.
The break point for analytical purposes was 10, 20, 30, and 40 years. The rent and tax
payment streams were discounted to their estimated present value using a rate of 12%.
A discounted stream of payments provides a more realistic value of future lease and
property tax payments.
A summary is as follows. The resulting annual computations are summarized graphically
on Exhibit II.
Years Hangar in the Grove Grove Harbour Atlantic Clipper
1-10 $2,189,481 $2,844,669 $3,340,586
11-20 $3,754,524 $3,978,210 $4,881,802
21-30 $47'278,278 $4,408,265 $5,526,691
31-40 1$4,471,452 $4,574,894 $5,792,166
A forecast of percentage rents proposed by the developer was not calculated since this
would require speculation of operating results beyond the base 10 year period included in
the proposals. Additionally, there is no guarantee that any percentage rents will be paid
to the City of Miami even if operating results beyond the base ten (10) year period were
presented.
97- 493
CITY OF MIAMI - DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EXHIBIT II
0
0
PAGE 16
PROPOSED LEASE TERMS
j
Minimum
Years 1-40 $300,000
Years 1-4 $100,000
Years 1-10 $350,000
Guaranteed Rent
($800,000 deferred)
Years 11-20 $400,000
Years 5-9 $300,000
Years 21-30 $500,000
Years 10-20 $300,000
(plus amortization of
Years 31-40 $600,000
$800,000 deferred)
Years 21-40 $300,000
Rent based on a percentage of
A percentage of gross revenues
revenues
on dollars
Marina 10%
Marina 10%
Boatyard 10%
Boatyard 5%
Marina Services 5%
Marina Retail 10%
Fueling 5%
Fuel $.05/gal
MiscellaneousNending •5%.
Studio 6%
Marketplace 2%
Up to 7% of gross revenue
as follows:
5% of gross (excluding fuel)
years 1-4
7% of a $.03 gas fuel years
5-40
Lease term
40 years
40 years
40 years (1)
(1) A termination clause after 20 years is proposed based. on operating feasibility.
1� _ 97- 493
0
OTHER BENEFITS TO THE CITY
The proposers have outlined various benefits to the City in addition to proposed capital
improvements, projected rent and property taxes. These include such items as payments
forpermits, enhanced beautification of the site, minority and affirmative action plans and
others. Below is a summary of other benefits set forth by the proposers.
Atlantic Clipper
Economic impact on hotels in area due to increased guest visitors represented by film
crews and production casts. Additionally, investments in educational facilities and ancillary
related developments.
Hanaar in the Grove
No additional benefits specifically mentioned in proposal.
Grove Harbour Marina
Grove Harbour offers to restore the Verrick Gym at cost. Additionally, 50% of any tax
benefits from the restoration of the hangars will be contributed to the City to defray gym
operating costs.
97- 493
10
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
(BY DEVELOPER)
97- 493
GROVE HARBOUR MARINA AND
CARIBBEAN MARKETPLACE, LLC
(Proposal Summary)
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Corporation - (Limited Liability Corporation)
Southern Cross Marina
30%
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
Harbour Management Group
70%
-y
The aggregate net worth of the principals as represented in the proposal is as follows:
Felix Sabates $37,000,000
(as referenced in media source but not
personal financial statements)
Felix Lima 11,250,000
Robert Christoph 10,400,000
Julio Rebull 1,000,000
Alan Lima 243,000
Tony Zamora, Jr. 107,000
Approximately $60,000,000
Less F. Sabates _(37,000,000)
$23,000,000
No financial statements have been provided for Southern Cross Marina or Harbour
Management Group.
PROPOSED FINANCING OF CAPITAL COSTS
Equity contribution of $1,500,000 by principals
Letter of Interest from three (3) banks.
Republic Bank (will consider request for $3,900,000)
Eastern National Bank (interested in financing)
First Union (a letter of reference for one principal)
Total capital cost estimated at $$,000,000. This does not include any costs of -
improvements related to City of Miami grant funding for 52 previously existing slips.
19 (i?- 493
GROVE HARBOUR MARINA AND
CARIBBEAN MARKETPLACE, LLC
(Proposal Summary)
EVALUATION
Data provided by Southern Cross and Harbour Management Group shareholders was not
available and therefore not sufficient to demonstrate the proposers capability as a ventu°rb.
Collectively, it does appear that the principals have the capability to raise the required
capital for their development. Terms of debt financing are not disclosed.
EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITY
The principals appear to have significant boatyard/marina and development experience.
Marina Robert Christoph is the operator of
one of South Florida's largest
marinas.
Felix Sabates is owner of a marina.
Development Felix Lima - developer
The development team includes RCI, marine managers of a large Miami Beach marina.
Carl Straw is listed as marina consultant.
ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Cost component appears reasonable.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ASSUMPTIONS
An operating proforma is included for a 10 year period. Operating projections show
positive cash flow but, do not include any debt service. The projections have not been
examined by a certified public accountant.
A market analysis is provided. It lists the authors but does not indicate the source of its
findings. The analysis focuses principally on the demand for boatyard and marina
services.
20 91= 493
GROVE HARBOUR MARINA ANCt
CARIBBEAN MARKETPLACE, LLC
(Proposal Summary)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF ASSUMPTIONS
Rental rates are not supported by this study but do not appear unreasonable.
Assumptions for operating expenses are not sufficient to enable a complete evaluation �tt
this time. The sources of revenue are well balanced.
21 M-- 493
0 . . 0
ATLANTIC CLIPPER
(Proposal Summary)
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Limited Partnership - consisting of 5 partners.
Atlantic Foundation, Inc. (general partner)
30% _A;
Terremark Centre, Ltd. (limited partner)
28%
Manny Medina (limited partner)
14%
Sylvester Stallone (limited partner)
14%
Steve Perry (limited partner)
14%
100%
The partnership agreement has not been executed as of the date of the proposal submittal.
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
Substantially all of its partners are prominent business people, however, 3 partners
representing a 42% equity interest did'not submit financial statements with the proposal.
The general partner, Atlantic Foundation, Inc. submitted a balance sheet showing
shareholder's equity of $1,000 at August 29, 1996.
Terremark Centre, which also submitted financial statements appears to show adequate
financial capability for the purpose of contributing their equity share. Terremark's financial
statements have not been audited or otherwise independently verified.
PROPOSED FINANCING OF CAPITAL COSTS
The level of financial commitment of the partnership cannot be determined from data
submitted (i.e. cannot determine equity contribution). Letters from two (2) banks are
included in proposal as letters of "interest" for participating in the financing of the project.
Total capital cost of is estimated to be $8,400,000.
EVALUATION
Other than information on Terremark, sufficient data on the venture as a whole is not
available and therefore not sufficient at :this time to demonstrate the proposer's financial
capability.
22 97w" 493
• ATLANTIC CLIPPER
(Proposal Summary)
EXPERIENCE AND CAPABILITY
The largest partner for the proposer, Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Inc., is a corporation. Its
experience since formation is not addressed. The second largest partner is a real estate
development and management company. It has significant experience in that area.. _.
Other consultants on the development team have marina or boatyard experience. Jones
Boatyard will manage the boatyard. It has over 70 years experience in this area. The
proposal indicates that its consultant, M.N.R.E. has significant marina operating
experience.
For the film studio component, the proposer has two (2) of the industries most prominent
personalities, Sylvester Stallone and Steve Perry. The architectural firm, Wolfberg,
Alvarez, has significant experience on a number of notable South Florida projects.
Terremark will manage the market and retail portion of the project.
ANALYSIS OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Construction has been budgeted at $8,400,000. The proposal indicates that 144 slips will
be constructed, however, a review of the assumptions does not appear to reflect the
budgeted costs to build an additional 92 slips (144 less existing 52). The additional slips
could cost over $1,000,000.
The potential gap can adversely affect the feasibility of the development.
ECONOMIC VIABILITYAND EVALUATION OF ASSUMPTIONS
Projected operating statements are supplied for the main development components:
Marina
Boatyard
Retail
Film Studio
No statement of cash flows are presented for the consolidated operations. Additionally,
no proposed debt or equity information is reflected in the forecast.
The detail basis for revenue and operating expense assumptions are not addressed. (i.e.
statistical data applied to operating assumptions is not provided). The mix of
seasonal/transient rentals is not addressed. The proforma has not been examined by a
CPA.
The principal source of revenue from the development is the film studio component.
23 97- 493
a
b
HANGAR IN THE GROVE
(Proposal Summary)
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Corporation
Principal Shareholders
FINANCIAL CAPABILITY
Michael Moore
Hugh Westbrook
Kendrick Meek
Domingo Gomez
Gonzalo Diaz
Marisel Diaz
The aggregate net worth of principals approximately as follows:
Hugh Westbrook $18,000,000
Michael Moore 2,500,000
$20,500,000
Financial statements on other principals not presented. It was represented that these
principals hold less than a 5% equity interest.
PROPOSED FINANCING OF CAPITAL COSTS
Total capital costs anticipated at approximately $9,420,000.
$1,884,000 - Equity contribution of principals
- Letter of Interest from NationsBank
EVALUATION
The principals are well know in our community. The projections include a loan amount of
$7,376,678 @ 11 % over 20 years. The bank hasindicated a preliminary review of the
proforma and related assumptions.
The financing strategy appears reasonable.
24 97_ 493
~ � HANGAR IN THE GROVE
(Proposal Summary)
CAPABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT TEAM
The development team includes several notable firms in the South Florida business
community.
Merrill Stevens (the company has been in the marine business more than 100 years.),
The Allen Morris Company
Carr Smith Associates
Arva Parks & Company
Coconut Grove LDC
Among others
ECONOMIC VIABILITY
The proposal includes cash flow projections fora fourteen (14) year operating period. It
includes references to statistical data that is used to support rental rates, occupancy rates
and development revenue mix. The revenue mix appears to concentrate on marina and
retail components. Detail assumptions related to revenue and expense components are
well documented in the proposal. The proforma has not be examined by a CPA. Rental
rates appear to be 100% transient which may not reflect market reality based on the
proposed development marketing strategy. To the degree transient rates are not realized,
development cash flow will be adversely impacted.
The cash flow projections indicate an approximate $3.8 million cash deficit through year
5. The sources to fund this has not been addressed in the proposal. Cash flows in years
6-14 are positive.
Subject to a reconciliation of estimated cash flow deficits, 'economic viability is
questionable.
25
97- 03
A
TO
FROM
Edward Marquez
City Manager
Jack Luft, Dire
Planning 8, De,
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE N,,E1.pOR_NDU1,,1-
July 10, 1997
DATE FILE
CPA Report for Dinner Key Waterfront
susJECT Redevelopment Project
REFERENCES
ENCLOSURES:
This memorandum responds to your request regarding the additional information
received in December from the three (3) proposers to the Dinner Key Waterfront
Redevelopment Project. We provided this information to the CPA firm which reviewed
the original submittals, Sharpton, Brunson and Company, P.A_, and asked them if
this new data would necessitate a "material change" in their report. Attached is
Sharpton's reply. You may note that the CPA firm provided some unsolicited
comments regarding Atlantic Clipper's information, which does not alter the fact that
this proposer did not directly respond to the questions posed by the City as to
organizational structure, equity contributions, and cash flow analyses.
Please let us know if there is anything further you require on this project.
cc: Linda K. Kearson, Assistant City Attorney
Arleen Weintraub, Assistant Director
D. E. Johnson, Development Coordinator
Gary Leuschner, Real Estate Specialist
9;)- 493
SHARPTON, BRU ,ON & COMPANY, P.A.
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
ONI:: SOU r+IEASI THIRD AVG.. surd_ 2IIN) ONF EAST BRO\'.ARD 131 VD.. SUrrL 1110
MIAM1. FLORIDA 31131 I ORT I_AUDI_RDALE. FLORIDA 33301
TELEPHONE-: (305) 374-1574 / FAX '(305) 372-ti 161 TLLGPHONF_: M4) 407-5490 / FAX: (954) 467-6184
I;-;M'101": Q,cC'nclrunncr.nct
July 8, 1997 c
Dianne E. Johnson, Development Coordinator
Department of Planning and Development
CITY OF MIAMI t� -
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 3rd floor — -
Miami, Florida 33130
Dear Ms. Johnson,
Pursuant to your letter dated June 20, 1997, we have reviewed the City Manager's request for
clarifications from each proposer and also reviewed the related responses. Furtherniore, you
asked us to comment, in detail, on those responses received from each proposer that "would
necessitate a material change" in our report dated December 24„ 1996. Since we believe that a
"material change" is relative, we have commented on those responses that we believe might have
any financial implications- Our comments are listed below.
Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Ltd.
Per our review of the response from this proposer, it does not appear that any additional
clarifications relative to debt service, equity contributions or equity dividends posed by the -City
Manager were provided.
However we would like to provide a clarification of sons to a conuneni made by the proposer
regarding the minimum guarantee to the city of $350,000. In Section 5 "Return to the City"
Page 2, Paragraph 2, of Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Ltd.'s (Atlantic Clipper) proposal, a
minimum guarantee of $350,000 beginning' in year 1 is contingent upon "City sponsored
improvements, in particular the marina and waterfront boardwalk" being "substantially
completed" at the time of lease execution. Furthermore, the proposal states that "in the event that
such improvements —are not substantially completed, then Atlantic Clipper proposes to pay to the
City a minimum annual rent of S 100,000 for a period ending the earlier of substantial completion
of the improvements or two (2) lease years. The unpaid balance of the minimum annual rent
over this period would be amortized over the remainder of the first 10 lease years."
In evaluating the financial return to the City of Miami (the City) in our December 24, 1996
report, we assumed that the City sponsored improvements would not be complete until the end of
year 2 and therefore the City would only receive $100,000 for the first two years and the balance
would be received over the remaining ten years i.e. $62,500 for years three (3) through ten (10).
In Atlantic Clipper's response to the City Manager, it was stated that "our proposal guarantees
the City a minimum of $350,000 per year." As stated above, this is a contingent guarantee. If
Atlantic Clipper would in fact provide a true guarantee, then the financial return to the City
would be as shown in Exhibit I.
97- 493
( i
SHARPTON, BRUOON & COMPANY, PA.
Ms. Dianne E. Johnson
Page 2
Iiant,er in the Grove. In
In their response, Hanger in the Grove, Inc. (Hanger) indicated that they would fund cash flow
deficits through additional equity infusions. Given the net worth of the principals, it appears
reasonable that this could be accomplished. However, this still does not change the fact that there
will still be cash flow operating deficits in the initial years_
Although not offered in their initial proposal but rather as a response to a request by the City
Manager, Hanger has indicated that they would be "willing to begin paying the annual minimum
rent beginning and due in year one". This change would have two effects. First, it would
increase the cash flow deficits in the initial four years and thereby increase the amount of equity
infusion needed. Secondly, it would increase Hanger's financial return to the City in an amount
that could possibly be material. Please see Exhibit I for the effect of this change.
(rove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Markethl� LL
Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace, LLC (Grove Harbour) responded to the City
Manager's request to change the cash flow analysis to reflect a 15% reduction in boat slips
available. Grove Harbour effected this change in the number of dry slips available and did not
adjust the wet slip availability of 144. This reduces net. cash available before debt service,
depreciation and taxes from an initial ten year average of approximately $750,000 in the original
proposal to an average of approximately $578,000. The debt financing strategy appears to be
much more critical to the project's success. Without very. favorable financing arrangements, the
project could possibly incur cash flow operating deficits for a significant period of time.
11' 1 can be of any further assistance in this matter, prise do not hesitate to contact me or
Anthony L. Jackson in my absence at (305) 374-1574.
Sincerely,
Darryl K`.-Shacpton I,
SHARPTON, BRUNSON & COMPANY, P.A.
97- 493
Per Original 12/24/96 Report
Years
Hanger In the Grove
Grove Harbour
1 - 10.
$2,189,481
$2,844,669
11 - 20
$3,754,524
$3,978,210
21 - 30
$4,278,278
$4,408,265
31 - 40
$4,471,452
$4,574,894
DINNER KEY WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
FINANCIAL RETURNS TO THE CITY
EXHIBIT I
Atlantic Clipper
$3,340,586
$4,881,802
$5,526,691
$5,792,166
Recalculations Based Upon Proposers' Responses to City Manager
Hanger in the Grove
Grove Harbour
Atlantic Clipper
$2,796,950
$2,844,669
$3,515,588
$4,229,688
$3,978,210
$5,056,804
$4,753,441
$4,408,265
$5,701,693
$4,946,61 6
$4,574,894
$5,967,168
•
Financial Returns
•
•
Atlantic (11
er foundation, Ltd.
2601 South.Bayshore Drive PHI Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
Edward Marquez
January 29, 1997
Page 2
Stallo,ne and Mr. Perry. They are committed to contribute however much equity is
needed for the project, as proposed. The corporate general partner, as is common in
limited partnerships, will contribute its time, efforts, skills and management
(commonly known as "sweat equity") rather than money.
3. Enclosed with this letter is a consolidated pro forma profit and loss
statement demonstrating our projections as to the net cash flow from operations
before debt service or return on equity. As explained in the narrative portion of
Section 6 of our proposal, if selected, the Proposing llntity will contribute \vhatever
equity is needed to fund the project. If any debt is used to partially fund the project,
it will be in an amount easily serviced by the -projected net cash flows. The bottom
line Is that Our proposal is not contingent upon the avallablllty of any particular
amount of financing. Rathcr, the Proposing I Iltlty, through its I'm ted partners, Is
committed to funding, through equity, all amounts necessary to complete the project.
4. We do not fully understand point number 4 of your January 22 letter.
The UP, at Section II(C)(6), page 12, as incorporated in Section IV(B)(1)(b), pages
28-9, states that the City has initiated a program which is funded in the estimated
amount of $2.4 million, to do certain work to the bulkhead and seawall, construct 52
wet slips, obtain permitting for an additional 92 wet slips, and make certain 601 r
improvements to uplands, parking areas and a storage facility. Accordingly, Section
6 of, our propos<il indicates this v'ro -k v,ould be done at Sul cstillritcd cast ofS2.
million. On the other hand, point number 4 of your letter references construction of
an additional 72 wet slips. We think you are referring to the additional 92 slips for
which, according to the RFP, the City is either seeking or has obtained pemlitting_
Regardless, we are pleased to respond. The RPP did not require that we propose
construction of wet slips beyond the 52 originally planned, and we did not do so
because we did not kliow if permitting was available. However, to the extent
additional wet slips can be or have been permitted, the Proposing Entity would be
pleased to construct an additional 72 or 92 slips, or more if permitted or permittable.
Funding for such additional slips would come from additional equity contributed by
the limited partners. In our proposal, when we projected percentage rent to the City.
we assumed that there would be at least 144 slips in operation because we believed
that by the time percentage rent kicked in (year 6), permitting would have been
obtained for the remaining 92 wet slips. Prior to year six, whether there are 52, 72
or 144 slips in operation is irrelevant from a rent standpoint, because our proposal
ph 305/858 0203 • fx 305/856 4485
91-c- 493
A
Atlantic Clipper Foundation, ltd.
2601 South Bayshore Drive PHI Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
January 29, 1997
VIA HAND I)ELIVFIZY
Ed«,ard Marquez
City Manager
City of Miami
P-O. Box 330708
Miami, FL 33233-0708
Dear Mr. Marquez:
This letter is in response to your letter request of January 22, 1997, for-
infonnation of a "clarifying nature" regarding the proposal submitted by Atlantic
Clipper Foundation, Ltd. in response to the RFP for the Dinner Key Waterfront
Redevelopment Unified Development Project. The following numbered paragraphs
are in response to the correspondingly numbered items in your January 22 letter:
1. "Mlle information you are requesting was previously provided in
Section u of our proposal. By way of summary, Atlantic Clipper Foundation, I_td. is
a Florida limited partncr,�hip (the Proposing Entit)*'), of \"i)icll the corporate general
partner, Atlantic Foundation, Inc., a Florida corporation, is the sole general -partner
and therefore the managing general partner, and owns 30% of the Proposing Entity.
The limited partners of the Proposing Entity are Terremark Centre, Ltd., a Florida
limited partnership, which owns 28% of the Proposing Entity-, and Manuel D.
Medina, Sylvester Stallone and Steve Perry, each of whom owns 14% of the
Proposing Entity. In addition, our proposal voluntarily advised that the corporate
general partner (Atlantic Foundation, Inc.) is owned 72.5% by Rosario Kennedy.-' We
can also inform you that the remaining shares of the corporate general partner will be
owned by several different shareholders (including Manuel D. Medina, Sylvester
Stallone and Steve Perry), none of whom will own more than 4.9% of the
outstanding shares of the corporation.
2. As explained in the narrative portion of Section 6 of the proposal, the
equity for the Proposing Entity will come from its limited partners: Mr. Medina, Mr.
Ph 305/858 0203 • fx 305/856 4485
97- 493
0
Page 2
January 22, 1997
Hanker in the Grove, Inc.
1) Based on a response to a question posed by the Review Committee, Hanger in the
Grove, Inc_ stated its willingness to begin paying the proposed annual minimum rent
beginning and due in year one. In a cash flow schedule, please reflect your
willingness to adjust the deferral of S200,000 per year for four years.
2) The cash flow projections indicate a cash deficit through year five.. Please clarify,
within the context of a cash flow schedule format over 'the term of the lease, the
source of fundstobe used to cover this deficit and any debt service payments_
Grovc Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace, LLC
Should the proposed 284 marina slips included in your proposal not be permittable
under Ch. 380, F.S., Development of Regional Impact, or for any other reason, please
clarify how this would affect your cash flow analysis, as shown in a cash flow
schedule. Please provide a sample cash flow analysis with a projected reduction of
15% in the number of boat slips available_
My recommendation to the City of Miami Commission is scheduled to be presented on
February 13"', 1997. Please provide your responses to this request for clarification not
later than 5 pm, Wednesday, January 29", 1997.
Thank you for your continued cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Edward Marge
City Manager
cc: City Attorney's Office
Department of Community Planning and Revitalization
97- 493
. J .
EDWARD MAROUEZ
Ciry Mnn ,Er
January 22, 1997
Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Ltd.
Attn. Ms. R Kennedy
2601 S- Bayshorc Dr., 111-1 1
Miami, Florida 33133
RE: Dinner Key Waterfront
Unified Development Project
Dear Ms. Kennedy:
P.O. BOX 330708
MIAM�. FLORIDA 33233-0708
(305) 2 50-5400
FAX (3051 285-1835
N�Iv'o - LlRh
/).)_ 3 / 5 7
I am in the process of reviewing all proposal materials received and prepared regarding
the Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Unified Development Project- These
materials include each of the three (3) proposal submissions, the Final Report to the City
Manager by the Review Committee, and the analysis of the proposals prepared by the
certified public accounting firm of Sharpton, Brunson & Company.
Phase provide the following information of a clarifying nature as directed to each
Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Ltd.
1) Please provide a detailed clarification of the legal organizational structure of the
proposing entity including but not limited to the general and limited partners, and the
percentage ownership interests in each entity.
2) Please clarify the source of the general partners equity contribution to capitalize the
proposed project.
3) In a cash flow schedule format over the tern of the lease, please clarify how your firm
proposes to address either equity dividends and/or loan debt service payments. Please
provide adequate detail regarding assumptions in your clarification.
4) Provide in detail, within the context of the cash flow analysis included in the
submitted proposal, an elaboration on the debt service and equity necessary to
construct seventy-two (72) additional slips to the marina portion of the project, as
proposed.
97� 493
Atlantic flipper foundation, Ltd
2601 South. Bayshore Drive PHI Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
Edward Marquez
January 29, 1997
Page 3
guaranties the City a minimum of $350,000 per year in percentage rent and our
projections, even with all 144 slips in operation, do not reflect percentage rent to the
City in excess of the $350,000 guaranty -before year six.
1 hope that the forgoing information provides you with the information you
need to complete your analysis and make your recommendation to the Commission-
1 f we can be of further assistance, please do-nor'llesi'tate to contact me. -
Sincerely,
(ql Oundat10I1, I1C.
Rosario Kennedy, President
ph 305/858 0203 • fx 305/856 4485
97- 493
I
Soarccs 0CC. sh
From olxrations
Dcbt
Equity
'505.000 4,541,0
00
1,225.000 2,359,000
2,910,000
FIMA Payments
1,700,000 500.000
275,000 100,000
450,000 1,500,000
450,000
Total Sources ofcash
4 6S5 000 G
.s4I r
USCS o(Cash=
ProlxrZy I? vclopmcnt
Sofa Costs
The Boatyard at Dinner Key
Sources & Uses of Cash
For The years 1997 through 2010
3,452,000 3,954,000 4,415,000 4 589,000 4.785.000 4,988.000
2,459,000 3,452.000 -----_— 3,984
Consvuaion Period Interest
1.500,000
250.000
Sitc Dcvcloptncnt
135,000
590•000
465.000
Large Hangar
1.500,000
600.000
235,000
Small Hangar
480,000
2.320.000
2 000 000
Restaurant
150,000
750,000
500,000
Marina
75,000
175.000
Picr Rctail
300.000
1.185,000
Total Development Costs
4, I C0,000
150,000
G,020,0(h�
3,200 000
Rental To City
Prcopcning Costs
300,ow
321
300.000
300,000
Other Olxrat i n g Costs
215,000
21,o0o
150,000
300,000
Debt Scrviec
700,000
1,062,000
1.773,000
510.000
1,09 7,000
1,09 7,000
Total Uscs ofCash
y'
Nct So
4,655,000
6 541,000
-----
4 860 000
2 459 000
3 170 000
urccsJ{Uscs)--
282,000 -
C,415,000 4.5S9 (m e 7i v n
5.181.000 5396,000 5,620.000 5,842,000 51,836,000
9,956.000
2,575,000
2.400.000
5,396000 5,620,000 5.942,000
— _-- 66,767,000
1,750,000
1,190,000
2,335.000
4,800,000
1,400,000
250,000
1,485,000
150,000
300.000
300,000
300,000
350,000
374
_
-
-
13,360,000
.000
390 000
400.000 -
410.000
426.000
4,750,000
1,750,000
1.097.000
1.641,000
1,097.000
1,691,000
1,097,000
1.743,000
1.797,000
1,853,000
1.911,000
1,971.000
2 034.000
586,000
1,097.000
1,097,000
1,097,000
1,097,000
1,097,000
1,097.000
196
.,000
12,ST7,000
1,147,000
3,038,000
3088,000
3,190,000
3,2G8,000
3,340,000
3,408.000
3,475,000
3,557,000
51,199,000
837,000_
—
1,377.000
1,501,000 1,595,000
1,720,0,:0
I,S41•poo
1,9SS,000
2,1.,2.om
2,2S5,o00
15,56S,000
A
S L f
Projected Developer Revenues
Markelp/oee & Pier
Pier Rdai} (Carts & Kiosks) tease Revrnue
Lcasabic Squarc Fcct
Lcasc Ratc Pcr Foa Pcr Annum
Occupancy Raic
Gross Po(rntial Income
Picr Restaurant Lcasc Rcvcnuc
Leasable Squarc Fcct
Lcasc Ra(c Pcr Foot Pa Ann.m
Gross Pacn(ia] lncomc
Mwi-ctplacc Rciail Lcasc Rcvcnuc
Leasable Squarc Fca
Lease Ratc Per Foot Pcr Amxnn
Occupancy Ralc
Gross Pacn(ial hxon,c
R-1,0 Rcv-- from % oFMmkctplacc 7 cnam Salcs
Total Dcvcloper Marketplace & Pict Rcvcnucs
P,.wrJti.d
Boatyard Sub -Lase Rcvcnuc (Rate Po Sq. Ft /P.muun)
Leasable Squarc Fca
Lease Rate Per Foo( Pa Annun,
Gross Potcntial Income
Rcntal Rcvcnuc From % o(Boatyard Trnant Sales
Total Dcvclopa' Rcvcnuc From Boatyard
A1ori-
fuel Sales
Dicscl
Gallons Sold Per Year
Selling P,icc Pcr Gallon
Total Diesel Salcs Rcvcnuc
Gasoline
Gallons Sold Pcr Ycar
Selling Price Pcr Gallon -
Total Gasoline Sala Rcvcn c
Taal Fud Income Pcr Year
Marina Slip Rentals (Rate Per IJn, FtlDay)
Leasable Arc+ (Squarc 1 cct rK Linear Fcct)
[,case R.itc I'cr Foot
Occu{ancy lLatc
G,,rs (iojccidl Marina Slip Rcmai Rc�nux-.
M,4 uu Retail Stac
Focal Marina Rcvcnucs
Focal Des doper Rcvcnuc From Projccl
OR
Cnv l"luunmm iiern
A-v Duc Ciry
ttanp�r In the (;, o. c, luc_
The Boatyard at Dinner Key
Revenue Details SC Assumptions
For Tic Years 1997 through 2010
6.000 6,000 6 000 6000 600o 6000 6.000 6,000 6.000 6,000 6,000 6 000
40.00 4000 4000 41.20 42.44 43,71 45,02 46.37 47.76 49-19 5067 52.19
30% 70 % 80 % 90% 90% 90% 901/ 90"/ 90% 90% 90% 90
S 72,000 S 168000 S 192 000 S 222,490 S 229,154 S 236.029 S 243.110 S 250.403 S 257,915 S 265.653 S 273 622 S 291.831
1.500 3.750 5.000 5,000 5.000 5 000 5 000 5,000 5000 5.000 5.000 S pri0
35.00 35.00 35.00 3605 37.13 38.25 39.39 40.57 41.79 43.05 44.34 45.67
S 52.500 S 131,250 S 175,000 S 180.250 S 185,658 S 191227 S 196 964 S 202,873 S 208,959 S 215.228 S 221.685 S 228,335
35.041 35.041 35,011 35,041 35,041 35.041 35 04 1 35.041 35 0-11 35.041 3S,041 35 Os 1
20-00 25.00 3000 30,90 31.83 32.7E 33J7 3478 35.92 36.40 39 00 39.14.
20% 5(1 70/ E0% 9(M w 90% W 901/ 90% 90% rJ%
5 140,164 S 438.013 S 735,861 S RG6,214 S 1003,725 S 1033.837 S 1064,852 S 1096.797 S 1.129,701 S 1.163.592 S .1,198.500 S 1234.455
S 44,041 S 207,661 S '%6.5SS S 509.267 S G65465 S 717.026 S 785,861 S 856.761 S 914 0915 S 98876S 106S 747 1.129.22
705 2308,,,.1,773.210 2034002 S 2.178.119 S 2,290,787 S 2a06.835 S 2,50.51 S 633233 S .759,554 ;
S 2.873,845
23.783 71.350 71.350 71,350 71350 71.350 71350 71.350 71350 71350 71350 71.350
2.50 2.70 2.90 289 2,97 3.06 3.15 3.25 3.35 3.45 3.55 3.66
S 59458 S 192645 S 200000 S 200000 S 212,180 S 218,545 S 225,102 S 231.855 S 238810 S 245.975 S 253354 S 260955
S S S S S S S S - S - S - S 1838 T 9,8S8
S 59.458 S 192.645 S 2000OM S 206.ow S 212.180 S 218.545 S 225.102 S 231,855 S 238810 S 245975 S 255,192 S 270.812
75.000
100.000
1 S 1,200
153.468
155.770
158.107
160,47E
162,8SS
165,329
167.809 170326 172881
1.40
1,45
1,50
1.SS
159
1.64
1.69
1,74
- 179
1.84 1.90 196
S 105000
S 145000 S
226800 S
237,108
S 247.885 S
259.151 S
270,929 S
293,243
S 296.117 S
309,575 S 323645 S 338.35S
150.000
200.000
331200
336,168
341211
346.329
351.524
356.796
362.148
367,581 373.0194 378.691
_
1.45
1.50
1.56
1.61
1.66
1.70
1.76
1.81
1.86
1.92 1.98 2.04
- _ S 217.500
S 300,000 S
516 672 S
540,155
S 564.705 S
590371 S
617,203 S
645,255
S 674.582 S
70S 241 S 737295 S 770,805
S 322,S00
S 445 000 S
743,472 S
777,263
S 812 589 S
949.522 S
888.132 S
928.498
S 970,698 S
1,014.816 S 1,060.940 S 1.109.160
5.530
5,530
5.530
S,530
5.530
5,530
S,530
5.530
5.530
5.530 5530 S.53^
060
0.60
060
062
0.64
0.66
0.68
0 70
0 72
0,74 0.76 0 7S
_40 %
_ 60%
t;0%
90%
9n"/.
50 %
90 �:,
90
90 %
90%
4E4 4?8
S 7?66,- _6
22.
I I6342
,
1 19l 03'---
(,
,
,
1 0 73 1 ? 1 g.
2
S00cx7
50,000
50000
100000
150000
152.250
151.53,
156,852
159.205
161593 164016 166,477
T 8SG 928
S 1,221642 S
1.762328 S
1,999,925
S 2,118.931 S
2.192 804 S
2.269429 S
2348.916
S 2,431,376 S
2516 926 S 2605 689 S 2 697791
S 1225.091
S 2,359214 S
3,451.747 S
3.984.135
S 4.415_113 S
4.589,468 S
4.785.318 S
4.987.605
S 5,180.777 S
5,396.133 S 5.620.435 S S 842,448
i.r� {S'�*- ""_ S �x s,6�55,-5'�'��fi961 S 1726_87 S 399�207�'S`Y �..2��:7���`S�129473 -` --'"- ,an: s
K s-�c �i p„(�-�`��Et � �•s°t,``e'�':4?;_•�_'F r� 2
- .- �.6750 .,a..9000.
-
..14472
�s14639;r-,3��:749091i zi�,15i33;s'= Y 5360
15590•i
-.:r_IS;824 *^-t
-1dOG2r�?.�,�1Gj03 f``�' ..16'SE7.
=
=�` S �.T' �1,8005-.S._,�,]269Gi",?:5..-:>Ifi7059:5,'r=213,�?':S-:e135665 _5--��244Z06•:-`
" -'" .5,,350332
S
�
-- -- -
.-=,G4723.LS%_t37A479 S=_393,491�5__r-409733s._-_425516
S 3&0,0,-,) S 300O0J S 300,00o S 300 (K)0 S 300 000 S 300.000 T 300 000 S 300 ()00 S 300.000 S 3(i0.000 S 300,000 S 300,I)DO S 3.00000 S 300 0-ck)
S 300,C�J0 S 300.aP0 S 3000(YJ S 3000W 300000 S 300000 S 300000 S 300000 S 350.332 S 374.'72? S 390.479 S 400000 S 409.733 S 425,51E
Projected Revenuer OJTenants
Pic Ruar7 (Carts a Kios{5) R--ucs of Taunts
Nct Leasable Fca
Sales Volumc PFoot
Estimafcd Ocn,;vJ,cy Ratc
Tenant Annual Cross Income
ItY/. ofSala>S4W/ft_ )"(kvcto'r
Projoct d MarkctPlacc Rcta,l RcvarucS of Taur+.ts
Nct Lcz blc Fcct
SZICS Volurne Per Foot
r�"i Lied Ratc
T--n Annual Cross 1,,,
1(Y/. of Sala > S400/li, DucDcvcj.p,
"-j-cd Rcstaur- Rcvrnucs OfTarartts
NC( Lcnsablc. Fed
Saks Volume Pu Foot
Tman( Annual Gross Licornc
10/- of Sala> SI M;Iliou Due Developer -
Proj-od Boatyard Rcvcnua
Carpcnta Labor Ra[dliour
Ca Paucr Materials Ratdliour 73 % of Ubor)
Number -of Full Tin c Carpa±(as
-. - Carper"'_ Mauuauncc Hours/Yt (71ui -240 Da)z/Ycar)
CwPcntcr Mauuauncc Rcvcnucs
M-hinc Labor Ratclllour
Madrinc MatQials Ratdliour (@t 73% Of Labor) '
Numberof Full Time Madtinc Wott;az
tiaci±inc Mauucuncc 1 iours/Yrrar (71us -240 Da)'S/Ycar)
Madunc hlainta•. :r±cc Rcvm" ,
Paint Labor P.atc/1 to«
1'auu Matcria is 122tc/liour( 731%OI
fJunil.cr o(Full Ti n;c Aladunc \l'oikas
Paint Mauuauncc HO ulfyc (71, -240 Dayz/}'car
Pauli Maintauncc Rcvatucs )
Total Rcva ,. Per Yea
10%, of Gross Saki i 5.?,000 000 Duc Dcvc}oper -
The Boatyard at Dinner Key
Revenue Details & Assumptions
For The Years 1997 through 2010
C '--Ml rcian Pave
6.000
475.W
20%
570,OW
_ 9.00030,OW
-
6.C1W
SW.W
S0%
i,SW OW
'-
6 ()
S25-W
65%
2047,5W�
45,750
(ON
540.75
701/
2.27I,1S0
59,11E
6.000
556.97
90"/
3007652
84,765
OW
573.G3
90%
3097,88I
93.788
GOW
590.89
3,190,817
103,082
60DD
608.62
3796,542
112.654
_ -
GlrJO
626.EE
3385.13S
M 14
�_ _ _
6•ppp
645.63
34E6692
I326G9
60W
665.05
3,591.293
143,i29
�v
6 000
6350!
90°/
3 699 032
IS3903
35.041
500
IO%
1,752 050
04t
35 0,11
500 00
40e/
7.008 00
.2
140I64
3504!
525.00
�,/
I1037808
2808
3S 041
540,75
7S %
147119 2
369,902495,043
35 041
SS6.97
90"/.
17565.186
35 0a 1
573-63
90"/_
18092,142
547,738
35 041
590.89
9p%
i8634,906
602015
35,04 1
GOS.62
9Q./
19,193.953
GS7919
35,041
626-E3
,�
I9,769,772
715,50177489
35 041
645 G3
963
203G2,81
�__
35.041
G6S.05
5
-^-- -
3S 041
685 01
21602,90%3S
898 8205•OW
875,OW
5000
275.00
5,OW175.00
350.00
1,7500W
75000
SOW
360.50
IED2,SW
80 250
SOW
37132
1,85G,575
5.OW
3SI.W
1,755,OW
75 500
SOW
361.53
1807 650
80.765
5,000
372.351375,OW
1,S61,S80
86,18E
5OW
35200
1 7G0 OW
76000
5O0
3G2.
1812,(:4
81,2
q1211
5 OW
353.W37_SW
1.765 OW85658
7G,SW46.00
3358
_ 1,680
S I33 694 S
- 46.00
33.58
1 0
I.6S0
S 133 694 S
33-00
27.74
1
1680
S 110-. S
S 377832 S
4750
34.68
2 520
207 081 S
47_50
34-69
1.5
2 S p
207 0S 1 S
40-50
29.57
2
33Gp
23S 418 S
649580 S
49.W50.96
35.77
2
3 360
284 827 S
q9 pp
35J7
2
2
25.8_7 -
.7 C-0
306G
3
5 040
3G6706 S
935,961 S
3720
2
3.360
296720 S
50.9G
3710
2
33lA
296 720 S
<3.LS
3I.S9
4
6,720
SO7,SOG S
1.110497 S
5300
38.G9
3
5040
462.104 S
53.00
38.69.48
3
5,040
462. 104 T
qs 4;
33.16
4
6,720
528,I18 S
1464263 S
55.12
40.24
3
5040
480,588 S
55.12
40.24
3
5 040
4fi0 SSfi S
-
47.2-1
34-49
5
8,400
686j54 S
1,661355 - S
5732
41.85
3
5•�0
499,811 S
5732
41.85
3
5040
499 511 T
<9.13
35-87
5
714 0106 S
1727,271 S
5962
43.52
3
5 040
519,804 S
5962
43.52
3
5040
519E07 S
-
51,10
37-30
5
748 400 2,577 ;
1.795824 S
62.00
4516
3
5.040
540,596 S
6200
45-26
3
5 0.:0
5i0 S'�6 S
'-=-
S3.i4
38.79
5
7 8400
18G2 80 S
644
47.0715
3
5040
48.95
3
5,040
69,740
SOLI
3
5040
608,097
69.74
SO-9i
3
S O40
GOS097
59.78
43 64
5
8,400
,noo7,o
562,220 S
584 709 S
47 07-
3
S O-:0
6706
4895
3
S 040
S62.220 S
--
58-5 709 S
5527
40.35
S
8,400
1,941266 S
--
57-48
41.96
5
8400
2835,n8 c
1 838
Rcwlucs
Markctptacc Lcasc Revenues
Markciplacc Additional % Rcnt
Picr Lcasc Rcvrnucz;
PicrAdditiorW % Rent
Rcstauranl Ln-sc Rcvrnucs
Restaurant Additional'/, Rent
Marina Rcvm cs
Boatyard Subicasc Rcvrnucs
Boatyard Additiorul % Rcm
Total Rcvcnua
Expenses
Cost Of Frxl Salcs
Property Tares
Advcn isin�fM.-lrkctinp Cost;
MarLa9cmcm Company Fccs
Security Expenses
Personae! Costs
Insurance Expctt;cs
Maintenance Fxpcn,,
Wity Exlx,tscs
Administrative Ofrce F pcnscs
Saks Dixouni - Crcdit Card - Marina
Bad Dcbt Expenses- Marini
(L.css) PasS-111rouLh Rcimburscurcnt
Total Expenses
Nct Operatlrl8 Income
The Boatyard at Dinner Key
Projected Statemeat of Net Income & Cash Flows
For The Years 1997 through 2010
(Dollars In Thousands)
140
S 438
35
140.
72
169
9
30
53
131
-
38
857
1222
_
=
59
193
1 225
2.359
148
3.;9
I
100
400
335
5
6
100
200
25
25
75
300
50
SO
i0o
200
10
10
25
150
50
5
5
80
300
20
25
10
13
5
16
2
4
(95)
(S55)
215
221
850
1,062
(215)
(221)
375
1297
S 736
263
S 866
S 1,004
S 1034
S 1065
S 1097
S 1.130
S 1.164
S 1,199
S 1234
192
370
222
495
548
602
658
716
775
836
999
49
S9
229
236
243
2S0
258
266
274
282
282
17S
180
8S
186
94
103
113
123
133
143
154
75
80
86
191
197
203
209
215
222
228.
t,200
2,000
2.119
76
2,193
81
2269
86
76
81
87
77
200
206
212
219
2,349
2,431
2,517
2.606
2,698
-
225
232
239
2-16
253
261
3,452
3,984
4.4IS
4,589
4,735
4 988
-
5,181
5.39C,
2
5.620
10
5,842
S6'1
408
591
624
S8
GRt
731
770
SII
854
400
no
411
i7S
41`)
427
436
444
453
462
472
481
297
302
ISO
306
185
190
195
200
205
210
215
305
310
314
311
316
320
325
330
335
34
283
287
291
319
324
329
334
339
344
3a9
170
173
175
29S
300
304
309
314
318 318
323
323
166
163
171
178
180
183
186
189
194
321
326
331
773
176
174
181
184
187
190
13
13
}14
314
314
351
314
362
367
I8
I8
13
18
19
14
14
15
15
q
4
1S
19
19
20
20
20
(1,173)
(1 I88)
4
(1,207)
4
(1.227)
4
(1,247)
4
1267)
4
1287
4
1,303
4
1.329)
(1,982
4
1.`al
I,SSS
1,639
I,691
1,745
I,EDI
1,859
1920
213 0-t70
:.911
2,39G
2,777
2,899
3,670 --
3186
3,321
-
3.476
3.639
3 796
0
KI
Revenues Ycarl - -.:-:. "•"^`G'�G-<>a `' �+.>:,,.
Marine Related Retail Year 2
S 712-,237 5--- 223 75 Year 3 year-4 Year 5 Year 6 Total studio 5230,466 5237 3S0 - Year 7 Year 8 Total Total
52177,533 S_44,502 Year 9 Total
52 691,302 53,003,602 $3 331,GS3 52S 1,837 5267 7q Ycu 10 Years 31-30
Marina 5259,392 cars 1-10 Yeus 11-20 Years 21-30
Boatyard $6S1;114 S1,031,570 53,431,639 53534�&q S_7S,IS9 S283,414 S2490,374 51,052,20t 53,640,626 - $3,749,&44 53,562 340 53,346,855 S4 497,893 56,044,792
$202 500 S303,750 5405,000 S So17,150 5 0�9, � S I,1 16,604 S 1,138,936 S 1,161.715 S I,184,949 51,208,648 S 10,743,992 546,973,89I S63,128,981 S84,840 072
Total S442,554 5455,831 S469,506 S14,271,471 S19,179,664 S25,775,865
S3,278,953 54,250,875 5483,591 5498,099 54,107,646 SS,881,450
S-1,691,269 S5,059,463 S5,200,515 S7,904,177 S 10,622,553
$5 345 583 $5,494,785 $5,648,239 S5,806,069 _ $5,%8,402 $50,744,184 $70,473,667 $94,710,716 $127,283 282
nscs _
Marine Related Retail
$189,756
Studio $195,480 S207 $213,606
Marina $1,433,9S7 S]y30,017 $201,344 ,385 $220,015
5574,168 $1,618,666 S1,748,245 $1,800,693 S1,&A,7I4 $210,355 $
%7,413 5230,416 $237,623 52,175,689
Boa 'ard S501,1&3 3 57,967,665 2 53929,537
� $246,625 S3 �`�.519 $607,376 5624,753 $1,910 55 5,026,G96 $�,087,497 52,923,945 35,280,969
02258 S358,020 S642,669 S561,140 $630,184 $i20,067 S17,988.536 524.6-48.737 S33,125,841
S3Ci8,760 5379,823 5102 9S3 5699,520 58,502,389 544,518,360
Total 52,611,923 5391,218 5115,Q13 5440319 $3,7302,513 511,426,500 $2,371,582 52,763,519 52,931,766 S1_7,494 SS,199,196 S6987,255 515,35G GO
53,018,876 59,390,327
Cash Flow t,t 53,108,615 $3,201,064 53,296 305 53 394,426 53,495 510 $30,198,617
Marine Related Retail 511,274,266 S55,469,163 S74,545,916
$27,450 $29,122
Studio $28,274 529,995
Marina $743,&16 $1,151,785 $1 384,122 51 529,993 S30,895 $3I,822 $32,777 $33,760
534,773 Boatyard $180,229 $457,402 S461,682 S-465,3E9 S1'630,946 $1,679,874 $1,730271 $1,78 179 $35,816 S314,685 $422910 $568356 $763822
($24"125) 31,493 S46,930 S48,390 $469,957 5173,935 5477,796 S431,531 $S1855; 30 51,890,713 $15,413,636 $?2325,159 S30,003,141 S.0,321,712
total 549,&12 S51,337 c52,8� S488,583 $4,442,113 $5,769,082 S7,753,164 5907,401 $54,463 S56,097 S57,7S0 S375,133 510,419,605
$1,635,953 S1,922,720 S2,7J,697 S?,181,639 $c �? �4 $916,892 $1,232,227
Jote (11: Cash flow before debt service, 8round ICA$e payments, and equity distributions- 2,236,)68 $2 293,721 S2,351,933 S2,411,643 S2,472,592 S20,545,567
S_9,199,401 539,241 553 S52,73
7366
��utx�ut in the Grove, Itic.
January 29, 1997
Mr. Edward Marquez
City Manager
City of Miami
444 Southwest Second Avenue
1-cndi Floor
Ivii:imi, I=lorid , >j 13S
Re: Dinner Key \Vaterfront Unified Development Project
Dear Mr_ Marquez:
Thank you so much for your letter dated January 22, 1997 regarding the Dinner Key
Waterfront Unified,.Development Project. In response to the questions posed to Hangar in
the Grove, Inc.; we would respond as follows:
1.) We hereby confirm that we are amenable to commence paying the proposed annual
minimum rent beginning and due in year one assuming, of course, that an otherwise
suitable lease with the City of Miami could be negotiated. Please see the attacicd
Exhibit I which reflects the adjusted cash flow schedule you have requested.
2.) The Principals of Hangar in the Grove, Inc. leave always considered in our plaiining,
which is based on conservative projections throughout, that a cash flow deficit might
possibly occur in years one through five. With this in mind, our consultants Ernst &
Young prepared the attached Exhibit 2 which refleas our thinking on the level of the
deficit. Backup schedules in support of this analysis are av:ulable on request. Please be
advised that the principals of Hangar in the Grove, Inc. arc now and have always been,
prepared to inject additional equity or debt as appropriate to make up for the shortfall.
We trust tlus letter is responsive to your request and would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
Very truly yours,'
HUGH A. WESTBROOK
100 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33131
305-350-5911
97�- 493
0-
•
GROVE HARBOUR MARINA AND
CARIBBEAN MARKETPLACE, LLC
8360 West Flagler Street, n200
Miami, Florida 33144
(305)554-7425
Mr. Edward Marquez
City Manager
City of Miami
RE: Dinner Key Waterfront
Unified Development Project.
Dear Mr. Marquez:._
t5 JAN, 2
January 29th, 1997
Hand -Deliver
Pursuant to your January 22nd, 1997 letter, enclosed please
find our 10 year Profit and Loss Projection assuming a 15%
reduction in the number of boat slips available.
As mentioned to you in my January 22nd, 1997 letter
pertaining to the CPA 'report, -at the f-first Selection
Committee meeting, Mr. Jack Luff informed the people in
attendance that the City had obtained 150 dry slips and 126
wet slips, and that he was working in obtaining additional
permits. Our understanding, and I believe the understanding
of the other people in attendance as well, was that there
would be no problems in getting the permits discussed by'Mr.
Luff. Should we be selected by the City Commissioners, we
will pursue all avenues to obtain the number of permits
previously discussed with Mr. Luff.
In our proposal, we offered to share with the City, for a
period of ten years, 50%- of the tax savings resulting from
the restoration of the hangars to help defray theoperational
cost. of the Virrick Gym. Please be advised that we are
willing to guarantee a minimum of $100,000 per year for a
period of ten years for such tax savings. Additionally, such
amount will not be restricted to defray the operational cost
�7- 493
Mr. Edward Marquez, Manager
City of Miami
.January 29th, 1997
Page Two
of the Virrick Gym, but could be used by the City as it sees
fit.
Please let me know if you need additional information on -this
matter.
Very ruly'y urs,
Grove �,Har our Marin and
Caribbean Marketplace, LLC
Felix Lima, CPA/MBA
FL/rr
Enc:
97- 493
Ten Ycar Profit / Loss Projection
Projected Revenue: Note 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Totals
Wet Slips - Note 2
592,920
610,708
629,029
647,900
667,337
687,357
707,97S
i29.217
751,094
773,626
6:797,)66
Dry Slips - Note 3
505,939
524,207
539,933
556,131
572,815
5S9,999
607,699
625,930
644,709
6040,19
51S34,=1 I I
Boatyard - Note 4
2,0807000
2,142,400
2.206,672
2,272,872
2,341,058
2.41 1,290
2AS3,62S
2,55S,137
2,634,881
2,7 13,929
23,S44,567
Marketplace - Note 5
1,576,800
1,624,104
1,672,S27
1,723,012
1,774,702
1,827,943
I,SS2781
1,939,265
1,997,443
2,057,366
18.076.243
Marina Services - Note 6
140,000
144,200
14S,526
152,982
157,571
162,298
167,167
1 72,182
177,347
182,668
1,604.9�11
Fueling -Note 7
744,000
766,320
7S9,310
812,989
837,379
S62,500
SSS,375
915,026
942,477
- 970,751
8,529,127
Miscellaneous / Vending
36,000
37,080
38.192
39,338
40,518
41,734
42,986
44,276
45,604
16,972
412.700
Total Projected Revenue:
5,678,659
5,849,019
6,024,489
6,205,224
6,391,380
6.583,121
6,780,614
6,984'033
7,193,555
7,409,361
65,099,4
Projected Operating Expenses:
Advertising & Promotion
100,000
110,000
120,000
130,000
140,000
150,000
160,000
170,000
180,000
190,000,
1.450,000
Boatyard expenses @ 65% CGS
1,352,000
1,392,560
!,134,337
1,477,367
1,521,688
1,567,338
1.614,35S
1,662,759
1,712,073
1,764,054
15.499.1(-!
Community events / Contributions
60,000
63,000
66,150
69,458
72,931
76,577
80,406
S4,426
88,64 S
93,080
754.67(
Entertainment / Promotion
175,000
175,000
180,000
180,000
185,000
185,000
190,000
190,000
200,000
200,000
1.860,000
Environmental Protection Program
283,933
292,451
301,224
310,261
319,569
329,156
339,03)
349,202
359,678
370,468
3,254,97,
Equipment leases
48,000
50,400
52,920
55,566
58,344
61,261
64,325
67,541
70,918
74,464.
603.739
Fueling expenses @ 84% CGS
624,960
643,709
6631020
682,911
703,39S
724,500
74612-15
768,622
791,681
815,431
7.164.467
Garbage disposal
36,000
39,600
43,560
47,916
52,707
57,978
63,776
70,154
77,169
84,886
573,7 16
Insurance
150,000
155,000
160,000
165,000
1702000
175,000
l S0,000
1 S 5,000
190,000
195,000
1.725,000
Janitorial
36,000
37,800
39,690
41;675
43,758
45,946
4S,243
50,655
53,188
55,848
(152.503
Legal & accounting'
50,000
52,500
55,125
57,881
60,775
63,814
67,005
70,355
73,873
77,567
628,81)
Landscaping
36,000
39,600
13,500
47,916
52,708
57,979
03,777
70,154
77,170
84,887
573,751
Management @ 5% gross revenue
283,933
292,451
301,224
310,261
- 319,569
329,156
339.031
349,202
359,678
370,468
3.254.971,
Miscellaneous / contingency
150,000
150,000
130.000
150,000
150,000
165,000
165,000
165,000
165,000
165,000
1 575.000
Officc supplies
24,000
26,400
29,040
31,944
35,138
3S,652
42.5 IS
10,769
51 446
56,591
382 49S
Payroll / wages
400,000
400,000
412,000
412,000
424,360
424,360
437,090
437,090
450,203
450,203
4,247,300
Payroll taxes
48,000
48,000
49,440
49,440
50,923
50,923
52,451
52,451
54,024
54,024
509,676
Postage
6,000
6,600
7,260
7,986
8,785
9,663
10,62.9
11,692
12,861
14,148
95,024
Repairs
120,000
123,600
127,308
131,127
144,240
148,567
153,024
157,615
162,343
167,21:4
1,435,038
Rent to the City of Miami - Note 8`
395,722
407,594
419,822
432,415
. 445,389
458,751
472,513
486,688
501,288
516,328
4,536,5.10
Replacements @ 5%gross revenue
283,933
292,451
301,224
310,261
319,569
329,156
339,031
3,19,202
359,678
370,468
3,254,97"
R / E & personal property taxes
231,000
231,000
237,93,0
245,068
252,420
265,041
272,992
281,182
289,617
298,306
2,60,1,556
Security .
110,000
115,500
12 1,2 75
127,339
133,706
140,391
147,411
162,152
178,368
196,204
1:432,346
Telephone
12,000
13,200
14,520
15,972
17,569
19,326
21,259
23,385
25,723
28,295
191,249
Uniforms
3,000
3,150
3,30.7
3,472
3,646
3,829
4,020
4,221
4,432
4,654
37,731
Utilities
100,000
105,000
1 10,000
1 15,000
120,000
125,000
130,000
135,000
140,000
145,000
1,225,000
Total Proiected Operating Expenses:
5,119,481
5,266,566
5.443,936
5,608,236
5,806,192
6,002,364
6,20d,12�)
6,400,547
6,629,659
6,842,583
59,323,694
C,O
Proiected Net Profit Before
i
'
W
Debt Service, Depreciation & Taxes:
559,178
582,453
580,553
596,988
535,188
580,757
5 76,4S9
5S3,486
563,396
566,773
5,775,761
Notes to Ten year 11rofit/Gss Projection
Note 1: Gross Revenue
Gross revenue projection assumes a 3% per anum increase over the prior year.
Note 2: Gi�el Slips
1.22 slips, average boat length 45ft-, at a rate of S 10.00/ foot / month- 10% vacancy rate.
Nate is UrI Sli )-.
119 slips, average boat length 33ft, at a rate of $12.00 / foot / month. 10% vacancy rate -
/Vote 4: Roatt-ard
20 boats per week,,average job $2000.00 per boat.
Note 5: Afarketplace
240 spaces at $20.00 per day. 10% vacancy rate.
Note G: Marina services
16,000 square I'cct at S 141 00 a squa1c fu0t_ 10"'(') vacancy rate.
Note 7: Fueling —
480,000 gallons per anum at $1.55 per gallon
Note S: Rent to the Citiof Miami
Annual rent to the City of Miami is based on the greater of
$300,000.00
Or
A percentage of gross revenue as follows:
Marina:
10%
Boatyard:
10%
Marina services
5%
Fueling
5%
Miscellaneous / vending
5%
Marketplace
2%
9'7- 493
•
•
TO
FROM
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
c�cJ
Edward Ma qu
City Manag r
RECOMMENDATION:
DATE : July 22, 1997
FILE .
SUBJECT Accepting Recommendations
for the Dinner Key Waterfront
Redevelopment Project
REFERENCES
ENCLOSURES.
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached
Resolution concerning the Unified Development Project entitled "Dinner Key
Waterfront Redevelopment", accepting one of the following recommendations of
the City Manager:
1) that the proposal received from Hangar in the Grove, Inc. be accepted and
the City Manager be authorized to- begin the appraisal process and enter
into lease negotiations with said firm, and, in the event that such
negotiations are unsuccessful, then with the alternative proposer, or
2) that the proposal received from Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean
Marketplace ("Grove Harbour") be accepted, with the same authorizations
granted to the City Manager for appraisals and negotiations with Grove
Harbour, and, in the event that such negotiations are unsuccessful, then
with the alternative proposer.
The legislation further directs that the lease agreement be subject to final
approval of the City Commission and contains a disclaimer that contractual
rights are not conferred until an 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 that all negotiations fail.
BACKGROUND:
Taking into consideration all of the reports and facts of the Unified
Development Project (UDP) process for the Dinner Key Waterfront, as detailed
below, the City Manager finds both the proposal of Hangar in the Grove and
that of Grove Harbour to be viable. However, this office also believes that
the Hangar in the Grove proposal is the stronger of the two and would
therefore better serve the City, for the following reasons:
97 - 493
Honorable Mayor and Obers
of the City Commission
page 2
a) The investment committed- to improvements to the property adequately
covers the projected cost of the historic restoration of the -hangar
structures;
b) Its business plan is more highly defined and conservatively constructed;
and
c) Its financial plan is stronger overall.
The Department of Planning and Development has administered the Unified
Development Project (UDP) process for the development of commercial and
recreational water -dependent facilities, with optional facilities and ancillary
related uses on approximately 13.5 acres of City -owned waterfront property
known as the Dinner Key Boat Yard, located at 2640 South Bayshore Drive. In
accordance with applicable City Charter and Code provisions, this UDP has
obtained the following approvals from the City of Miami Commission:
1. Declaration of the project as a UDP.
2. Authorization to issue the Request of Proposals (RFP) document.
3. Appointment of members to a Review Committee
4. Selection of a Certified Public Accounting (CPA) firm.
Pursuant to public notice, three '(3) sealed proposal(s) were received by the City
Clerk on August 30, 1996. Evaluation of the proposals was completed by the
Review Committee and the CPA firm. Their independent written reports have
been submitted to the City Manager, and accompany this recommendation.
On July 21, 1997, the proposal received from Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Ltd.,
which was ranked first by the Review Committee, was withdrawn at the
proposer's request. Taking the reports and this factor into consideration, the
City Manager submits the above stated recommendations to the City
Commission for its consideration, supported by the attached justification and
comparison of the two proposals.
In negotiations with the accepted proposer(s) for the lease agreement, these
minimal terms and conditions will be included, as stated in the RFP:
a) A term not to exceed forty (40) years;
b) A minimum guaranteed base rent of $300,000;
c) A minimum investment in property improve ments not less than the
amount stated in the proposal.
97- 493
Issue/ Concern
What are the business operations
and their percentage revenues?
What will be constructed or in-
stalled and what are the projected
cost (in $ 000s)?
Is the public marketplace
consultant also the operator?
Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment
-
Side by
Side Comparison
Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Mkt.
Hangar in the Grove -Boatyard at Dinner Key
Management Commentary
Marina - 122 wet and 140 dry slips -
37%
Marina - 99 wet slips -
47%
*1994 study by MRA International, City
Boatyard
35%
Boatyard
4%
consultant, recommended community / people
Marketplace
28%
Marketplace
49%
oriented development uses for Dinner Key
Waterfront, eg. public marketplace, to
supplement boatyard and marina operation revenue
due to expense of historical restoration needed.
Hangar Restoration
$1,587
Large hangar restoration including marketplace $5,400
* Per 1994 estimate by City consultant, Constron
Marketplace, Parking, & Landscaping
$ 712
Small hangar restoration including boatyard
$1,400
Management Services, $4.7 million is required to
Marina and Market Building
$500
_Marina - 47 additional wet slips
$1,760
renovate hangar structures in accordance with U.S.
92 Wet Slips
$ 1,000
Pier Retail
$ 780
Dept. of Interior standards.
Forklifts and Travelifts
$ 400
General Site Improvements
$2,480
Dry storage racks
$ 150
-----------
*122 total wet slips are permitted of which the City
Office Funiture & Equipment
$ 10
Total
$11,820
is constructing 52,'leaving 70 wet slips that may
Soft Costs
$ 641
Less City marina
be constructed by proposer. Grove Harbour must
--------
capital contribution
$( 2,400)
reduce its wet slips by 22 (they proposed 92).
Total
QQ
Total
4
Hangar in the Grove can build an additional 23
wet slips (they proposed 47).
No, self - managed.
How much parking is provided 225 spaces (provided)
vs. amount required? ( including the City constructed 30 space lot as
part of the of the marina construction.)
246 spaces required
21 spaces deficit
C�^
I
r�
C.v
Yes, as a partner with property management firm
through stabilized occupancy.
189 provided (indicated on plan)
(not including the City constructed 30 space lot as
part of the of the marina construction.)
242 spaces required
53 spaces deficit
* The public marketplace of Hangar in the Grove,
as a new venture would be aided by the marketplace
consultant's participation through stabilized
occupancy.
•
*In PR zoning, 1 space per 500 sq. ft.
of gross floor area is required, plus 1 per employee,
plus 1 per 2 wet slips and 1 per 3 dry slips.
*Both proposals indicate free parking, management
believes that controls will need to be provided.
*Deficit parking will be provided at a direct cost
to proposers.
Issue/ Concern
Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Mkt. Hangar in the Grove -Boatyard at Dinner Key Management Commentary
Market Analysis Considerations:
Marina $10 ft./mo. average wet slip rate; rates appear reasonable.
Boatyard Revenue projections assume 20 boats/week at
$2,000/boat average job. Total annual revenue projections
amount to $2.08 million in year 1.
Marketplace 40,000 total sq.ft.; equally divided between indoor & (small
hangar) outdoor space featuring fruits, vegetables, flowers,
folklore items, handicrafts, antiques and historical pieces.
Stabilized receipts (year 10) $2,057,000.
Financial Considerations:
Return to the City years 1-40 $7,935,852
on a present value basis.
Debt to Equity Ratio 70% Debt: .$3,500
(in $ 000s) 30% Equity: $1,500
Minority participation in 83%
ownership
Design Considerations:
Historic Preservation "Intrusive" architectural features (added buildings) dilute
historical structures.
Water dependant uses Greatest emphasis on marine -related uses.
r Oirculation No issues.
Site Design Canopy and glass structures are problematic due to
rg the South Florida Building Code.
C.O
W
$16.20 ft./mo.; wet slip revenues appear optimistic based *Transient vessel demand is projected to be much
on 100% transient vessel occupancy. lower than 100%.
Total annual revenue projections amount to $200,000 in
year 4 ( sublease payment).
30,000 total sq. ft. indoor (large hangar) featuring locally
grown fruits and vegetables, fish, breads, produce and coffee.
Stabilized receipts (year 10) $1,957,000.
years 1-40 $7,675,541
80% Debt: $7,540
20% Equity: $1,880
8.40%
Preserves historic site context by not introducing
additional structures.
Site development program emphasizes non -boat
water access.
Straightening of the Chart House Road as
proposed is unlikely.
Location of both restaurant and pier vending are
problematic as they are non -water dependant uses over
Biscayne Bay waters.
*Historical numbers on operations average 14
boats/weeks haul -out.
r�
*Grove Harbor's basic revenue assumptions
appear optimistic in that year one assumes
90% occupancy. Hangar in the Grove occupancy
rates, for all operations, appear reasonable in
that year 1 assumes a 60% occupancy rate.
*Hanger in the Grove's financial plan conservatively
reflects no revenues for the first four years.
*Grove Harbor will require more attractive financing
terms to maintain positive cash flows.
Hangar in the Grove requires a greater equity
commitment during years 1-4 to cover deficits.
*Additional minority participation through small
business development is contemplated under
in the retail marketplace.
*Hangar in the Grove will need to relocate both the
restaurant and pier vending to upland.
2
M
November 22, 1996
Mr. Edward Marquez
City Manager
City of Miami-,
3500 Pan American Drive - . --- -
Miami, Florida. 33133
Dear Mr. Marquez:
Three proposals were received, on August 30, .1996, in response to the City of Miami's Request
for Proposals (RFP) issued May. 31, 1-996, for- the Unified Development. Project: (UDp) _of. the
Dinner Key Waterfront_ Redevelopment Project: .
The Review. Committee. selected by-t_he_City, Commission to evaluate proposal submissions;-
convened for a total of. three; meetings :and :on..0.ctober;31,;199.6, voted _to_ recommend to the
City Manager the following -rank order of the proposals received.:
#1 Atlantic -Clipper Foundation, Inc.
#2 Hangar in the Grove, Inc.
#3 Grove Harbour. Marina & Caribbean Marketplace, LLC ':, ,
On November 12,1996; Hangar-in--the_Grove; Inc:,-the#2:ranked_proposal, withdrew its prop_os_al
by letter to the -City Manager
In accordance -with- the City of Miami:Charter,- Section _29-A(c)and„the-city=of-Mianu Code; =-
Section-18-52.9� .-enclosed is the Committee.'-s : Final _ Repoit._ outlining its deliberations and
evaluation of the proposal submissions. --
On behalf of the entire Review Committee=for the -Dinner- Key Waterfront Redevelopment, -.UDP,
we appreciate the opportunity to work with you -to bring Miami a-development.project which will- - -
significantly contribute to the prosperity and quality of.life for our community.--
Sincerely,
Robert M. Masrieh
Chairman
Enclosures
97- 493
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Review Committee Members I
Background 3
Proceedings 4
Evaluation Process 7
Review Committee Findings _ _-_-- _ _.__-. .. 9
Recommendation 11
APPENDIX A Meeting Minutes -
APPENDIX B Minority Participation :and Historic
Preservation Staff Reports = - -
APPENDIX C -CPA-Firm Summary. -Sheet :& Present Value Analysis of Rent and
Taxes
APPENDIX D Evaluafion-and Voting Summary.—Fo
EXHIBIT I -Pertinent Legislation - -
EXHIBIT II -Review Committee List as of October 22,1996- - - -
EXHIBIT III Review Committee.List.as of October 24,_1996._
EXHIBIT IV - Review Committee =Listas of October, 31, 1996
EXHIBIT V Video Tape of Proposal Presentations on actober=29 1=996:.:--
- r
7` 493
DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REVIEW COMMITTEE
Revised 10/29/96
Members of the Public:
James F. Courbier - -
James Flanigan
Bob Lewis
Robert Masrieh (Chairperson) ------ -----
Joyce Nelson =
City Employees:
Phil Luney, Assistant Director, Finance
Christina Abrams; Director, Conferences. Conventions & Public Facilities
Frank Rollason, Deputy -Fire. Chief, Risk Management_
Eduardo Rodriguez, Director, Office of Asset Management . - ---
Support Staff 'to the Committee:
JACK .LUFT
Director .
Department of Community Planning and Revitalization-. _-
ARLEEN WEINTRAUB -
Assistant Director
Department of Community Planning and Revitalization
GARY LEUSCHNER
Real Estate Specialist
Department of Community Planning and Revitalization
97 493
ERICA McKINNEY
Project Representative
Department of Community Planning and Revitalization
LILIA MEDINA
Senior Planner
Department of Community Planning and Revitalization
SAP.AH EATON
Historic Preservation Officer/Planner H
Department of Community P-lanning.and Revitalization
ANNE WHITTAKER - - -
Procurement Contracts Officer.
City of Miami General Services Administration -
City Attorney's.Office Liaison,
Linda Kearson, Esq.
Assistani .City Attorney
City Attorney's Office
Review Committee CPA
Darryl K. Sharpton, CPA----
Sharpton, Brunson & Company; P_A:--- _
BACKGROUND
On January 12, 1995, the City Commission adopted Resolution 95-486 declaring that the,most
advantageous method to develop certain improvements on the 13.5 acre site at the property
located at 2640 South Bayshore Drive within the Dinner Key area of Miami is through the
Unified Development Project (UDP) process that seeks to procure an integrated development
package from the private sector including planning and design, construction, leasing and
management of the property.
On May 23, 1996, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 96-360 authorizing the issuance
of a Request for Proposals (-RFP)-on-May-3I; -1996, -as required -by the -City -Charter and -Code -in -
applicable sections governing UDPs..Proposal submissions were due August 30,1996.
The City Commission, through Resolution No. 967510, appointed nine members to a Review
Committee (Committee) charged -with- evaluating proposals . in. response: to -the City issued RFP
and to render a written evaluation -of its -findings -to -the City Manager as required by .the City of
Miami .Charter Section_ 29-A(c)_ _for Unified _ Development Projects -Resolution No: 96-648
selected Sharpton, Brunson.&. Company,-P.A., a certified public -accounting firm to* analyze the.-
financial' capability,.viability;-lending commmitment, and projections ofthe -proposal-submissions:- ====-= -
The RFP document issued sought a;unified development package from qualified and experienced
developers for the development of a multiple use facility including commercial and:recreational
uses. The RFP required, at minimum, the development of a full -service boat yard; marim and the _
historic restoration of the existent large. hangar structure._Through.the_adoption_of Resolution_96-
474, an Addendum was issued to-theREP-to allow for a film -or multimedia production-facility=as- an additional optional primary -use.- Optional -permitted use(s) included- a --public market= -and/or -a= -
historical interpretive/interactive facility- Specified =related'uses' including- retail:_and.office;__were ;.
also permitted, provided they were ancillary to the stated primary uses.
Pertinent legislation is included as Exhibit I..__ - -= -
On August 30, 1996, the following three proposals were received by the City in response to/tlie
RFP:
Clipper Bay Marina/Boat Yard/Film Institute, Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Ltd
i
The Boatyard at Dinner Key, Hangar in the Grove, Inc:_
Grove.Harbour Marina and. Can* bbean.Marketplace, Grove.Harbour Marina -anal Caribbean= ----
Marketplace, LLC
- 9 _ 493
3
PROCEEDINGS
The Review Committee, appointed by the City Commission held a total of three (3) meetings on
Tuesday, October 22; Tuesday, October 29; and, Thursday, October 31, 1996, respectively.
Meeting minutes from the three meetings are attached as Appendix A. The composition of the
Review Committee, as convened on its meeting dates, is attached as Exhibits II, III and IV.:
Throughout the proceedings, the Committee observed requirements' as set forth in -the` -
Government in the Sunshine = Law, Public Records Act and City administrative policy as
promulgated in the City Charter and Code. All Review Committee meetings were - duly
advertised and recorded.
Meeting of October 22, 1996
The first meeting of the Review Committee was held on October 22, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. The
purpose of this meeting was organizational,. in order to familiarize Committee -members with the
process and their duties during -the meetings This -proceeding was audio recorded. -for the record.
The Committee was briefed by__the_Department -of -Community Planning and- Revitalizationff sta
in reference to the Unified Development Project process and committee responsibilities for
evaluating the proposal submissions. Jack Lu$, Department Director, gave an overview of the
history of the project site.
At this meeting proposerswereinvited-- to. make -a..presentation. regarding .their -.proposals. _The
length of proposal presentations was -decided 'by-. the Review :Committee-. The==order. . of.the,
presentations was chosen through a random selection process; --and- the
requested a report regarding the minority. participation -composition .of :each .project._ proposal.. _ --
Additionally, the Review :Committee ;was briefed by the.. Law. Department liaison regar--ding the :.
Sunshine Law including external contact with any proposal team during the project- evaluation - -
process. The -accounting. firm - selected by the -_City Commission=' to _ analyze --proposals was-
introduced to the Review Committee. Discussion followed regarding the -role-of the - accounting
firm of Sharpton, Brunson, and . Company.. in the :UDP . process and the timing, of the Erin's
preliminary report to the Review. Committee. The Review- Committed selected October: 315`,_
1996, as the final evaluation day of the proposals..
After the meeting adjourned, Review Committee members were led on a walking tour of the
project site by Jack Luft. _
- 97- 493
4
0
Meeting of October 29, 1996
The second meeting of the Committee was held on October 29, 1996 at 9:00 a.m. The meeting
was called to order at 9:16 a.m. This proceeding was video and audio recorded for the record.
The video tape of proposal presentations is enclosed as Exhibit V.
Assistant City Attorney, Linda Kearson, Esq. reviewed the Review Committee's responsibilities,
as well as the State of Florida Records Law and the Sunshine Act. Because new members were
appointed to the Review Committee,- City staff reviewed the UDP process -and-the composition: of.....
the Review Committee: -Review Committee -nominations -were made for -the position _ of Review - - - - -
Committee Chairperson. Capt. Bob Lewis, Robert Masrieh and Christina Abrams were
nominated. Ms. Abrams -declined -the -nomination. Robert Masrieh-vas elected by a majority vote -
of seven. Capt. Bob Lewis received two votes.
Darryl Sharpton, Director of Consulting Services, Sharpton, Brunson. & -Company, P.A.
presented a preliminary .financial analysis of the submitted proposals, stressing -the financial -
aspects of the proposed development. The -CPA --firm advised -the .-Review -Committee -that the•
three proposers were considered. to _be satisfactory in regard to the RFP'-s basic financial :
requirements. Mr. Sharpton presented -a preliminary financial analysis of each -proposal.. included
as Appendix C. __-
Following the CPA firm's presentation, the principals for each of the development teams were
heard in the following order:
Team: Grove Harbour Marina & Caribbean Marketplace
Representatives: Alan Luna; -Antonio Zamora, Robert-Cristoph, Aaron Zaretsky.:
Duration: Presentation: 55 minutes
Question and Answer Period:. 45minutes
Team: Atlantic -Clipper- Foundation, Ltd. -
Representatives: Rosario Kennendy, David _A.Wolfberg, Manuel Medina _
Sylvester Stallone - ..
Duration: Presentation: 47 minutes
Question and Answer Period: -51 minutes 7=-
Team: Hangar in the Grove, Inc.
Representatives: Hugh Westbrook, Rep. Kendrick Meek, Marisel Diaz; '
Matthew Schwartz, Courtney Allen
Duration: Presentation: 55 minutes - -
Question and Answer Period; 45 minutes -----
During the question. and answer period the development teams answered questions from
members -of the Review Committee,- the CPA firm and -the City's minority..procurement officer
concerning project development, financing and feasibility and minority hiring.
97- 493
..... _._..._.......
Following the presentations, the Review Committee requested reports from the City's minority
procurement officer and the historic preservation officer at the next review Committee meeting
of Thursday, October 31, 1996.
Meeting of October 31, 1996
The final meeting of the Review Committee was held on Thursday, October 31, 1996. The .
meeting was called to order at 9:27 a.m. The purpose of this riieeting--was-for==committee -- -
deliberations and evaluation of the -development proposals presented on Tuesdays October 29,
1996. These proceedings were audio recorded for the record.
At this time, a thorough review of the UDP evaluation procedure was done by staff. Prior to
deliberations, City staff- reports _ were. , heard regarding minority participation and `historic
preservation and design. in each of_the presented proposals- attached -as Appendix B. --
6 9-7- 493
EVALUATION PROCESS
City of Miami Charter Section 29-A(c), Unified Development Project, requires the Review
Committee to "evaluate each proposal based only on the evaluation criteria applicable to the
Review Committee and contained in the Request for Proposals."
Section IV of the RFP document contains extensive criteria that is used to evaluate proposals.
The following specific evaluation criterion and their respective assigned weights were used by
the Review Committee for the purpose of rating and ranking the proposal -submissions.- . In
accordance with City administrative policy, each proposal is given a subjective score from 0
(poor) to 6 (excellent) for -each criterion, which is then multiplied by the respective weight. - -
Criteria - - Weighted ...
Value
Overall Plan & Design -of thicTroposed Development _ - 10
Historic Preservation.Experience/Design/Enhancement 10_
Preservation of Second Hangar (Machine Shop)-- 10
Management & Operations, .:_::- -. _.: _:..- `: -- _ __:. <_ 15
Financial Return to. the _City_._:::__ 10
Financial Capability of the Development Entity - - -- - -- 15
Experience of the Development Entity 10
Capability of the Development Entity & Consultants 10
Extent of Minority Participation- - -- -- -- 10
Local Firm(s) Participation : -- 1_ - 6
TOTAL 106
A matrix displaying the - criteria._ and. _weighted.. values was establishedto_ evaluate; rank: and
recommend proposals _ submitted in . response to said RFP. Each member of the Review
Committee evaluated- all :relevant -components of_.the three: proposals submitted, by assigning
points to each proposal based -on the matrix described. above.
Each member of the Review -Committee then_ totaled_ their points -and rated--each-proposal _either
#1, #2 or #3. The members .-then :orally_cast.their- respective votes fo_r_-proposals #1, #„A and #3.
The votes for #1, #2,, and #3 were summed for each proposal. The proposal receiving"the lowest
point score was determined to be the #1 recommended proposal; the proposal receiving the
second lowest point score -was- determined -to be the #2 -recommended proposals -and -the- proposal:.
receiving the third lowest point score was determined to be the 0 recommended proposal. _
- - ...... -7 9. 1-93
The ranking and the results were as follows:
Rank Proposer Accumulated Points
41 Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Inc. (16 points)
42 Hangar in the Grove, Inc. (17 points)
93 Grove Harbour Marina & Caribbean (21 points)
Marketplace, LLC
Review Committee evaluation forms and the summary form -of all votes: are attached as
Appendix D.
8 493
0 0
REVIEW COMMITTEE FINDINGS
• Proposed Improvements by the City - Reduction from $2,4000,000.00 to $1,4000,000.00
(as per Jack Luft). The Committee feels that there needs to be clarification of how much
money will actually be spent on City improvements and how those moneys will actually be
distributed.
• On=Site Parking Requirements- -No-proposer -has -been able -to -meet this -requirement --on -.
the lease premises, due to physical and zoning restrictions.
Recommendation: -The- Committee recommends to -the Commission -and the -City- Manager
that the successful proposer should not be able to waive the on -site parking requirements
without a mitigation agreement with Department of Off Street Parking.
The Chairman: recommends -that: a'-methodof "waiver" _of-off:street -parking requirements.
similar to those currently in_place=with_the- Coconut Grove Off-Street.Parking-T-rustFimd-be -------
deployed, and a "payment _in -lieu"_ of providing the required-. parking should be utilized to
first improve and then to maintain parking facilities in the -Dinner Key area; --exclusively.
•. Dry Storage of Boats Review Committee members Capt. Lewis -and', Capt. -Courbier are of
the opinion that only a minimal- number- of boats would be accommodated in :the space -
conceptualized by Grove Harbour.
• Times of Operation Concern was expressed regarding -the hours of operation of the marina
in the Grove Harbour presentation. It was-indicated..by members that -an opening -time of 6:00...-
a.m. would be more desirable -and practical for fishermen and boaters:.:
• Public Accessibility to. Studios- _--The..Committee-indicated to the _Atlantic. Clipper. proposer...
that a method needed to be developed whereby the public -might be -allowed .to: view some '.of... .
the filming methods and action-,7 periodically; in order :to make -the site more public -friendly. ,
• Shoreline -Expansion The :Committee -expressed concern: whether .the _shoreline -could` be -
expanded, as Hangar in -the Gove`s proposal indicated.
• Change of Charihouse Road'- The Committee expressed concern about the viability of
changing the road.
• Financial Return to the City-- The Committee was concerned regarding several issues:
♦ Ad valorem taxes were accounted for by two of the proposers, but not in the case of
Hangar in the Grove, who indicated non payment of ad valorem taxes for four years
(approximately $800,000.00).
9 97-- 493
• Recommendation: - The Committee recommends that as per the RFP, ad valorem
taxes be assessed and the Lessee be required to pay the same as required in the RFP,
(page 17), Section G, Taxes, item 2.
• Financial Capability
♦. Grove Harbour & Caribbean Marketplace did not indicate how they would deal
with their cash flow shortage for the construction phases.
♦ Hangar in the Grove did not - indicate how it would fund the -approximate
$1,000,000.00 extra capital needed for- their -project, due to the City --lessening its- -
contribution for "City Improvements" nor did they address how they would fund an
approximate $4,000,000.00 operating cash -flow shortage.
The suggested $300,000.00 for payment in -lieu of providing parking was not part of
their financial analysis;_rior'how_the approximate $800;000.00. of ad. valorem taxes
would be funded.
♦ Atlantic Clipper indicated -that any additional money required to -fund, improvements
or for operating cash flow =was: not dependent on financing. -
10
g79 493
•
RECOMMENDATION
Following deliberations and ranking of each proposal, the Review Committee's recommendation
is as follows:
Rank Proposer
#1 Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Inc.
#2 Hangar in_the:Grove,-Inc._--___--
#3 Grove Harbour Marina Caribbean -- - - ---- All correspondence between the Review Committee, City Staff, -Sharpton, -Brunson & Company,
P.A., the City of Miami- Law -Department, -proposal documents, supplemental materials, tape
recordings of the Review Committee: meetings and any -other materials related. to the Dinner Key
Waterfront Redevelopment. Project. are on -file .and -available at the City of Miami Department of
Community, Planning and: Revitalization,- Development. Division, 444 _ S. W-. 20 ,Avenue, Third
Floor, Miami, Florida, 33130, Telephone-(305) 416-4400..
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A _ Meeting Minutes
APPENDIX B Minority Participation and Historic
Preservation Staff Reports
APPENDIX C CPA Firm Summary Sheet & Present Value Analysis of Rent
and Taxes
APPENDIX D Evaluation and Voting Summary Forms
.7
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MIAMI
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROCESS
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 22,1996
SUMMARY - -
Committee Members Present/Members of the Public
Capt. James F. Courbier, Equitrack Corp.
James Flanigan, Flanigan's Loggerhead
Robert Masrieh; Sunny,Investments-
Joyce Nelson
Capt. Bob Lewis, Capt_Bob Lewis..Inc.
Sean Reickert, representing LolIq Anderson -Vie = .. __
Committee Members Present/City Employees :
Bibi Legido, Marina Assistant to -Dinner -Key Marina
Karen Coplin-Cooper, NET Administrator, Model City
Juan Ordonez, Professional Engineer III, Public Works Department
Eduardo Rodriquez, Director; Office of Asset Management. -
Ellie Haydock, NET Administrator, _Coconut_Grove -
City Staff Present:
Jack Luft, Director, Community Planning and- Revitalization:Department (CPR) _
Arleen Weintraub, -Assistant -Director, (CP_R)- --
Gary Leuschner, Project Manager, (CPR)
Erica McKinne , Project Re resentative, CPR -
Y J p (_.__)
Lilia Medina,. Senior Planner CPR
Linda K. Kearson; Esq., Assistant City Attorney; City Attorneys _O_ffice
CPA Firm Present:.._.
Darryl K. Sharpton, CPA, Director, Sharpton, Brunson & Company
Members of the Public:-Approximately_23-in attendance. . -A. sign up sheet is available in .
the project files for. review.
A-1
97- 493
•
•
The Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Review Committee Meeting 10/22/96
Meeting called to order at 9:00 a.m.,
• Jack Luft introduced City Staff. Committee Members introduced themselves.
• Review of the Public Records Law (primarily Sections 119 and 287) and Sunshine
Act by Linda Kearson.
This meeting is not a public hearing and does not require participation.from the
public. Documents related to this process are subject to the Public Records Law.
Committee members must refer any requests to. City staff. City staff will be in
charge of disseminating public records. The financial statements of proposers are
exempt from the Public Records Law. The disclosure forms will be available to
the committee for review, but, -members -will not keep the disclosures.- - --
Pursuant to the Sunshine -Act, -the •meeting,is recorded,.advertised, and;signs :
posted.. Committee members must not speak to other members regarding any
aspect of this process unless they are convened as a Committee. Any contact by -
the members with the press -or -proposers --must be referred.to-City staff. -
'Review of Unified Development Process:(UDP.)`_.
Concept, UDP Declaration, Authorization to Issue Request for Proposal (RFP),
Receipt of Proposals, Review by Committee and CPA firm, Recommendation of . .
City Manager to City Commission, Acceptance of Recommendation by -City - - - -
Commission and Authorization to. Negotiate: Lease Agreement, City Commission:_
Approval of Lease Agreement..
• Jack Luft introduced Darryl -K.-Sharpton, CPA, -from Sharpton;-Brunson& Company-.
• Arleen Weintraub stated the purpose- of the meeting is organizational.. The. Review-_.
Committee is an independent committee selected by the City Manager. The
Committee is restricted and limited -to- the factors. in .the. Evaluation _Criteria which_ __-_ _ _
follows page 49 of the RFP.- She -reviewed the -sample -evaluation form._Tlie-scoring:
system is derived from the UDP.with-weights predetermined; the more important
issues for decision making are -weighted -higher. No additional information or -
materials will be presented in the proposer's presentations. At the conclusion of the ..
deliberations, staff will prepare a report to the City Manager along with the CPA's
report. - - -
• Jack Luft explained in more detail the composition of the Committee and the .. - - - - - -
appointment process. He believed that representatives of each proposers were in the
audience. Proposers are permitted to attend the presentations. However, the City has
traditionally asked proposers to not attend other proposer's presentations. He then
A-2 493
The Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Review Committee Meeting IOT22/96
P g
reviewed the history of the project which has primarily unfolded in the last two years
although the project has evolved over the last decade.
• (Note: The first tape, side A and B, is blank beginning 32 minutes into the meeting
for the duration of approximately 23 minutes. It appears that a member of the
Committee inadvertently kicked the extension cord as well as disconnected the main
cord to the recording machine. The malfunction was discovered by staff and the
connections to the machine were fixed.)
• Jack Luft continued describing the potential uses for the project. Subsequent to the
issuance of the RFP, it was decided by the Commission to consider a post -production
facility for the film industry as an alternative use for the structures, provided that the
boatyard be retained and historic. restoration of the buildings be followed. The RFP
was amended accordingly.- -He also described the limitations of the Development of
Regional Impact (DRI) process, and, the use of a. Binding Letter of Vested Rights in
reference to the boatyardand-number of vessels (wet or dry) to be allowed -in -the- - _ - -.: -
ro'ect. The issue of FEMA monies and ca i al un - rovements funds was alsoproject. R -- p- - . .
discussed. .
• More discussion followed.on.the. xole:of_the-CPA and the Arm's report, the
independent role of the CPA firm and ,its selection through:competitive-bidding.. _The
CPA firm will not rank the three -proposers but -will conduct.an analysis o£.their __
proposals.
• The suggested agenda for a second meeting scheduled on October -29,_1996 was _ -
-discussed..._. ____ -_:_
• Proposers were invited to=make apresentation-regarding.their;proposal.-__Thelength of-
the proposer's,presentation was_discussed_and.-decided. , The order of the presenters .,
was -chosen randomly with names from a hat.sele&ted.by Linda Kearson.- -The-
Committee requested- a staff review and- report_regarding_ the_ minority _participation___-_,,
composition of each proposer--team::Staff stated that -requested analysis:will -be :. _. _ _ _
provided to the committee prior to -its scoring and -;ranking -of proposal : - -- -------,;: `
• Discussion of a third meeting -ensued -with the -date set for October.31st. at 9:OOa.m.._.:;'
More discussion -took place on changing the venue for the forthcoming -meetings- --;;
given the poor acoustics of the meeting place in the Exhibition Center main hall. %
• The meeting adjourned at I OOa.m. - -Committee Members were then. led.-through.a,_-
_walking tour of the site by Jack Luft.--
A-1 ..
493
CITY OF MIAMI
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROCESS
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 29,1996
PRELIMINARY SUMMARY
Committee Members Present/Members of the Public
Capt. James F. Courbier, -Equitrack Corp.
James Flanigan, Flanigan's-Loggerhead
Robert Masrieh, Sunny Investments =
Joyce Nelson, Cocoanut Grove Village.Council - -
Capt. Bob Lewis, Capt. Bob Lewis Inc.--_
Committee Members Present/City Employees : -_ ,--
Phil Luney, Assistant Director ofFinance = -
Christina Abrams; Director, 'Conferences Conventions &. Public Facilities
Frank Rollason;Deputy Fire Chief, Risk Management
Eduardo Rodriquez, Director, Office of Asset Management
City Staff Present:
Jack Luft, Director, Community.Planningand_Revitalization_Department (CPR).___
Arleen Weintraub, Assistant Director, -(CPR)
Gary Leuschner, Project Manager; (CPR)
Erica McKinney, Project Representative, (CPR)
Lilia Medina, Senior Planner; (CPR)_ -
Sarah Eaton Historic Preservation Officer-, (CPR)
Linda K. Kearson, Esq., Assistant-CityAttorney, City Attorney' s_Office
-Ann M. Whittaker, Procurement Contracts Officer;-M/WBA - - - -
Anita Moore, Administrative Assistant,-- MinorityNVomenBusiness Enterprises
CPA Firm Present:
Darryl K. Sharpton, CPA; Director, Sharpton,-Brunson & Company
Members'of the Public:- A sign up sheetis'available in the project files for'review.
_..
97 493._
•
• Meeting called to order at 9:16 a.m.
• Jack Luft opened the meeting. Linda Kearson reviewed the Review Committee's
responsibilities. She reviewed the Records Law and Sunshine Act. Pursuant to the
Sunshine Act, the meeting is recorded, advertised, and signs posted.
• Discussion of the composition of the Review Committee.
• Arleen Weintraub made several announcements including the -receipt of letters from
Rosario Kennedy and Miami Dade I Community College. The addenda to the Request
for Proposal (RFP) was distributed to the Review Committee. The Financial
Disclosure Statements need -to be completed by the Review Committee.
• Introductions of staff _ from the Department of Community Planning and
Revitalization, Ann Whittaker, Procurement Contracts -Officer and Darryl Sharpton,
CPA.
• Review of Unified Development Process (UDP) by Arleen. Weintraub:
Concept, UDP Declaration,- Authorization to -Issue Request- for- Proposal -_(RFP),__
Receipt of Proposals, Review. by Committee and CPA firm, Recommendation of
City Manager to City Commission, Acceptance of Recommendation by City
Commission and Authorization to Negotiate Lease Agreement, City Commission- --
Approval of Lease Agreement. -
Nominations and election- of -Chair-of the Review --Committee: =Nominations by
Committee Members:.-Robert:-Masrieh5 Christina.Abrar -s- and_ _Capttain.:Bob- -Lewis:
Committee Members -introduced themselves.- Christina Abrams- respectfully declined
Robert Masrieh was elected by a vote of seven. Captain Bob Lewis received - two -
votes. .
• Darryl Sharpton, CPA, -presented a preliminary analysis. of -the: economic_capability-of-
...-
the three proposers. _-
The first presentation: Grove Harbour Marina & Caribbean Marketplace.
• The Committee reconvened after lunch at 1:26 p.m.
• The second presentation: Atlantic -Clipper Foundation, Ltd.
• The third presentation: Hangar in the Grove, Inc.
•
The Review Committee adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
A-5
97- 493 _
CITY OF MIAMI
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROCESS
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 29,1996
FINAL SUM1M ARY .._-.-
(Revised 11/8/96)
Committee Members Present/Members of the Public
Capt.. James-F.Courbier, Equitrack Corp.
James Flanigan, Flanigan's Loggerhead
Robert Masrieh, Sunny Investments
Joyce Nelson,- Cocoanut- Grove Village Council - -
Capt. Bob Lewis, Capt. Bob Lewis Inc. -
Committee Members-Present/City-Employees
-Phil Loney, -Assistant Director- of Finance:.:
Christina Abrams, Director;_ Conferences_ Conventions & Public Facilities
Frank Rollason, Deputy Fire Chief, Risk Management
Eduardo Rodriquez, Director, Office of Asset Management
City -Staff Present: -
Jack-Luft,-Director,. Community. Planning and, -Revitalization Department_(CP::R):: -
Arleen -Weintraub, Assistant `Director,'(CPR) _ :
Gary'Leuschner; Project Manager; -(CPR)
_
Erica McKinney, Project Representative, -(CPR) -"
'Lilia Medih,a Senior Planner,- (CPR) - - -
Sarah Eaton, Historic Preservation Officer; (CPR)
Linda K. Kearson, Esgq-Assistant City Attorney, -City. Attorney'.s.Office_.-..
Ann M._ Whittaker, Procurement Contracts Officer; M/WBA
Anita -Moore, Administrative Assistant, Minorit /WomenBusiness Enterprises',"
CPA Firm Present: '
Darryl K. Sharpton, CPA,.Director, Sharpton, Brunson & Company
Members .of:the Public:..A sign up.sheet:is available_in.the project files for review. -..
97— 493
The Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Review Committee Meeting 10/29/96
• The second presentation: Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Ltd.
Representatives: Rosario Kennendy, David A. Wolfberg, Manuel Medina
Sylvester Stallone
Duration: Presentation: 47 minutes
Question and Answer Period: 51 minutes
• The third presentation: Hanger in the Grove, Inc.
Representatives: Hugh Westbrook, Rep Kendrick Meek; Marisel-Diaz-
Matthew Schwartz, Courtney Allen.
Duration: Presentation: 55 minutes
Question and Answer Period: 45 minutes - -
The following is a transcript of the question and answer period for each proposal: -
Questions and Answers-- Grove-Harbour.-(G.H )-
Jim Courbier - - , First of -all I'd like to cornplimentyou on y..our.presentation;.Very: _
rymay-have
well organized and covered evething.: -I may have missed
something. The architectural structure that is -in front with the
circle or circular colors. What is that?
G.H. Protection canopy to the court yard- market plan._.__
Courbier In: this. _rending view it appears more flat: and this. one, it appears -to _
go up?
G.H. Itis because of -the perspective.--..
Courbier Thefront independent structure that kind of looks-like:a control -
tower. I like a lot. That is 33 feet high? - - .--. - --
G.H. - Yes. -
Courbier - Is that structure the. same height?
G.H. - Yes. '
Courbier - Inside the market place you have enclosed spaces as well as open -
air type spaces? That is correct?
G.H. - Exactly
A=8 - - -
97W 493- _..
• 0
The Dinner Key Waterfront
Redevelopment Review Committee Meeting 10/29/96
Courbier -
The number of vendors inside and outside?
G.H. -
Approximately 200 stores, some vendors, some day tables. 200 -
220 Total.
Courbier -
As a matter of speculation, is this a place tour buses would come
to? Would it be a tourist attraction?
G.H. =
The Public Market will -serve locatmeeds mostly. -reflecting -what -is- ----=- _-----
unique about local culture. -
Courbier -
Parking, is it metered parking or free?
G.H. - -
(nods indicating free parking)
Eduardo Rodriguez - The 50 % EAR marked for- payment to the City, is it of -the -
Vinick Gym existing or is -it -an additional -payment to the
City - -
G.H. _
EAR _marked or.Virnck GM-but.could be negotiated --in a 1_ease:=;
Jack Luft -
Point of clarification -
Proposers have been asked to consider the context of site,
payments off -site should not. be considered in evaluating this
proposal... ;.. .
Joyce Nelson:- -
Do you- pledge to comply with all Review Requirements?
G.H.. - .
Yes; of course.
Nelson - . =
You do not have a historic -preservation -specialist on -your: teams do_-- : . :.:
you plan on getting one? - -
G.H.. _ -
_ Planning to have our architects play that role.
Nelson -
Question to Sarah Eaton, will the structure in proposal detiact from'
historic significance?
Sarah Eaton -
A review has not been conducted; we'll -report -at next
-meeting.
Nelson -
Relates to comments about the restaurants compared to building
square footage. - -- -- -
G.H. -
Was that a question about the market?
A-9 _.. ...-.- -._. --
97 - 493
The Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Review Committee Meeting I OT29196
Nelson - You have the loggia building, housing, cafe activities and the
open air cafe on the 2°d floor?
G.H. - Exact square footages unknown but will be determined as the
design goes forward.
Christina Abrams - Has the proposer ever previously managed, operated City property,
if so what was the return to the City, and what were the terms or
conditions at the conclusion of the agreement?
G.H. Managed a city marina, not sure what the terms were or how it
ended up. We are just not there anymore.
Capt. Bob Lewis Marina should open at 6:00 not 8:00 A.M...
G.H. _- Accommodations will be made. Hours will be determined.. .
Robert Masrieh Parking needs to be provided -on site, calculations were not in
document. Please elaborate _
G.H. - Calculations for parking were done using formulas.
Masrieh It does not meet code; landscaping requirement not done. No
handicap spaces. hdo not believe.you can get -that number of
spaces on there.
G.H. A continuous island will satisfy;code,
Masrieh - PR zoning is 11500 plus employee ratio. It is a concern that you
- may not have the correct number?-..
G.H. , . _ . I believe that we do but I will double-check the numbers:
-- - -- ,
Capt.:-Lewis. Willpeople be able to get ice, etc. in -the morning?
G.H. - Yes, hours will be dictated by the public demand.
Frank Rollason Who is the spill fuel responder? ---- --
G.H. - [Response not audible]
Rotiason - = How will fuel get into the dispensable -location?
G.H. -------- Pipeline along the dock from upland tanks.
A-1 p
9 -G 493.
V •
The Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Review Committee Meeting 10/29/96
Rollason -
G.H. -
Rollason -
G.H.
Nelson -
G.H. -.
Phil Luney -
G.H.
Luney
G.H. -
Courbier
G.H.
Hours of operation winter vs. summer?
Winter hours are in addition to summer.
Where are utilities, etc going to come from? Who's problem is
the underground?
[Response not audible.].
Compare Miami Beach Marina to Dinner Key financially.
Different types because ...no bridges. A lot of transient
activities. Miami Beach has 4 different-mtes. Dinner Key will be -
predominantly annual basis. If transient business occurs it will
-increase our projected revenue. -Fuel : sales will also bolster -bottom - -;
line. -
Comment on current revenue.....
- Miami Beach -has a varied rate -structure. It is_diffYcult.to:-compare:
What is the City of Miami Beach receiving in rent?
.That is not germane to -this conversation.
What percentage of boat slip -rentals -will be.realized.in Dinner -
Key?
Did not use transient in calculation.
It is less than 10 % transient in -Dinner Key Marina:
__What would be your ratio.for transient vessels?z — _--
Have not analyzed. = ''-
Abrams - Your dry slips,.how many inside and how many outside?
G.H - All inside.
Abrams - Total project revenue, how much will marina generate?
G.H. - That's gross revenue.
A-11
97- 493-
The Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Review Committee Meeting 10/29/96
Abrams -
Minimum rent is shown as $ 300,000 or % of different areas? '
G.H. -
If $ 100 comes in, $ 38 is from marina, $ 35 is from boatyard, and
$ 27 from the market, are the %'s.
Darryl Sharpton
1,000,000 tax credit, could you walk me through that?
G.H. -
50 % of savings goes to the City. I do not have the exact figures.
Capt. Lewis -
60'-sport fisherman, how would -you liftit; with-forklifff
G.H. -
No: We have a travel lift. - --- - - -- -
Rodriguez -
Market, 27 % of revenue. In pr6fttTdss; Whatis thelogic ofthis
2%?
G:H. _ -
Market is the most. Boats canpay the market.. May or may
not be able to pay. Profit margin is not there. .
Anne Whittaker
Minority business. See 8 first page_of your proposal..
- G.H. -
We will have aggressive minority hiring. I don't seethe -
contradiction.
Whittaker- -
-..You-don'-t have employees now?:... _. ......:.........
G.H. -
Principals are employees. - ------
Whittaker -
What is the level of female participation?
G.H. -
Ownership. -
Whittaker' -
-Minority participation?--
G.H. - ....
Recruitment of French _& English speaking person. - - - - -
Whittaker -
Estimate of his participation?
G.H. -
3 % to 5 %
Rollason -
$1 million is for Virrick. Tell ,me about this.
G.H. -
Virrick is crucial, our idea is to share the tax benefits with the City
for Virrick.
493.
Key Waterfront
Committee
The'Dinner
Redevelopment Review Meeting 10/291%
Luft -
We are negotiating with a non-profit to manage Virrick. The
outcome is unclear.
Luney -
Marketplace is more speculation according to what you have said,
yet your presentation convinced me that it could be successful,
why is this only 2 % of revenue?
G.H. -
Gross margins of public markets are slim.
Luney -
What other cities have markets like this?
G.H. -
New York, Cincinnati, Ft. Worth; ehatianooga, Baltimore, Seattle.
Luney -
What is most comparable to the proposal?
G.H. -
-All are unique to the community- In scale,. Cincinnati or .
q tY � - -
Grandville in Vancouver. -.- -
Rodriguez -
Js.there: a restaurant.
G.H. -.
You will see that later:
Rodriguez -
So this will evolve eventually, restaurant return will, be 5 % or .
2 %? _.. .
G.H. -
-2 % o from public market,- the, stand-alone-- restaurant_w l =be_ subj ect _-
to the lease:
Rodriguez -
Food in market is restaurant.or-..market?
Luft -
Community wanted a=market not restaurants::
f-
- A-13
97- 493
The Dinner KeyWaterfront Redevelopment Review Committee Meeting 1(1T19/96
P
Questions and Answers - Atlantic Clipper (A.C.)
Rollason - Are revenues contractual?
A.C. - RFP suggests 300K minimum rent; our proposal is the basis. Is
350K per year and scaled up. No plan to revert back to 300K.
Does that answer your question.?
Rodriguez - Is the boatyard 5 or 10 % return -to the-€ity?-
A.C. - 10 % is in error, we will stick to RFP.
Rodriguez -
What is maintenance contingency?
A.C. -
10 year recurring redevelopment of piers, buildings will depend on, - __ __....... .
1
historic construction materials allowed.-
Rodriguez _ -
See 5 page 2 of proposals. Termination at.2Oyears ifproject.is.not. _.-----_-.
- .
viable, term refers to what?_-- ------ -_ _ = =
A.C. -
Ownership reverts to City if early termination.---
Capt.Lewis -
Where is boat maintenance machine shops, etc.?
A.C. - :
Machine shop in new structures fully functional.
Rodriguez
Section 6 page 1.
2.4 million refers to the construction_ of 52 slips -Where is, the
balance to construct the remaining. slips?
A.C. -
2.4 in budget is -an estimate. Could -go higher -and-is only_
construction dollars, no soft costs.
Rollason _ --
Who is here from Jones.Boatyard?.
A.C. -
Do you have questions for him?
Luney. -
Most of your revenues are from film, but you are only sharing 6 %
with City. Is that correct?-
A.C. -
Studio rent is above national average. Pay rent from day one.
Luney -
What is the national average and how.much.is it?
A.C. - -.
The rent independent studios charge is 3.5 % of gross.
The Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Review Committee Meeting 10/29/96
Capt. Lewis -
Plans for boat slips?
A.C. -
Similar to Monty's. Final design is not ready. We will work with
Dr. Blitzstein and City.
Luft -
The City will rebuild 52 slips and seeks permits for balance to 144.
Abrams -
Please. list marinas that you have experience with.
A.C. -
Operated marinas next door to Dinner Key, Monty's marina &
Kings Bay.
Abrams' -
Has the proposer ever leasedor managed City prapefty and if so --
what wasthe return?
A.C. -
Yes. Monty's and we paid the most money back,:also,.._
a Convention Center Restaurant for a brief period.
Courbier -
:-Will-this be a tourist attraction- as -well .as.a business?;,
A.C. -
This is not anticipated as such. It is to create film infrastructure in
Miami. Public focus is education.
Courbier -
Is it off"limits to the general public? No -tour buses?--- : .. . ........: , .. -
A.C. -
That is correct. It should be available to public,theater groups, -.-.- .. ......
public meetings, free of charge.
Courbier -
What will happen in market in evenings?
A.C. -
We want to connect to Monty's.
We_do not envision a high entertainment. area.
Nelson -
D.o you,have historic preservationist on staff besides historian Dr.
Paul George?
A.C. -
Wolfberg Alvarez, will do that, and. has a lot of experience.
Nelson -
-What did you do at Vizcaya?._.
A.C. -
Everything.
A-15
97:_ 493
The Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Review Committee Meeting 10/29/96
Nelson -
Film studio has expensive equipment. How will that play at
waterfront? And studios are exclusive places, how will that be
accessible for public?
A.C. -
Just like at Vizcaya we will create environment safe from salt air.
In past, film kept public out, now public is welcomed and we want
public to have access, breezeways between hangar, etc., to the
waterfront.
Nelson -
Is scale (sec 4) of new buildings in drawings to scale, what is the
scale?
A.C. -
They are proportionate. I do not know the scale.
Masrieh . -
Have you assessed parking requirements.?
A.C. -
A film studio is not in zoning code.
We feel space is there_. Wiil_be shared parking with_all. the. uses.. - ....,.- :.... .
Masrieh -
Have you established -that use'will-comply?;Will -you .build -,enough
- --
parking on site?
A.C. -
Parking requirements for studio have not been established. `..
We will work with City. to -assure that it is. _
Luney -
The Film institute, does it need to be here? Will revenue be-ihe
same somewhere else?
A.C. - .
Location is everything now. Infrastructure (hotels) are needed.
outlining -areas don't have infrastructure. -Filmmakers ,need=in
scenery.
Luney -
What. will make this location- successful=compared to other places?.
A.C. -
This is a great place with lots of variety.- Other businesses around
the studio will make money.
Rodriguez -
See 5 page 2
Will negotiate..with City if marina not finished? Is the project
viable without marina? '
A.C... -
Yes.
A-16
-.97493
The Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Review Committee Meeting 10/29/96
Sharpton -
Development cost is $8.4 million. Did you say this number is
-
going up?
A.C. -
Target number is $8.4 million. We will find true number's in this
project. Will be known later. We believe $8.4 million is a
minimum.
Sharpton -:
- ._ _ $8A million will not include soft costs?
A.C. -
Yes. -
Sharpton -
Debt/Equity structure, are capital cost funded through equity?
A.C. -
We may put financing on project if it creates an advantage. - - - -
Sharpton -
Year-1 indicates revenue generation. How will that happen?-.. .:_....
A.C. -
Year 1 marina & retail. Yearn studios.
Rent studios' day one.
Sharpton -
On development schedule; when does:facility open?
A.C. -
We pay rent from day 1 signing of lease.
Sharpton -
Cash -shortfalls will be made :up by the- principal?_
A.C..
Yes.
Rollason -
- Not looking for rent credit in -the future?
A.C. -
Percentage rents kick in as they comeronline:
Luney .-
_ Will there be completion guarantee - City for completion? ; ...
A.C. -
Maybe.
Luft -
Lease will establish that.
Whittaker.. -
Are- Terremark partners minority?
A.C. -
More than 50 %.
Luft -
(Confirms that sketch displayed are from RIP documents.)--
A.C. _
Yes. Blown up.
A-17 _ 97' 493
The Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Review Committee Meeting 10/29/96
Nelson Do you comply with National Register & HEP Board
Requirements?
A.C. Yes.
Questions and Answers - Danger in the Grove, Inc (H.G.)
Whittaker Minority participation. Is Harrison Construction Corp. and CW
Construction a joint venture? And do you have any idea of the percentage
balance?
H.G. - It will become a joint venture. [The answer on the percentage is not.
audible].
For. several of the subconsultants or -consultants, as you.call_them,' YOU
have a 100% service next to four -of them -(she mentions_them),� but,-
overall,.what percentage did you anticipate for this project?_And-the Carr------
Smith; Corradino Group, what companyis.that.-,., ,.
H.G. - Those firms are 100% minority in terms of representing minority groups
or female. The company is in one ownership; it goes under.two different
names.
Masrieh In the financial analysis on the return to.the_City; there- is _a
four-year'deferral of rents -will you be paying interest on -the deferred rent?- -- .
And does it refer, also, :in the. RFP :that. -the real; estate taxes may_be-
deferred since that is what you show?- --
H.G.. - The RFP.suggests that possible deferral:--We-might'need:to_negot ate
a different payment strategy with the City and realize a deferral may or
may not be available: The interest part will also be part of the_negotiations--:'
in the lease. l'rn not sure. whether the RFP also permits the taxes to -be -
deferred, but the question is when they are payable. If they are payable .;
during the construction period, then, we would pay them.
Luft - Normally, a project does- not go on the tax rolls until it is constructed and
receives a certificate of occupancy.
Masrieh - Improvements of the City is not $2.4 million but 1.4 million. In your
proposal you use $2.4, have you revisited the issue of the 1 million
shortage? And the cash flow deficit over the -four --years. initial. build up,
which approximates four million, how will they be accounted for?
The Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Review Committee Meeting 10/29/96
H.G. - Yes. In our cash flow and capacity there is room for additional debt. And
there is additional capacity for equity infusion. In fact, there is some
income at the end of the second year. And construction costs include
some of the soft costs such as interest carrying.
Masrieh - In the very thorough parking requirement calculations you indicate a 94
space deficit. Go into that more for the committee. And can you direct us
to where in the RFP it says you can use the southern lot for. additional =
parking?
H.G. - We have looked at the site to- the south for additional -parking --Two ways- - - -- - - - ------------
to look at it. If you apply zoning. for liberal commercial use or if you apply
the existing zoning on the site which is parks and recreation or part of the
SD-17 overlay district. We maximized on available .parking space on the
-property plus looked at the south_ lot per the Coconut Grove. Parking Study >;: and per the RFP which says `the..lot-can...-be-used-for, additional parking. -
And the RFP does not say directly on the parking but says -future -public
parking is proposed. - - - -:
Masrieh - Then, as an arrangement, you can negotiate the additional parking on the..
southern lot: If that arrangement does not work do you have an
alternative?
H.G. - We would work with the Department =of Off_ --Street Parking- for- additional.,-,
parking, shuttle system, parking garages aff-site, shared parking -with Ahe = -
new Virrick gymproposal. ------ - -
Abrams - Is the parking lot to_ be metered or -no charge? -AnctwhaviS.the time frame
for construction on the site? And question on deferred payment. And have -
you done an analysis on the rates -you -will charge afthe marina? _ - --
H.G. - On site; not metered, -free .parking;.gtthis point...: And the
public-
would be phased over two years ---the inari na, boatyard, -etc., would start -in..
. year three. And we are not, asking _on- a -reduction of the, rent rate but, ;on
the payment scheme. We are prepared to pay, on year one, the full
$300,000 if that is how the negotiations go with the City. We didi' a
comparable analysis on all the marinas in -the area, although some marinas
are not willing to disclose that information.— A mix of transient, seasonal,
permanent rates are shown in the RFP.
Lewis - Why is it that a full -capacity boatyard can't make it? Is it they
-have to have'a market? -
H.G. The highest and best use for that land is, unfortunately, not a boatyard.
A-19 7 -
0 0
The Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Review Committee Meeting 10/29/96
if the entire facility would be a Merrill -Stevens boatyard, there would not
be enough revenues, only 5% of the revenues come from the boatyard in
our proposal.
Rodriquez - Are we expecting a loss of $600,000 a year in the boatyard?
And on third table, Appendix A, for year 1-4, excluding fuel, there is a 5%
gross and, then, after that there is a 7%. Are we assuming a flat 7% or a
$300,000 minimum or whichever is greater? My point is, on top of that, is
there a 3% for gallon of fuel?
H.G. - No, there is an inconsistency in the numbers in the narrative and the
numbers in the spreadsheet. And, whichever is greater. The 3
cents per gallon is required by law as a tax, aside from the other revenue.
Nelson - Clarify, what is going to be in the Sundial Plaza besides drop-off?
H.G. - A drop-off._.with trellis surrounding it and -sundial in the middle: Part - -
of the thinking is to open a view corridor that does--not-exist and=public - =
access to the pier.
Luney - Are there more recent developments of public markets -besides 1979 (the`
latest example in the slide show) that have been successful? What is the
failure rate for the markets?
H.G. - Other examples given.. There, are some projects that have -been built - -
recently that have failed; but; there -are not enaugh�lone to -_determine a:_. - -
failure rate. - - -
The Review Committee adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
A-20 - -
97- 493
CITY OF MIAMI
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROCESS
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 31,1996
SUMMARY
Committee Members Present:
Robert Masrieh (Chairperson)
Jim.Courbier
Capt. Bob Lewis, Bob Lewis, Inc.
Joyce.Nelson
Jim Flanigan
Committee Members Present/City Employees:
Eduardo Rodriguez, Director; -Office ofAsset-Management_.::....._...-
Frank Rollason, Deputy. Fire Chief, Risk Management
Christina Abrams; Director, Conferences 'Conventions and Public Facilities ---
Phil Luney, Assistant Director,:Department-of`Finance
City Staff Present:
Jack Luft, Director, Department.of.Community Planning and Revitalization (CPR)
Arleen Weintraub, Assistant Director, (CPR)
Gary-Leuschner,.Project Manager
Erica McKinney, UDP Coordi ' r,_(CPR) ^ -
Lilia Medina, Senior Planner, (CPR) `
Linda K. Kearson, Esq.; Asst City Attorney - —_
CPA Firm:
Darryl K: Sharpton, Sharpton;:Brunson;. & :Company,-P.A.
Members of the Public:. Approximately 35_in attendance:.:A sign up sheet.is- available in. the -project file
for review. - --
Y The meeting was called to order--at-9 27a.m -- -
Staff Announcements:- - - - - - ----_- '
Jack Luft, Department Director opened the committee deliberations and cautioned the committee
that these deliberations were limited_ to- questions and comments -related --to the.- proposal-- -
presentations and staff members. No discussion with or from the floor (the public), all discussion
.._andconversation is confined to the staff and the Review Committee.
97- 493
•
•
• New business. Arleen Weintraub passed out copies of the minutes of the Committee Meetings of
October 22, and 29th 1996 for adoption by the Committee. The summary of October 29`h was a
preliminary report. The minutes were reviewed by the Committee and seconded and approved.
• Arleen announced that, videotapes of the October 29' proceedings -would-be, available to Committee
I
members upon request.
• Review of the Evaluation Procedures - --
Arleen walked the Committee through the evaluation process. It was established that individual
staff reports would be made prior to each -evaluation -criteria of concem. The evaluation matrix
was reviewed by the Committee and a sample matrix was shown on the overhead projector..It
was explained that these. procedures were formalized by City policy. An evaluation sheet for each
proposer was distributed to the Review Committee. The evaluation as per City . policy. was
explained. The ranking sheets would be the basis of the Review Committee's report -to the -City=
Manager.
• Financial Capability Report/Evaluation
Darryl K. Sharpton, .CPA _provided _the -Review -Committee: with :a- financial -recap --of the proposal
submissions. A modified transcript is attached.
• Historic Preservation Report/Evaluation -
Sarah Eaton, City of Miami Historic -Preservation Officer;: distributed: a report_ evaluating all submitted::.=
proposals as to conformity .with. the Secretary; of, the Interiors. "Standards -for Rehabilitation."_ The....
Officer deemed that .the historic preservation evaluation for the redevelopment . of : the_ Dinner Key
waterfront should address five distinct questions:_--
1. Are both hangars proposed -for -preservation?. ,-::-::.:
2. Do proposed alterations to the hangars preserve their architectural- character?
3. Is the historic relationship between the -iwo hangars preserved?..If: new. additiQn; j5 proposed - -
between the hangars, does it allow the mass and form of the two structures- ta-ble perceived?= .-_-
4. Is the historic relationship between the hangars and Biscayne Bay preserved in at least some
form? -
5. Is any proposed new construction compatible with the historic character - of the property in
terms of size, scale, design and "materials?
97— 493
All three proposals called for the preservation of both hangars and none proposed any alterations
to the hangars themselves. Therefore, the evaluation rested on the remaining criteria. The Staff
Report is attached a s Appendix B.
• The Review Committee discussed whether to rank each proposal after the pertinent staff evaluation
or to evaluate and rank all aspects of the proposal together. The Review Committee decided to rank
all aspects of the proposal together.
• Jack Luft referred the Review Committee to pages forty-eight and forty-nine- of the- RFP -which-
outlines the evaluation criteria for each proposal:
• Review Committee Deliberations
Each Review Committee member shared opinions, comments and concerns regarding the
proposals. Some commented on each proposal and which proposal they supported.
• Minority Participation Report/Evaluation
Anne Whittaker, Procurement -Contracts Officer did not - attend _ the_ meeting. -Instead; =;
Arleen Weintraub explained that in- her =report:._Ms. Whittaker assessed _and-; summarized.- -
the _
the minority participation -in each:proposal._She- did not rank the -proposals in -these- areas .
rather she examined the extent to which minorities were utilized in each.project proposal.
Copies of the written evaluation were distributed to Review Committee members. The
Staff Report is'attached a s Appendix B.
Scoring and Ranking of the Proposals -
Prior to the evaluation. the -Assistant; City -Attorney, Linda Kearsonread _the. following_
information into the record:
This Committee is charged :with evaluating the information, that -been= -provided :to
you. You should not consider any information that may have been brought out in.:a :'
presentation and has not been documented. Additional information clarifying apoint of'a=- - -
proposal may be considered but new information or undocumented in-formation-may.riot .
be considered. --- ---------_--
Ms. Kearson stressed that if information was not submitted in the proposals, it may dot be
considered by the Review Committee in its evaluation.
Each -Review Committee member filled out a --score sheet for -each. proposal._ These -were. _,.-.-....
translated into a ranking score. Then each proposal was ranked orally, by each Review
Committee member.. These. scores -were filled into a blank summary sheet and were
projected by an overhead projector. -The- results_were -as_follows:
97- 493
# 1 Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Inc.
#2 Hangar in the Grove, Inc.
#3 Grove Harbour Marina & Caribbean Marketplace, LLC
• Robert Masrieh, Review Committee Chairperson, solicited from Review Committee
members, recommendations and suggestions for the Final Review Committee .Report to the
Manager.
Mr. Masrieh suggested two recommendations: -
• That the successful proposer be required- to--meet-the-required--number-of - -
parking spaces as per the City of Miami Zoning.Code.
• Equivalent ad valorem taxes should be -paid in -addition -to the -minimum, rent_ .
from the start of the lease whether negotiated or not..
• Committee Discussion: Preparation of Final Report tol the City- Manager--__
Arleen Weintraub taxed _ that _-,there-_ m :a. provision for _a :Committee-. _Member :to = _file:- _a_.=
minority opinion along with the Committee's Report; should. any member. so deswe
Linda Kearson advised . the -Review Committee not to speak with anyone. including
proposers until the final report has been ratified -and all -.comments and actions ware_. _..
accurately reflected so -that the integrity_ of the UDP process may be maintained. :.
The meeting adjourned -at 1-2:18 p.m:
A-24 _ ._
Financial Capability Report/Evaluation Record
Darryl Sharpton: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee and the
public. I have a recap of my assessment of the individual categories that were discussed two days
ago.- I, would like to bring to your attention that two changes have been made, the first change
pertaining to the investment amount line item under the Grove Harbour Marina Group for. the
original schedule handed to you, the amount of investment for that proposal was shown as $5
million` the new schedule that you have reflects -$7.4 million -the- difference pertain- i... ta.:.-Ahe-
funding from the City for reconstruction. of the difference between the slips which was not part of
the 5 million capital cost. I bring to your attention for the change in the equipment in the .first
.schedule. The other change shows up on line 2.1t -pertains -to Hangar in the Grove construction
time. The original schedule reflects a period of 4 years, the schedule you have now reflects a time
from 2 years and it was in fact reflected in the proposal. You or I raised the question during the
oral.: presentation at that time for clarification of the two phases, which was indicated in the: oral
portion that : the . development .will take up to . four years to complete. For the record, -I do -have
another change for clarification ,mentioned that -one of the professional. management-.team's.. _-
(Grove Harbour) resume -was _not included in the proposal. Therefore I was -not able -to- - assessthee -
marina capability and expertiseof Mr. Carl. Straw.. It was brought to- my attention -that- the -resume
was ;in the proposal. -Mr.. Straw has. -in excess of 20 years_in-the marine: industry. -.'Ms-, ow top -of.,_ .._
pertheeprincipals of that group havgthemencIeel�codent,thispoint that -they nnconfident, - =
arecapable' of managing the -development as -proposed. I: could go over each :and ever line item,
those are the changes to the, original schedule to the points .of clarification that you have....
Jim. Courbier: Question, we have gone over all this before except for the changes. One question,
can you confer or identify the present -value of each of these three proposers?: _ _
Sharpton: - Yes ;
Sharpton: -Yes I can. I can do that for two of the --pro posers. One -of the _proposers asked for. a. .
deferral of rent to a later -year. _I am---not-sure--howthat deferral -would �be:structured. h:did make -;an
assumption of simple straight average or ten year period of $800;000 for Hangar=in--the Grove,
calculating '$800,00Q -rent __deferral,' but not privilege mi ,:future periods -and I did make- some' - —
present assumption about how -the - life- -and structure `came: up with the . present -value that I am
prepared to discuss this morning.:
Robert Masrieh: In relation to the increase in the Grove Harbour Marina in the investment
point,, the increase in investment to .$7.4 million. Wouldn't it be much more accurate to indicate
$6.4 in planning as the actual cost for anticipating the equivalent cost of improvements rather
than the actual cost of performance. -
Sharpton: I argue that point Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that the community dollar
adjustment also be carried also to the other proposers so the Hangar in the Grove Group includes
the anticipated $2.4 million.
A 7 C
•
Masrieh: The .increase of $5 million to $7.5 million, the only difference is the 2.4 million,
so there investment includes the City's $2.4 million?
Sharpton: Yes.
Masrieh: So taking out the 2.4, their investment could change. The only difference between
the two is that in the Grove Harbour case, they are indicating what the City would pay for the
slips in terms of what they expect. As in the case of the other two proposers. There could be
some counseling required. about this, including the City's fund I would hope, so keep it clear in
case the number is 1.4. That's what we have been hearing from the Planning Department is that it
will cost that amount of money.
Sharpton: I will turn it over to Jack Luft.
Jack Luft: What is important..about this message is to give a iclear understanding of the
numbers. Whether it is_2.4,_I_would be hesitant to -change the numbers since 2.4 is outside the
value. We could find something that could. include:.raising_the cost.Jt_is not necessary to pick a
number based on the actual construction. It is only necessary --to .know_ that- 2.4 is what -the City
proposed. It may only cost-1.4; so for your purposes you need -to either subtract .the amount -from - - -
the .proposals if they are included.-- Ivant you to_ understand -_that. -them contribution -is not -the- -.„
question. We don't: need - to change -the numbers as . long as we- -have an -understanding . of: the -
numbers and how they apply.
Masrieh: In one of the items there is a line item from the -three -proposers.. It is required by
the RFP, in terms of real estate taxes, there .,is no.line item here indicating how each proposer is. .
dealing with that issue. It came out during the proposals that at least two -or -three were addressin
the tax in terms of paying at an assessed value either from the stand point from the County
assessment or from the : stand, point of the required: assessing_- valuation._ One: proposer . was:
delivering that part and -expenditures for four years.:
Sharpton: That.. is - a good point.--- We had planned to do. -that `Tuesday_: and` this:
morning, we did not have sufficient time.
Masrieh: I think it -is an -important item to be -included in our -analysis -since potentially, four
years on, non. payment of_taxes. comes_ out to .,quite. an, amount.
Eduardo Rodriguez: I would like to make a clarification also for Atlantic Clipper. Sectfion 5
page 2. There is a section here that if the -City- doesn't provide -the. -time _for the cost- of -Capital-,: ;
Improvements, whether it^is 2.4 or 1.4, that the proposal will be altered to the rights of Atlantic,
here on the summary sheet this paragraph page 2 section 5.
Sharpton: I am not sure how to answer your question.
Rodriguez: Do you have a proposal with you from Atlantic Clipper? Look into the section
that I referred Section_5, Page 2, it said ready to receive Capital Improvements.
9?- 493- -
•
Sharpton The second paragraph?
Rodriguez: It indicates time for rights.
Sharpton: The question is in regard to terminology. Is it something you want to discuss
now?
Rodriguez: Yes, I just want to discuss a few things.
Sharpton: We can do it now. I did two and their computation of what the minimum rent
payable to the City would be based on the representation or assumption inthe-proposals The rent
structure, the outline in -the summary - sheet that you have before you, not withstanding • the
changes which were recently suggested. That change or that assumption considered an
undervalued knowledge of rent paid on behalf of Atlantic Clipper in the actual results I am about
to give you. The 10 year _net present value,net determinate ranking value -for the. City are as -
follows for the followin_H67;1
Atlantic Clipper $1.975-78;- again- I would like to -say that the` S800,000 is --something =that is--- - = -
assumed, it is not part--of---the continue computation._, It: is__expected that_ in- the _20. year
computation, the relative ranking at -this time would--be-assigned-to.- who -pays the:_most under_the, .
minimum rent structure, the point of the assumption.is.that; the _10 years_through 20 years -would
be based -on whether and how -the present -value would be-factored-in:the present value.cash flow.
stream, divided by the average. The additional rent over that ten year period would be 7.2, 727 a
year, in addition to the minimum rent of 300,000. Now, this does not say, that this is°what-the 20
year return -looks like for_the_following_groups, Atlantic-Clipper2,75266-Grove Harbour. `�. _
Eduardo Rodriguez: Please repeat. _
Sharpton: 2,705,266 that's. for Atlantic. Clipper.. Grove -Harbour 2,240,833:and:Hangar_in_the
Grove $1,765,670, thank you very -much. -=
Frank Rollason: Mr. Sharpton you gave us the revised one. Is there any information given`-*_
to us in the presentation . that is not. reflected in _. here?- , When Atlantic Clipper gave t441
presentation, they indicated that -_they would -have the. construction completed -in _less -than two - -
years. This revisions still--says_=that-.:information is not disclosed. So --exactly what should- we
consider? What is in this copy or what was presented orally? >'r�
'i
Sharpton:.. The proposal indicates that_ there will be .a two year- development period I did not
note that in my initial presentation. Having that fact now, that they didn't disclose based on the
requirements of the RFP; I -would need to change this in. the final report in reference to the RFP.
Rodriguez: We have numbers based on the fact of revenues and expenses. So do you have at
this time an analysis to tell -the -committee -if the numbers are. specific or -not:?
- 97- 493
0 . 0
Shartpon: We are in the ongoing process of doing that and that means we have to review
several assumptions. The main assumptions that we are concerned about is that at the present,
the committee has to, do the analysis as the charter cap. We found the assumption made
reasonable as noted.
Phil Luney: The minimum rent that is proposed in'the RFP, can someone schedule the
assumption basis for $300,'000 now?
JackLuft: The City -has not estdblislfed through �'the 7-dpgfdiSAI--procegs''at -this-- point - the
minimum value which we would normally Use through an appraisal. We do not mean that
because we believe that from a staff standpoint in terms of the RFP. We are not able to know in
advance in drafting. the *RFP what would be the a reasonable assumptions as to levels of
investment, levels ' of organization, level of. uses.. If the uses had different combination and
possibilities it would then be extremely difficult to appraise- the use value'the'commercial value
of the property prior to seeing the proposal. What did; happen before is that the commission when
it considered the RFP and -authorized issuance determined that the value of minimum based.rent
of 300,000. They directed -that -the RFP reflect -that as a'suggested--minimum.: It was--not--based-
upon an appraisal but it was the commissions assumption that it would be -a -reasonable- amount.
What this literally means is that if we1ad-done-an appraisal -of fair market value",as- Would -be -'-
ultimately required b.y-the-.cha4er,then .�,We;.w6uld-.,be�boiind-by-.,t.hat�-lilL.Ijmlxt,. as, -in the -.appraised=-..---,
:
fair- market. value- and -that -would become- an -absolute-mininium.; ------- We- will- do that- based-Aipofi
these selected proposals before wecorne'to a lease terms then we will get two market appraisals
and: they will be established base on actual proposals of the approval by the commission who
look at what the fair market base rent should be.- Then that would become- the absolute number.
It mayor may not pass. the- $300,000 --that-the. commission - felt they were desirous of. Right,now
those numbers are flexible- based -(benchmark--) on the -indication -of what the commission feels _-is_
reasonable.
Luney: Does that mean the minimum rent as proposed can be negotiated by the City?
Luft: What that means is that the° proposal may---include;---fully-i�-any�tevels -that they felt '-their--c.
particular pr6ject'can support and in their opinion the fair market minimum rent would try ...(tape .
end)
Masrieh: The three proposers have. given their- proposals based on their: operatiory and -/etc-.----
does that mean that prior to a contract based upon their proposals the general based rent dri4'the
percentages that are proposed will be negotiated at that time by the City?
Luft-. Yes sir,'thes-e are the proposals by 'virtue of the City accepting or approving the any one
proposal. We are not- bound. by.virtue 'of that- assessment, to deliberate the number of rent
presented, that is the view point we get from the deadline of the negotiation process. The City
always reserves the right to negotiate on those numbers. 11
97- 493
Luney: I just want to make sure. Let's say for example the marina population, is settled.
This depends on how much is proposed and the operation that is proposed etc. marina -operations
and the total of revenue to be turned to the City would be ..?
Jack Luft: Yes, right now we don't know how many slips. There could be 52 at minimum as
the City decides to recreate more depending on how many or how many the proposer seek. The
lease negotiations are concluded and based upon those details. We will arrive at a cumulative
value of the property at which we will establish the percentages of gross, their percentages
whether it be retail spaces etc.: Whatever are the -retail;-sales_-we will- attach the minimum
percentage.
Christina Abrams: I -have- a problem with the fact that most of the- dealers- were -saying `ire - -
really don't have the exact numbers or face value or anything on that." What is the present value
criteria and why isn't the present appraisal value criteria present on this page?
.Jack Luft: . We did not establish the appraisal written in the RFP. We are asking the -
proposers to give us. recommendations as Ito --their lease program .and. to --lay out - for -us' -their
assumptions on what that program will generate including revenues. ---What it will -cost -them' -to
build that; how do those. revenues. and = cost as, Mr. .Sliarpton rhos reviewed- and found to be -
reasonable. There will: -be •a -new term: to the. investor -and --to -the-City:: -.-We. did .not know what that
would beat the beginning: therefore -we could not, in the RFP, -say what the minimum -base -rent - -
should be because the rent .options were. 'Now that we move closer to that, you have the three
proposals and their based estimate. It is for you to judge the reasonable amount of space based on
the information you have before you and its assessment by the CPA and the lease program. This
one has the most potential. -for- the City and then ultimately that will be carried over to the
Commission. You have- m-rt y opinion, to make an..appraisal:evaluation_ of the, site -on -the value;
what they said they can do.
Masrieh: I think it would-be a disappointment to all, members_ of this._committee to find that
after going through this process it is completely out of our hands -that the minimum rent that we -
may have voting in ranking _the- successful -proposal,-get level-belowwhat we have_seen.__
Luft: Well, I would say Mr. Masrieh that we take that ,seriously in the numbers -put -in-these' - - - = -
proposals and to our, :opinion: that -that it: is, Temesented in -the final. negotiations-: as at_ least_a
starting point for us. However, from the standpoint_of-what the -City wantstolegally establish.by.
virtue of the charter and the minimum based rent, that would be a result of a detail appraisal,-'Wehave no control over the fact that those appraisers will present their findings based on these
programs and give us a number from a legal standpoint that would be the minimum. None of us
can control what that number is, that's why we have to go to an appraiser, but assuming that
number is close to what tlie. proposer said, we do intend negotiations.
Masrieh: I appreciate your comment ...said I just express my relief or more likely feelings
of this committee.
Luft: Sure.
493
A-29
0 0
APPENDIX B
TO -City of Miami Selection
Review Committee
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE
SUBJECT :
October 30 , 1996 FILE :
Minority Participation Contained
in Proposals for the Dinner Key
Waterfront Redevelopment
FROM : - . _.. _ : REFERENCES
Anne M. Whittaker
Minority/Women Business Affairs,,.Office ENCLOSURES
i
Please find belowa.summary of the minority/women:business enterprise (M/WBE)-participation _
. _as outlined in. -the proposals ,submitted by Grove Harbour -Marina, Atlantic Clippe undation; _.
and Hangar in the: Grove.---- The- City's- M/WBE ordinances -encourage Female, ---Black, and-
Hispanic firms/entities. in -the amount -of 17% for each -group, -to- increase equitable -distribution of
involvement by each -affected group.
Grove Harbour Marina;:_
Consists b iwo=entities, which 'shb*t /WBE involvement
1. HarbourManagerrient'Group- Inc U%o`interest .
98% of the principals for this entity are Hispanic:
Proportionately, the M/WBE--participation = 68:6%-of Grove's proposal-:
2. Southern Cross Marinas; t.C. _ = 30% interest - = ----
66% of the principals -for this entity are -Hispanic: = : -
Proportionately, the M/WBE:.participation-= 19.8% of Grove's proposal --
Total Hispanic Participation=:88.4% - -
Consultants were, listed -.1-however; ther6-was. no -indication- of -the %o--of =the ,scope -of -work
intended to:be performed-so;no per�entages could be assigned - - —
The only Black participation which could be discemed in this was Mr. -Ringo Cayard. -'As a -result'-- _
of oral clarification requested -in -the-meeting-of October 29, =1996';-the-proposer-°indicated that- -
participation. was estimated.-in-the-amount::3-5%:...::,_
Other M/WBE Participation:
In addition,. only one of. the _minority consultants in the proposal was.. certified_ as a minority
business by the City's.M/WBE Program: Pancoast Albaisa,Architects, Hispanic.
Milian Swain & Associates is certified by Metro -Dade -County, -as -Hispanic..:
Carlos Lacasa, Esq. is certified by Metro -Dade County, as Hispanic.
B-.1 ..
'�- 493
Selection Review Committee
Proposals for the Dinner Key Waterfront Redev.
Page 2,
Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Inc.
Consists of 5 principals, 3 of which minorities:
1. Atlantic Foundation Inc., = 30% interest
72.5%'of this -fir- is-Female=owned---
Proportionately,-Female participation .. = 22 %o of Atlantic`s proposal -
2. Terremark Centre, Ltd. = 28%interest
Oral Clarification was, requested at the meeting of October 29, 1996, and it was revealed that
more than 50% of this partnership was minority owned, though which designation was - not
specified.
Proportionately,, MMB Erparticipatiori was estimated_at- _14%:of.Atlantic's..proposal_ ,
3. Manuel Medina, principal__.. __. __..._..__ :_._ =14%interest. - - ------
Proportionately, Hispanic participation -.====44% of Atlantic's proposal
Other.M/WBE Participation::.=
Consultants were Misted, however, there was no indication of- e %:: of_. the -scope =of_ work
intended tobeerfbned Aso ono, percentages could beassigned -'Of the. consultants; -the.
following are certifiednrith tFie City's MN11BE program:
Manucy &Associates Hispanic:
Albert Perez&'Associates Hispanic
Clarification was sought: for -other -firms through: other government entities and --- we_:received_ -�
information on Wolfberg Alvarez, certified with Dade County Public Schools, as Hispanic-.-__ -- -
Hangar in the Grove; Inc. -
Consists of 5 pnncipals, 3-of which are -minorities- -
1. Kendrik Meefc = 2.8% interest
Proportionately, Black participation =.2A -
2. Domingo Gomez - _ —::--- _ . =-2.8% interesti-
Proportionately, Hispanic participation = 2.8%
3. Gonzalo & Marisela Diaz - - - - - - - = 2.8% interest
Proportionately, Hispanic participation = 2.8%
Total Hispanic Participation_.__._
B_.2. -
9 493
Selection Review Committee
Proposals for the Dinner Key Waterfront Redev.
Page 3
Other M/WBE Participation:
Consultants were listed; however, there was no indication of the % of the scope of work
intended to be performed so no percentages could be assigned. Of the consultants, the
following are certified with the City's M/ BE program:
Savino & Miller __ _._ Female
It was clarified that Harrison Construction (Non -minority) was joint venturing with CW
Construction (Female -owned firms, ;which the ;City was unable to certify) but the percentage of
Female participation was not available upon request
.Area Parks & Company is not certified as a. minority .business, but she is a sole owner and
operator of the firm.
In addition, Public -Market. Partners, and Coconut Grove. Local Development Coration, are
both :non-profit organizations_ -and -_cannot be accorded minority
'status, according to the City's
M/WBE Program; which only certified for -profit- business=entities..-
This office was*unable to obtain any further information from the other companies contacted,An
time to include in this memorandum:
DINNER K-EY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
REQUEST FOR UNIFIED, DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
EVALUATION OF THE CONFORMANCE OF EACH PROPOSAL
WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S
"STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION"
The historic preservation evaluation of any proposal for the
redevelopment of the -Dinner -Key-waterfront should -address -the
following questions::._, :
• Are both hangars proposed for_preservation?
Do proposed alterations to the hangars preserve their
architectural character-?
• Is the historic relationship between 'the two hangars . -- - - -
preserved? if a new addition is proposed between the
hangars, does it allow the mass and form of the. two
structures to be perceived?
Is the . historic = rela_tions-hip__.__ between_- the . hangars ,
-Biscayne Bay preserved- in: at least some .form?
• Is .any proposed new --co nstrucfio-n compatible With °-.the=:--
historic :-character --of- the- property - in .terms.. of. -size, -scale,
design, and materials?
All three proposals call for the preservation of both hangorg.-;
and none propose any alterations to the hangars themselves.
Therefore, the evaluation will.:focus..on .the_ impact of proposed
new.. construction on. the -historic -and -architectural character of
the property.
B-4
r_1
•
GROVE HARBOUR -MARINA AND CARIBBEAN MARKETPLACE
This proposal preserves the historic relationship between the
hangars and Biscayne Bay in that very limited new construction
is proposed in this area.
The historic relationship -_ betwe-en.the__two_ hangars, . however,-- is
compromised. The proposed -Market Arcade between the
buildings is incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, . and
materials. Any connection should be a neutral element that is
minimal Jn size and scale, and should not mimic.the form of the
historic buildings. The proposed arcade should be reduced in
height and set back. from _ both:- facades --of the -hangars, and -
the -design should..be.simplified.
Although some separation: _between -.uses: -may -be desirable, the-. -
Market Loggia provides: too: much- _=of a visual barrier between --
the''two hangars when ewed from - the water's edge. In -
addition'°the loggia is sited too close to the large hangar.
The .design of t_he_Marina Operations -:Office: is_:successful:-qs',.a
contemporary interpretation- of an airport..- control_ tower. Its
location and design: -:are compatible :with.--the.:character of the
site.
i
9? - 493
ATLANTIC CLIPPER FOUNDATION, LTD.
This proposal preserves the historic relationship between the
two hangars in that no physical connection is proposed
between the two buildings. The elongated retail building,
however, provides a visual separation between the two
hangars when viewed from the water's edge.
The historic relationship between the hangars and Biscayne
Bay, however, is virtually eliminated by the large amount -of
new construction- on -this portion ofthe-site.-- Although. the new -
buildings are smaller in scale than the hangars and allow the
hangars to continue to dominate the site; the -proposed -new -
construction is not compatible with the historic.character of the
site in terms of design -and materials. -= - -
The proposed: `design;:.although.-_appedling------in its -: own-
creates -a false'sense�of. historical -development and= -relates- t-o
the early history of Coconut Grove, not to the history .of Dinner
Key. Wood frame buildings are not consistent with the industrial
character of the- hangars --and-this__ particular: site.,.- -Dinner.::Key_ -
never was a quaint,:waterfront-village: -
- - B-6 917_.. 4.9.3....
HANGAR IN THE GROVE, INC.
This proposal preserves the historic relationship between the
hangars and Biscayne Bay in that very limited new construction
is proposed in this area. The proposed canopy is simple in
design and is clearly differentiated from the historic buildings.
Although it is compatible -with-.the- massing, size, and scale of -
the hangars, it. should be set back from the facades at both .
ends.
The proposal also preserves the historic relationship between
the hangars and Biscayne Bay in that virtually no new
construction is proposed. in -this.-area. The proposed marine
office facility and restaurant are far- removed from the hangars
and are compatible with the -historic -character of the -property:
in. terms of size: and: -scale..: -The- design: -and _materials -also-
appear to be consistent-:wiith the: -site._
B-7
97- 493
Hugh Westbrook;:Michael Moore*
Algh.Lima Felix
Felix Sabates,
Robert CNristoph
$9,420,000.
$5,000,000
2 To 4,years'
1 %2 years
i40�years
;40:years
$100,000 first 4 ears $800,000 deferred .
$300',000'year (5 - 9,years)
$360,000
$300,000 + ortion of $800;000 deferred 10-20 years)
p (
$300,000 year (21-40,years)
46,775 (including 5,000 for restaurant) . ``
50,000
Lima Sylvester Stallone, Steve
Perry, Manny Medina,
Rosario Kennedy
$6,000,000
within two (2) years
40 years
(with option to terminate
in year 20)
$350,000 years 1-10
$400,000 years 11-20
$500,000 years 21-30
$600,000 years 31-40
17,000 (marina related)
. 53,000 (film studio)
.140
I
i 99 144
Boaitya'rd, Marina; MarketT, lace,;and Restaurant; c:;r:. Boatyard, Marina,
Marketplace
Approximately $23
Approximately $20 million million
Corporation Corporation (LLC)
$1,884,000;,(over 4 years) $1,500,000
►::::>:::}::.::::::::..;:.}y E uit 20% E ui 30%
rt; fi S e q Y q. ty
Ppyate, Debt 80% Private Debt 70%
*Includes: soft costs: ! .
(1) not audited oj' independently verified'
(2) includes general partner and- one (1) limited 'partn. er i
(3) includes corporate investor
(A) Does. not include City contribution which could range from:$1.4 to $2.4 million -- .....
/D\ DCD �nFr�rnnr+ce fieM �ii 1/Par r1P,�lflfl �.:I� �'
144
Marina, Film Institute,
Boatyard
(2)
Approximately $31 million (3)
Limited Partnership
not determinable
not determinable
�b
RENTS AND TAXES •
DINNER KEY WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
HANGAR IN THE GROVE: GROVE:HARBOR MARINA:: ATLANTIC CLIPPER
PROPOSED MINIMUM RENT
AND TAXES
ASSUMPTION: NPV Q 12%
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
YEAR 11
YEAR 12
YEAR 13
YEAR 14
YEAR 15
YEAR 16
YEAR 17
YEAR 18
YEAR 19
YEAR 20
YEAR 21
YEAR 22
YEAR 23
YEAR 24
YEAR 25
YEAR 26
YEAR 27
YEAR 28
YEAR.29 ..
YEAR 30
YEAR 31
YEAR 32
YEAR 33
YEAR 34
YEAR 35
YEAR 36
YEAR 37
YEAR 38
YEAR 39
YEAR 40
S 100.000.00
S100,000.00
- - 5100,000.00
S 100.000.00
S708.246.00
S710,599.00
S718.811.00
S727,188.00
S735,731.00
- _ S744.446.00
$826.062.00
S835.128.00
_ .. S845,377.00
$853,810.00
S863,431.66
= S873,245.75
S883.256.13
S893.466.71
S903.881.51
S914.504.60
S852.613.15
S863.665.41
S874,938.72
$486,437.49
S898,166.24
S910,129.57
- S922.332.16
S934,778.80
S947,474.38
-' S960,423.87
S973,632.34
S987,104.99
S1,000.847.09
S 1,014,864.03
- S1.029;161.31
- S1,043.744.54
S1.058,619.43
S 1, 073.791 82
S 1.089.267.65
$1,105.053.01
CUMMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUES- -- - - - -
S400,000.00
S200.000.00
S400.000.00
S200,000.00
S531.000.00
S7.28.938.00
S531.000.00
S738,431.00
S537.930.00
S748.209.00
S545.068.00
$758,550.00
$552.420.00
5768,654.00
$565.041.00
S779,339.00
$572.992.00
S790,343.00
-$581,182.00
$801.679.00
S589.617.00
S800,854.00
S598.306.00
S812;880.00
- S607.255.18
S825.266:40
S616.472.84
S838,024.39
S625.967:02
S851.;165.12
:S635.746:03
eS864;700.08
- -$645.818.41.
_- :6S878.641.08
S656,192.96
S893,000.31
S666.878.75
S907.790.32
S677,885.12
S923.024.03
S689.221.67
S1,038,714.75
---S700;898.32
,.S1:054,876.19
S712.925.27
S1,071.522.48
_ - S7-25.313.03 ._
:--- - S1,088:668.15
S738,072.42
S1,106,328.20
S751,214.59
- S1,124.518.05
-°S764,751.03
--_= S:1.-1:43;253.59
$778.693.56
S 1,162.-551.19
--S793,054.37
=--S1.182.427.73
-:S.807,846.00
S1,202,900.56
,:-:.5823:081.38
__51: 23.987.58
-S838,773.82
--. S1,345.707.21
S854,937.03
S1,368078.42
S871, 585.14
S 1,391 i120.78
- S888,732.70
-- S1.4T4.854.40
S906,394.68
___ _..51.;439.300.03
S924,586.52
SX7464.479.03
S943,34.11
- ;3S,11;490.413.40
S962,623.84
S 1,517,125.80
S982.502.55
S 1.544.639.58
TEN (10) YEARS ...
_.... _. . _. $2,189,480.59 _._...._
$2,844,669.21
TWENTY (20) YEARS
$3,754,524.11
$3,978,209.97
THIRTY_(30).YEARS .. -
- :.: _$4.278;277:89
$4,408,265.19
FOURTY (40) YEARS
$4,471,452.43
$4,574,894.25
C-2
__..__$$,340,585.82 -
$4,881,802.43
-- $51526,690.52
$5,792,166.11
97- 493
R ENTS
0
DINNER KEY WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
HANGAR IN THE GROVE - GROVE HARBOR MARINA .ATLANTIC CLIPPE
PROPOSED MINIMUM RENT
ASSUMPTION: NPV p_ 12%
YEAR 1
$100,000.00
$300,000.00
- -- $100.000.00
YEAR 2
5100,000.00
$300.000.00
$100,000.00
YEAR 3
$100,000.00
$300,000.00
$412,500.00
YEAR 4
$100,000.00
5300,000.00
$412,5-00.00
YEAR 5
$300,000.00
3300,000.00
$412,500.00
YEAR 6
S300,000.0e _ _
$3001000.00
$412500.00
YEAR 7
$300,000.00
$200.000.00
-,$412,500.00
YEAR 8
- - - $300,000.00
5300.000.00
- 3412,500.00
YEAR 9
$300,000.00
3300,000.00
$412,500.00
YEAR 10
::.;. :.:._ $300.000.00
-S: 4W,000.00
3412,500.00
YEAR 11
$372,727.00
$300,000.00
$400;000.00
YEAR 12
$372,727.00
5300,000.00
5400,000.00 "
YEAR 13
- _ 5372,727:00 _--
5300,000.00
_ - : =.=. $400,000.00
YEAR 14
= ` -- S372,727.00 :;00,000.00
YEAR 15
- - 5372.727.00
$300.000:00
---__:$40000.00
YEAR 18
5372,727:00
$300,000.00
: ;5400;000.00
YEAR 17
$372,727.00
$300,000.00
$400,000.00
YEAR 18
$372.727.00
- $300,000.00
5400,060.00
YEAR 19
$372,727.00
$300.000.00
$400,000.00
YEAR 20
- -- -.$372,727.00
-3300.000.00
,`,$400,000.00
YEAR Z1
. -_
$300,000:00 -
-- 5300;0�.00
----_ S50Q;000.00
YEAR 22
$300,000.00
- 5300,000.00
. $500,000.00
YEAR 23
= __._= _--_° = 5300:000:00 :__ . _:. :..........
. :$300,000.00
$SOQ,000.00
YEAR 24
5300,000.00
$300,000.00
__ _ = 5500;000.00
YEAR 25
_ :.; - : .$300,000.00 -
- 5300,000.00
_ _ _ :-$500,000.00
YEAR 26
$300.000.00 .
- _ - =0.000.00
- - 5500,000.00
YEAR 27
: ` _ ' _ --
$300,000.00
YEAR 28
$3004000.00
-.. - $300.000.00
_ $500,000.00
YEAR 29 .:
-.-$300,000.00
3300,000.00 .::....
. _ _ - -- - _ _ S500y000.00 ...
$506;000:O0
YEAR 30
-:, 5300,0OO.OQ .. -
..$300.000:00
:.-- -
YEAR 31.
$300,000.00
S300,000.00
5600.0moo
YEAR 32
$300,000.00
4300,000.00
$600,000.00
YEAR 33
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
= :: ' �6001000.00 .
YEAR 34
$300,000.00
$300.000.00
% S600,000.00
YEAR 35
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
$600,000.00
YEAR 36
$300,000.00
$300.000.00
3600,000.00
YEAR 37
5300.000.00
$300.000.00
__-- 3600:000.00
YEAR 38
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
- .- _ .$600,000.00
YEAR 39
$300.000.00
1300,000.00
- - - -$600;000. 00
YEAR 40
$300=0.00
$300,000.00
$600,000.00
JMMULATIVE NET PRESENT -VALUES---- _--__=__
TEN (10) YEARS $1,087,597.04
TWENTY (20) YEARS 51.755.669.67
THIRTY (30) YEARS $1.941.391.78
- - --- --- -- " o
$1,695,068.911.802,576.08
$2,240,833.09 �2 rj30,264 `29"
�2,416,655.19 $2 8Z3.13a 47 ...
9'7 493
c7 47*1 q'lo nn 52.936.290,09
TAXES
DINNER KEY WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
HANGER IN THE GROVE:; GROVE.HARBOUR MARINA ATLANTIC CLIPPER:
PROPOSED PROPERTY TAXES
ASSUMPTION: NPV @ 12%
YEAR
1
50.00
2
50.00
3
S0.00
4
50.00
5
S408.246.00
6
$410.599.00
7
S418.811.00
8
S427;188.00
9
$435,731.00
10
S444,446.00
11
$453.335.00
12
:_ S462.401.00
13
- $472.650.00 -
14
S481.083.00
15
$490,704.66
16
$500.518.75
17
:. $510.529.13
18
S520,739.71.
19
$531.154.51
20
S541,777.60
21
S552.613.15
22
S563,665.41
23
S574,938.72
24
$586.437.49
25
S598.166.24
26
S610.129.57
27
_. S622.332.16
28
S634.778.80
29
S647,474.38
30
S660,423.87
31
S673.632.34
32
-' S687,104.99
33
- - $700.847.09
34
S714.864.03
35
S729,161.31
36
$743.744.54
37
S758.619.43
38
S773.791.82
39
S789.267.65
40
S805.053.01
CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUES
TEN (10) YEARS
TWENTY (20) YEARS
THIRTY (30) YEARS
FOURTY (40) YEARS
S 100,000.00
5100.000.00
S 100.000.00
S 100.000.00
S231,000.00
S316.438.00
S 231,000.00
$325.931.00
$237.930.00
S335.709.00
$245.068.00
$346.050.00
$252,420.00
S356.154.00
$265.041.00
S366.839.00
$272,992.00
S377.843.00
S281,182.00
S389,179.00
S289,617.00
S400.854.00
.$298.306.00
S412.880.00
- .5307,255.18
-S425.266.40 -
.S316.472.84
$438.024.39
S325,967.02
S451.,165.12
S335.746.03
: . _. _: S464.700.08 -
S478.641.08
$356.192.96
S493.000.31
$366478.75
S507,790.32
S377,885.12
S523.024.03
S389,221.67
S538.714.75
S400,898.32
S554.876.19
S412.925.27
S571,522.48
S425,313.03
$588.668:15 .
-- --S438.072.42
- = $606.328.20
-_ S451,214.59
S624.518.05 -
S464,751.03
S643.253.59
_
S478.693.56
._-_--.,::-S662.551.19
$493,054.37
S682.427.73
S507,846.00
.-S702.900.56
S523.081.38
S723.987.58
S538.773.82 -
- .., : $745.707.21 :.-
-- --- S554,937.03
=_ -" _"S768.078.42-
S571,585.14
$791.120.78
S588,732.70
S814.854.40--
S606,394.68
S839.300.03.
_S624.586.52
__._..... 5864.479.03
S643.324.11
- ---S890.413 40.-
- S662.623.84
` S917.1:25.`80
S682.502.55
S944.639:58
1 101 884
$1,149,602
$1,988,854
$1,737,377
$2,336,886
$1,991,710
$2.473,483
- - $2.101,761
$1,759,222
- $2.351,538
$2,703,556
$2:855,876 - -
9
C-4
Masrieh: Any other comments for Mr. Sharpton?
Abrams: In the Hangar in the Grove proposal, they recommend $100,000 which will be
paid the City the first full year and deferred the $200,000 as specified in the RFP. Could we
require they pay the minimum 300,000 should they be offered qualifications ?
..............
Luft: I' m sorry ?
Abrams: The Hangar in. the Grove referenced ,-$100,000 in rent. In -my observation that is
significantly less than the other proposers. Does this mean that whatever the City and the
commission will recommend to this proposer, there's got to be the actual -minimum -of -the -fee - --- —
that the RFP stated which is a minimum of $300,000?
Luft: Right, the RFP says it as a suggested minimum of $300;000. That is not an absolute
number it is a benchmark the commission gave us. The $100,-000 reflects the deferral of rent that
is not in this total.. There is rent being held for a period of time, then if, however, the
presentation has been -made-..the proposers _did_ know- _that,: -that - certainly -will. be a point- of
negotiations and the City may not choose to-do it.. They would need to. reconsider that position
so I think these are all numbers -'that can.be:-put-on-the_-table_but what this-committee=can
answer. this question precisely'in the written report `as, you begin ranking. I --will present 'your
recommendation to the manager::: We will make a. finding to .that .committee that, thatnumber
either should not be :deferred or be.higheror some way adjusted in whatever way .you think it. is
reasonable as in value for the commission consideration. That's one way through the written
report to fight those kind of considerations.
Frank Rollason: The fact that we are a- committee; we are getting beyond where we -should---
be and what our charter is-. I- think; -we should =be cooking=at :these proposals : gainst -the: criteria--:.. ;
that has been supplied in -this (RFP) -That-theywent out and -that -.somebody above- or below --this - =
happens to reflect what's. -on the:-RFP.So:once-they--get-beyond-this-point from--where-it--is-=----- --=.
presented, we move- along- to,:the--next - step =-and= eventually: go` before -_the commission.-_
(interruption) .... on moving the ranking in making recommendations 1, 2 3, and I think if you
know the history of how things -happen number 3 can -be -number 1.
Masrieh: Any other comments? -I --guess- we -could- start our. raniting:
Sharpton: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a final comment mentioned about the
minimum rents for the proposers. I would like to give the principals' reported net worth. I use the
term reported for a .reason under this category Grove -Harbour- -who- I --have-- here-- showing -- - -
approximately $60 million, a portion of that $60 million comes from a- representation- through--- -
newspaper articles and magazine articles, they determined what the net worth is as the principals
in that group they stated on the financial statement, that number would be approximate $25
million dollars as opposed -to $60- million -:I-would _-like-this -point -of .information put.on_.the..,____. __. ..._.
record. Thank you very much.
9?- 493
A_In
Robert Masrieh: All board members have the three ranking sheets?
Arleen Weintraub: One ranking sheet for each team.
Jack Luft I need to give some of the instructions to the committee as to how to consider
some of the design of the Virrick Gym. Today given the presentations concerning the Virrick
Gym I just have a couple of comments. It will be appropriate considering permanent outcome. At
the Grove Harbour Marina there was a consideration of a million dollars that is the general
consideration information to -take into accounts to -be returned::- to--the-City,--that_they- offer- to- ,
contribute. However, as of yesterday. That it may or may not be possible to spend. that .much
money on any or all of it on the adjacent property, we don't know. what the -costs--are, so the .
money may. not be coming back -to -the City -as -it was -a voluntary contribution. This does - not -
necessarily means that the Virrick Gym until we know what the full cost area On the question of
u on the relationship to the Grove on the marina site. All proposers. in some respect or another
have indicated other kinds of treatment as in. or relationship. along the clear of. the Chart drive. I
want to be clear that the committee understood that the driveway_into the southern portion ofthe
property is in fact within- the. Grove. Key Marina to- be. sold- is not _.Dart _of this offering.- So -now it
is appropriated with.the-proposers-,name together with. the recommendations- suggestions and
recommendations from the. proposers might be a desirable - change.- The Committee needs: to .
understand that it is. not__appropriated_in_;my:power,-department or::the_City_to.assure.that_those
treatments can in fact be -done in-the,-way-.in=which it -was_ -presented _�o-you need to factor in your -
consideration or ranking the_site_plans that the proposers to a greater or:lesser..,extent.�.provide.all
those treatments, may .not be possible.. It may. There is a _question .there we did ask: the proposers
in the RFP to suggest treatments in relationships to the public properties as appropriate bitt .to the
extent which is outside the least hold you need to consider that whatever treatment proposed may _
not be the way in which. the :proposers -suggestion in_the relationship -to the=adjacent.lbts how.it
proposed. As to -the suggested pier and boatyard -in the- Grove- boatyard proposal. that includes
Hangar in the Grover .It -is ---true that- there- aFe conditions_
regarding the relationship: towards- how the improvements uses iri the ordinance over the water. It
needs to be cautioried that:the--committee- must .-consider _-..that in_the_charter it__has, not been ,
determined whether a-[interruption]:Hangar_ in :-the ;.Grove does., ad improvement over -the -I., .
water to the extent that they are not absolutely .water -.dependent, over_the. _water- in the that
remains a real question:.. The policy of Dade County is that they -would- not.. as -a -matter -of rigli - - - -
permit those unless they were -water. independent. I. can-_tell-y_ou_that-there are-other.projects and . ..:
proposals currently on: -the -:table - that - do attempt to -make those- .kinds -.of. improvements and to
some extent that is the final approach with other agencies.- The-RFPsaid -that-they-must folla� all
reputable guidelines and procedures of the County the City and the State according to/their
instructions u so it is not in the final analysis which could be answered today.
Courbier. ,-Jack.correct me if I am wrong but, didn't that group indicate that they have done
some research to the -fact that they have a preexisting structure... That there 'was preliminary
conservation or that it was likely there a normal situation
Luft You can consider that statement and those assumptions. I am just cautioning you again
that it is not a given and the impact that is engineer etc., on the analysis. I'm going to have Sarah
97_ 493
A_1,
Eaton to make some statements on the design Sarah, is the preservation of officer of the City of
Miami.
TO
City of Miami Selection
Review Committee
APPENDIX B
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE
SUBJECT
FROM : _ . _ -. - REFERENCES
Anne M. Whittaker .
Minority/Women Business Affairs -Of lice ENCLOSURES
October 30, 1996
FILE :
Minority Participation Contained
in Proposals for the. Dinner Key
Waterfront Redevelopment
Please find .below a summary of the minority/women.business enterprise (M/WBE) -participation
as outlined: in ,_the proposals ;submitted by Grove Harbour Marina atlantic: Clippundation;
and Hangar in. the .:Grove. The City's M/WBE ordinances encourage Female, Black,, _and
Hispanic firms/entities'in=the amount of 17% for each -group; to increase equitable distribution of.
involvementby each affected group.
.Grove Harbour Marina
Consists of two�entities; :which show�MNVBEinvolvement:
.
1. Hartiour;Management`Group; lnc:0%'interest
98% of the principals for this entity`are Hispanic:
Proportionately, the M/WBE-participation = 68.6% of Grove's:proposal_ --
2. Southern Cross Marinas, L.C. = 30% interest ,
66% of the principals -for -this: entity:are:Hispanic: = -
Proportionately,:the M/WBE participation =19.8% of Grove's-proposaF - =
Total Hispanic Participation= 88.4% - - -
Consultants were -;listed; .-however,:.-there.-was rio ;indication 'of .the- % :of.the scope of work-:_!
intended to be-performedso-no;percentagescould-be assigned:
The only Black participation which could be discerned in this was Mr: -Ringo Cayard. Asa =result` =- ... .
of oral clarification requested. in:the_meeting=.of.October 29,- 1-996,--the-.proposer indicated, that - - -
participation was estimated -in the amount 3-5%. --
Other MAI BE Participation:
In addition, .only one of the, minority consultants in the proposal_ was certified as a minority
business by: the City's.M/WBE Program: Pancoast Alb aisa,Architects, Hispanic.
Milian Swain&Associates is certified :by.Metro-Dade.County', as Hispanic: -
Carlos Lacasa, Esq. is certified by Metro -Dade County, as Hispanic.
B-1
97- 493
•
r�
U
Selection Review Committee
Proposals for the Dinner Key Waterfront Redev.
Page 2
Atlantic Clipper Foundation, Inc.
Consists of 5 principals, 3 of which minorities:
1. Atlantic Foundation Inc., = 30% interest
72.5%;of this firm it-Female=owned— _- -- _
Proportionately, Female participation,,. ; 22 't-ofAtlantic`s-proposal
2. Ten emark Cenfre, Ltd. = 28% interest
Oral Clarification Was requested at the meeting .of October 29, 1996,1 and it was revealed that
more .than 50% :of . this:partnership was_minority -owned, though --which designation- was- not
specified.
Proportionately, ..MNVBE participation=was-estimated at.=.14%:of-Atlantic's proposal-_ _
3. Manuel:Medina :principal ...:..: _.. __ 146/ointerest : . .... .:... ..
Proportionately, Hispanic participation--=-14%of Atlantic's proposal - -
Other M/ BE Participation:;-
Consultants,�were listed, ;however; there was _ no indication :of ahe % of the -scope of -'Work'-.
amended to be ti� bt nets so; �o percentages=could be ssigned. ,,` 'Of. the.. consultants,. the
:.
followingare certifed+rith the City's MMBE program.•
�Y
Manucy &Associates 'Hispanic
Albert Pere Associates Hispanic
Clarification was sought for other firms through other government entities and we received
information on Wolfberg Alvarez, certified with Dade County Public Schools, as Hispanic.
Hangar in the Grove; Inc. N.
_Consists of'5 principals .3 of which are minorities:
1. Kendrik Meek: ' ..;; :::: - _ = 2,8% interest - ------
Proportionately, Black participation- - -- = 2.-8%' -
2. Domingo Gomez
Proportionately,'Hispanic participation = 2.8%
3. Gonzalo & Marisela Diaz = 2.8% interest
Proportionately, Hispanic participation = 2.8%
Total Hispanic Participation..... _... _.. _ _ . = 5.6%
B_2 .. -.. .
9-7- .193
Selection Review Committee
Proposals for the Dinner Key Waterfront Redev. --
Page 3
Other M/WBE Participation:
Consultants were listed; however, there was no indication of the % of the scope of work
intended to be performed so no percentages could be assigned. Of the consultants, the
following are certified with the City's M/ BE program:
Savino & Miller _ _.Female
It _ was clarified that Hanson Construction (Non -minority) was joint venturing with CW
Construction (Female -owned firms, ;which the :City was `unable to certify) but the percentage of
Female participation was not available upon request.
Arva Parks & Company is not certified_ as a minority business, but she is a sole owner and
operator of the firm.
In addition, Public -Market. Partners, and. Coconut Grove Local Development CGq*)Xation, .are
both :non-profit organizations 7and °cannot be ccorded'; minority 'status, according to:the City's
M/WBE Program, which only certified for -profit business entities.
This office was unableao_obtain any -further information from the other companies -contacted,- in- _ -
time to include in this -Memorandum.--: :
9- 4 - 9 3
DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
REQUEST FOR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
EVALUATION OF THE CONFORMANCE OF EACH PROPOSAL
WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S
"STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION"
The historic preservation evaluation of any proposal for the
redevelopment of -the -Dinner -Key -waterfront should -address -the -
following questions:::
• - Are both hangars proposed for preservation?
• Do proposed alterations -to the ---hangars preserve their. -
architectural character.?
• Is the historic relationship. between the two • hangars
preserved? If a- new . addition is proposed between Jh6.
hangars, does- it allow the _ mass and form_ of the two
structures to be perceived?
• Is the historic. -. relationship _-_between-__the .-hangars and
Biscayne Bay preserved in._at least- some_ form?
• Is ''any proposed _new _ construction -_--compatible_ _with -=the=-= --:
historic character- of _theroerty_-.: in- : -terms-. of. size, scale,
design, and materials?
All three proposals call for the preservation of both hangars` °----- - and none propose any alterations to the hangars themselv's.
Therefore, the evaluation will focus on. the impact of proposed
new construction on the historic and architectural character of
the property.....
s-4
97- A93
0
•
GROVE HARBOUR MARINA AND CARIBBEAN MARKETPLACE
This proposal preserves the historic relationship between the
hangars and Biscayne Bay in that very limited new construction
is proposed in this area.
The historic relationship: between the. two hangars, _however, is
compromised. The proposed -Market Arcade between the
buildings is incompatible in- terms of size, scale, design,. and
materials. Any connection should be a neutral element that -is
minimal in size and scale; and should not mimic the form-of.the
historic buildings. -The proposed arcade should be reduced in
height and set back .from. both facades of the --hangars, and -
the design should. be.simplified.
Although some separation: between uses may be. desirable, the
Market: Loggia: provides ,too_ much of a visual;.barrtier between_.----
the fivo hangars when :viewed- from the waters: edge. In -
addition; °the loggia is sited too close to the large hangar.
The .design of the. _Marina -_Operations Office is..successful_ a's`,a
contemporary interpretation- of. an airport control tower.- Its
location and design- gre com-patible with :the character of the
site.
B-s
97 - 493
ATLANTIC CLIPPER FOUNDATION, LTD.
This proposal preserves the historic 'relationship between the
two hangars in that no physical - connection is proposed
between the two buildings. The elongated retail building,
however, provides a visual separation between the two
hangars whe.n.vi.ewe.d.from_the-wateCs_edge.
The historic relationship between the hangars and Biscayne
Bay, however, is virtually eliminated by the large amount -of
new construction on this portion -of the -site... -Although the -new..
buildings are smaller in scale than the hangars and allow the
hangars to continue to dominate the site, the proposed new
construction is not compatible with the.historic character,of the
site in .terms of design and materials. -
The: proposed -design, although appealing= in its own .ng _ ,
creates:a false'sense=of historical-dev,eloprrment-and=-relates- t-o-
the early history of Coconut Grove, not to the history of Dinner
Key. Wood frame.buildings are -not -consistent with the industrial, -
character of the hangars and this_ particular .site. Dinner. _Key- ...
never was .a quaint, waterfront. village._
j,
HANGAR IN THE GROVE, INC.
This proposal preserves the historic relationship between the
hangars and Biscayne Bay in that very limited new construction
is proposed in this area. The proposed canopy is simple in
design and is clearly differentiated from the historic buildings.
Although it is compatible with_,,the_massing, 'size, and scale of
the, hangars, Jt. should be set back- from _the facades at both .
ends.
The proposal also preserves. the -historic. relationship between
the hangars and Biscayne Bay. in that virtually no new
construction is- proposed in this- area. The proposed marine
Office facility and restaurant are far removed from the hangars
and are compatible with -the. -historic -character of_tho property
in terms of size and _scale. The design and materials also
appear to be consistent-with:the-site..
s-7
97- 493
CO
rE�
;v �41• •��.i 1 ••
+
JJ:A•
}
�{,' y} q �• %`'
........... ..... , n...;{vr..v..+%v •: •r •.{+••: {}... ,{:ri}:CS}}.
}�;
;fi}: •..},: •..,5. . n
v. �+�\y','\\1ir^E�?+ii<2SnR':J:):i):Jj?:J )i?
i�:>I�IE��:�R�•'. -tit�2?;ii$ii`:?i:::::::j
.v::: •:
. \.
�2. '
Hugh Westbrook;:Michael Moore
Alan. Lima` Felix Lima
Sylvester Stallone, Steve
>;++:'•-.,4'::}:
'�
Felix Sabates
Perry Manny Medina
`..... ;:i ,�
Robert Ctiristoph
Rosario Kennedy
O+
I>E4
$ 9,420,000.
$5 1000000
$6 000, 000
:•}:v:.; i};:;j<?yiv"r }:r�i';+'•:1T: �f'i-r�'?Y{ `
2!To 4:years
1 /years
within two (2)
<,.. {.,4•.f.<:>JR iJf?R
years
'+ttk}f
40 years
>: `...; <:;<>+•
years.,: . i
y
40 years
(with option to terminate
in year 20)
KUffiffiffilOffiffi ff.tt $€rtt:'
$10Q;000 frst4 years ($800,000 deferred) " "
: I ' .. ;'
$350,000 years 1-10
t, K.,;�
$300,000 year (5-.,9,years);,
$366,000
$400,000 ears 11-20
::•:
$300,000 + portion of $800;000 deferred (10-20 years)
$500,000 years 21-30-
s
;•
$300,000 year (21=40 years)
600 000 years 31-40
775 .
46 includiii 5 000 for restaurant)
1 ( 9 / "
50,000
17,000 (marina related)
,.{,:��:,,,• •
53,000 (film studio)
sk
{v:::n• i v
•:>So��>t��:>���
_ _
140
`C12b NOW
-99 I
144
{•:rl.:Fi::•:•:•.^•.4:F:h?h.•.T+Af.iCR?1A4
I
I
144: .
::.`•,:;..<,:r:>.,:?.�';;r �:�t}F�xa�2�t^n•r ..,
ut>t1r'h
13o I 1 .I.i� - I
atyard, Manna, Markot:Place and Restaurant''.
Boatyard, Marina,
Marina, Film Institute,
............ ..
I
Marketplace
Boatyard
f'tCpiECi
;
Approximately $23
(2)
Approximately $20, million " "
" million
Approximately $31 million (3)
E o....p.-
'Corporation
Corporation (LLC)
Limited Partnership
..{{.;..
'>,k>, h, f •
,
$1.
;884000 (over 4 years)
: $15 00 000
:>,.:«>:r:; ;,;.
not determinable
"l?tt`l�IIE;:11`a v
Equity 20%
Equity 30%
Private'Debt'80%
Privatebebt70%
not determinable
*Includes ;soft costs.
(1) not audited or independently verified' �
(2) includes general partner and one (1) limited -partner
(3) includes corporate investor
(A) Does not include City: contribution which could range from i$1.4 to $2.4 million:
•
:7
0
RENTS AND TAXES
DINNER KEY WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
HANGAR IN THE GROVE:: GROVE : HARBOR- MARINA: ATLANTIC CLIPPER
PROPOSED MINIMUM RENT - -
AND TAXES
ASSUMPTION: NPV Q 12%-
YEAR 1
- - S100.000.00
S400.000.00
S200,000.00
YEAR
2
$100.000.00
S400.000.00
S200,000.00
YEAR
3
5100,000.00
S531.000.00
S728.938.00
YEAR
4
S100.000.00
S531.000.00
--S738.431.00
YEAR
5
S708.246.00
S537,930.00
S748.209.00
YEAR
6
S710,599.00
S545.068.00
S758,550.00
YEAR
7
S718.811.00
S552.420.00
S768,654.00
YEAR
8
S727,188.00
S565.041.00
S779,339.00
YEAR
9
S735,731.00
- -- - "-- S572.992.00
S790:343.00
YEAR
10
S744,446.00
... _s581,182.00
S801,679.00
YEAR
11
$826.062.00
S589.617.00
S800.854.00
YEAR
12
S835,128.00
S598.306.00
S812.880.00
YEAR
13
S845,377.00
`--S607,255.18
-= S825.266.40
YEAR
14
"S853,810.00
- . : $616.472.84
...._S838,024.39
YEAR
15
S863,431.66
S625.967.02
S851.165.12
YEAR
16
- _ $873.245.75.
_" _-' =S635,746.03
... S864,700.08
YEAR
17
S883.256.13
- - S645.818.41
'.S878.641.08
YEAR
18
S893.466.71
S656.192.96
S893,000.31
YEAR
19
S903,881.51
S666.878.75
S907.790.32
YEAR
20
S914,504.60
S677,885.12
5923.024.03
YEAR
21
S852.613.15
S689.221.67
S1,038,714.75
YEAR
22
S863.665.41
S700.898.32
: S1,054;876.19
YEAR
23
S874,938.72
S712.925.27
S1,071,522.48
YEAR
24
S886.437.49
_:=.:_-:--S725.313.03
_S1;088-.668.15
YEAR
25
$898,166.24
--- S738,072.42
_. __S1,106 328.20
YEAR
26
S910,129.57
S751,214.59
S1,124,518.05
YEAR
27 -
- = S922.332.16
-::.::: S764,751.03
.:_ :51 143,2 3. 59
YEAR
28
-. -. - = $934.778.80
8778,693.56
S1,162,551.19
YEAR
29
- S947,474.38
- _ . S793,054.37
YEAR
30
_"
S960,423.87
S807,846.00
- -' S1;202-,900.56
YEAR
31
=' ' S973,632.34 -
. _-S823:081.38
::: _51:323;987.58
YEAR
32
S987,104.99
-- S838,773.82
=S1,345.707.21
YEAR
33
_..... S1,000.847.09 _.. . " .-".
_ .. $854.937.03
51.368:978.42
YEAR
34
S1,014,864.03
S871,585.14
S1.30,120.78
YEAR
35
S1,029,161.31
-- -$888,732.70
---S1,414,854.40
YEAR
36
S1,043.744.54
$906.394.68
S1,439.300.03
YEAR
37
:.....: S.1.058,619.43..
_ - , _.. "_ " S924,586.52
S� ,464,479.03
YEAR
38
S1,073.791.82
S943.324.11
-,.S1.490.413.40
YEAR
39
S1,089.267.65
S962,623.84
$1.517,125.80
YEAR
40
S1,105,053.01
$982,502.55
S1,544.639.58
CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUES
TEN (10) YEARS- - -
9,480.59-
-- 2,844,669.21
TWENTY (20) YEARS
$33,754,524.11
$3,978,209.97
THIRTY (30) YEARS -
$4,278,277.89 .- -
_.._... . $4,408,265.19
FOURTY (40) YEARS
$4,471,452.43
$4,574,894.25
_- .._-. $3,340,585.82
$4,881,802.43
$5:526,690.52
$5,792,166.11
C-2
�"�-- 493
,RENTS •
DINNER KEY WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
HANGAR IN THE GROVE GROVE HARBOR MARINA- ATLANTIC CL1PP
PROPOSED MINIMUM RENT
ASSUMPTION: NPV (T 12%
YEAR 1
$100,000.00
YEAR 2
$100,000.00
YEAR 3
$100,000.00
YEAR 4
S100,0M=
YEAR 5
$300,000.00
YEAR 6
$300.000.00
YEAR 7
S300,000.00
YEAR 8
$300,000.00
YEAR 9
-- - $300,000.00
YEAR 10
: - _ 5300AOO.OQ
YEAR 11
m. ,. , $372,727.00
YEAR 12
_ .. $372.727.00
YEAR 13
- - - $372,727.00
YEAR 14
_ $372,727.00
YEAR 15
$372.727.00.
YEAR 16
$372,727.00
YEAR 17
$372,727.00
YEAR 18
_.. _S372.727.00
YEAR 19
$372.727.00
YEAR' 20
= $372.727.00
YEAR 21
_ . - - - *300,000.00
YEAR 22
$300,000.00
YEAR 23
$300,000.00
YEAR 24
- $300.000.00
YEAR 25
_ _._ _ $3001,000.00,
YEAR 26
- $300.000.00
YEAR 27
__ _
_-. $300,000.00
YEAR 28
=1000.00
YEAR 29
S300,000.00
YEAR 30
__ - - $300.000.00
YEAR 31
$300,000.00
YEAR 32
-= -= $300,000.00
YEAR 33
$300.000.00
YEAR 34
$300,000.00
YEAR 35
$300.000.00
YEAR 36
- $300,000.00
YEAR. 37
_.. _ _ _ - $300.000.00
YEAR 38
- _...... .._ .. $300,000.00
YEAR 39
$300.000.00
YEAR 40
$300,000.00
JMMULATIVE NET PRESENTVAIUES
TEN (10) YEARS
TWENTY (20) YEARS
THIRTY (30) YEARS
41,087,597.04
$1.755.589.67
$1.941.331.78
$300,000.00
e• •• .•
$300,000.00
$4-12,500.00
$300.000.00
•. ••
•• e•• ••
4412,5500.00
. r .....•
$412.500.00
r. • •.r •,
.. • •
$300,000.00
3412,5W.00
S300.000.00
$412.500.00
•. e • • re
•...
$300,000.00
$400.000.00
$300,000.00
•• .•. ••
•+ ••• ••$400,000.00
-$300,000.00
•. �•• ..
.. ••. rr
.• .... •e
•r •re •.
.+ ... •.
$300.000.00
•. ••. •e
.+ ••• •.
.e ••e r•
•e ere r•
$4001000.00
•• •r..•.
400.00
.$300.000.00
$500,000.00
r• r.e .
$500,000.00
•• •0• ••
•• ..• ••
•• •...+
.• ..e ••
•o •e+ ••
$500,00.00
$300,000.00.
•e ••..••
uo• •r• +•
•e •e• ••
•. •• • ••
e• ••...
--_...$300.000.00
...•. •r
$300,000.00
$600,000.00
•e •• ••
.•• 0 ..
S300,000.00
_.. e... ••
•+ •.. •r
$6w,000.00
$300,000.00
s6co,000.00
$300,000.00
$600,000.00
. •r ••+ •e
.ee ••• ••
$300.000.00
$600,000.00-
�1,695,068,91
s2,240,833.09
2 a16 55.1 � W
;1,802.576.08
12.5ao,2sA.29•
493
�2.823.13a.a7
0 rz cn na
EXHIBIT 1 0
J- 96 -�3 74
5/23/96
RESOLUTION NO.96— 36-0
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
("RFP"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM,
FOR A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ("UDP"), TO
CONSIST-. OF THE - DEVELOPMENT: OF -, CO IME b _RCIAL. AND.......
RECREATIONAL WATER -DEPENDENT FACILITIES, WITH
OPTIONAL FACILITIES, AND ANCILLARY RELATED
USES ON APPROXIMATELY 13.5 ACRES. OF CITY-
OWNED,. WATERFRONT PROPERTY KNOWN.ASTHE ::DINNER
F*tiobAT-' YARD, LOCATED AT 2640 SOUTAB,AY`SH"ORE
DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, Section 29A(c).of_the Charter of the City-oi Miami,
Florida, as amended-,, --and- Section 18-52-,v9'-_of: the Code .of.. the- City. -
of Miami., Florida, as. amended, provi.de-'--f or - a- Unified Development
Project ClUbP11)---process to - -govern . the development of - certain
improvements* to real property owned or to be acquired by the City.
of Miami; and
WHEREAS, City -owned -property -known -as.. the.. Dinner key Boat --
Yard (the "Propqrt-y")-. Jf onnerly--- the--. Merrill- -.Stevens Boat Yard]
located in Coconut-.- -Grove at, 2640 South BAyshore .Drive, -Miami,
Florida, consists- -of-'_ approximately- 6.-9--acres -- of - upland- and -_*.,a4:----
much as 6.6 acres: of -submerged 1-ands---well-1-ands---well-suited f or'-.' the
development of certain commercial and recreational wat * 6r--
dependent facilities; and
.WHEREAS, pursuant. to Resolution No. 95-48, adopted
January 12, .1995, -the ..City determined that the development of. a
C ON TA I N ED
.9 7- 493
tm combassiou
MEETING OF
MAY 2 3 M6
Reablution k1c,.
1 7
•
uay or Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: Citv of Miami Administrative Poliev No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: L. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank: 2
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace
Proposer. Grove Harbour Marina an -- '-
--__ :_.<_____--_._: , _-= . _..:._ _... _
CALCULATIONS
Carribean Marketplaces LLC
POINTS
CALCULATED
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
(SE)
D
(SE x PA)
(PA)
EXCELLENT
POOR
- -
EVALUATION CRTTERIA : _ _..
4-5
- -5 -
4
3
2
1
0
Overall Plan & Design ofthe Proposed . -
-
10
Development
VZ_
Historic Preservation = =- :--_°-===-- _-
✓
10
ExperiencdDesign/Fmhancement.
,;
TIangar-(Machin P)=:-
Preservation of Second • e Shop)
:-:-- :-
------
-:-�-.-
.-•_._ .:
- .
- -•
10
_ : ,:
- G
Management & Operations _
15 =
{ v
Financial Return to the City
,/
10
•
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
f
_ 1540
- -
Experience of the Development Entity.
10
_
Capability of the Development Entity &
- --
=
10
L
Consultants
.�
Extent of Minority Participation
10
3
Local Firmn s) Participatio:
6
TOTAL -
106
To Be Used -Fat Tie Brea -Ian -- -. --
g TOTAL
_ -_._ ...
Purpose Only
Committee Member.
Name Printed Signa a Date
D-18 97- 493
i
,. City of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank: - -
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: Clipper Bay: Marina/Boat Yard/ Film Institute -
Proposer Atlantic -Clipper oun atio� -
- ..CALCULATIONS
POINTS
CALCULATEI
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
(SE)
- D
(SE X PA)
(PA)
EXCELLENT
POOR
EVALUATION CRITERIA
6-
5 -
- 4.
3.
2- -
1
.0
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed -
-: —
----
- -
10
Development
Historic Preservation - =` - _ :
10 '-
Experience/Design/Enhancement
b
`Preservation of Second chine Sho
-
10
Management & Operations
15
Financial Return to the City
,/
10
S 9
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
/
_
15
Experience of the Development Entity
%
10
Capability of the Development Entity &
-
-
10
Consultants
6
Extent of Minority Participation
10
Local Firms) Participation _ _
/ 6
TOTS,
106
To Be Used For Tie Breakin
._......_ ._ ... g...... ...
-TOTAL
+ + + + + + _
--- - - - - - - - --- ... _
-
Purpose Only
Committee Member.
�/ / 1996
Name'Printed Signatu Date ._._ .. •........
D-19 J v — 4,43
1n
1,
�vTl-Its
City of Miami . v
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank:
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: The Boatyard at Dinner Key
Proposer: Banger in -the Grove, Inc.
- --: _ - - -_, :
CAI:CULATIONS
PORM
CALCULATED
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNS
VALUE
(SE)
D
(SE x. PA)
(PA)
EXCELLENT
POOR
-
EVALUATION CRTTERIA = -
-6
57 -
, - 4 ' .
3
- 2 -
1
0
Oveml! Plan & Design of the Proposed
_
= _
10 -
Development -- ---
_
0 .
Historic Preservation-
ExperienetlDesign/Enli:ancement�
Preservation of Second Hangar' (Mac . oP) pine Sfi
;
L
10
Management & Operations - -
° .
15
Financial Return -to the Ci - -
ty =
10
Financial Capability of the Development Entity-
:.'
,- ---
--_:;--
_-.
-
15_
�..(.>.
Experience of the.Developmeat Entity
-
10
-
Capability of the Development Entity &-
40
b '
Consultants
Extent of Minority Participation -- -
- --
10
/ ..
Local Firm(s) Participation. - - - _ . _ . _- . -- ..
6
...
TOTAL
.106
/77
To Be Used For Tie Breaking
+ • . .+ _ + + - + +
_TOTAL..
:s y
Committee Member s
�...� % 1996
f g'
N e Printed Signature Date
D-20
7- 493
City of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank:
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: Clipper Bay Marina/Boat Yard /Film Institute
Proposer: Atlantic Clipper Foundation, .
_ -
CALCULATIONS
Ltd. % - - --- - - -
- --
POINTS -
CALCULAT.
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
(SE)
D
(SE x PA)
`
(PA)
:.
EXCELLENT
POOR
EVALUATION . CRITERIA.
6
S
4
3.
2
1
0
Overall Plan & Design -of the Proposed_ : __- _ - _
- ~
-_ .--.-
-
_
_ 10 =
j
Development
_
Historic Preservation
-
10.:
F.�cperietice/Desiga/Enhancement - -
-
-
-
_
Preservation of Second .1bngar{Niachine_Shop) --
- ---'-
_-------
- -
--------
_
_
10
_ . - -
(i - -
Management & Operations
15
Financial Return to the City -..
10
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
:- 15
('
Experience ;of the Development Entity _ - -
- _. _._
..
-
_ _ _
10 - :
J'O
Capability of the Development Entity-&-- --
10 .
S
Consultants
Extent of Minority Participation -
((
- -
10 =
Q
Local Firm(s) Participation. -
6
TOTAL
106
To Be Used For Tie Breaking- - - -
TOTAL:-.
_+ -+- -+.+ +
+. --- --- _. _
- --
._ ..
Purpose Ocily ,
_ .. .. .._
Committee Member.
So LI I n 12 / 199
ame Printed _ _._ ..Signature - -- - Date
D-21 97 - 493
City of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTTHE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM .
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank:
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project:. Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace
Proposer. Grove Harbour -Marina ,and .- ::::
__ :: _._- _ _ =:=--
CALCULATIONS
Carribean Marketplace, LLC
POINTS
CALCULATED
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNS
VALUE
i
(SE)
D
(SE x PA)
(PA)
EXCELLENT
POOR
EVALUATION CRITERIA
6,.
"5 :
4
3
2
1
0
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed -.
:: _ _'
_-
I
_ 10
Development
Mstoric Preservation = -
-
j
10
Fi cp encelUesign/Enhancement
Preservation of Second • e_Sho
Iiangar{Machm. P)---=
� ------
-
�-
-- d
-- .
_ .
. _ ....
10
: ' �. O
Management & Operations.
3.
15
:�. .
Financial Return to the City
10
�O
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
=-
-, S
- ° -
_
15
P ty .....
Experience of the Entity Development
- -
�
-
' 10
,
Capability of the Development Entity;& -
3
10
Consultants
.
Extent of Minority Participation -
10
n
Local Firm(s) Participation:.. _
c 6
;; �p
I'le"
TOTAL.
106
To Be Used For Tie Breaking-- - _ -
TOTAL.
-- +- _ -__+- _--+----+...... +, + . _. " ..___... ..
-
.
Purpose Only
Committee Member.
.3// 1996
Nariid"Pointed. Signature .Date ...... ....
D-22
. . 97i_ 493
,44,b -16/3
City of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
KhkEKr:NUE: City of Miami Aciminutrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank:
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: Clipper Bay Marina/Boat Yard /Film, Institute
Proposer. Atlantic Clipper Foundation,
—CALCULATIONS
Ltd. -
-
..
POINTS
CALCULATE
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNS
VALUE
(SE);::.. _ -
D
(SE x PA) .
(PA)
EXCELLENT
POOR
EVALUATION CRITERIA
6
S-
4
3
2
1
0
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed
_ 10
Development
C
Historic Preservation .. - -
Expeoence/Design/Enhancement
to
C
Preservation of Second Hangar -(Machine -Shop)- -
—
----
------
----:...
-
_ --. _ _
..._
to
Management & Operations
15 "'.
46
Financial Return to the City
10
JrD
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
-
15
%s
Experience of the Development Entity
- k
-
10
�d .
Capability of the Development Entity &
10 =
Consultants
;
Extent of Minority Participation
k'
10
Local Firm(s) Participation-.
6 ;
TOTAL
106
y
To Be Used For T ie BreakingTOTAL .
J + + + -- ... +
Purpose
Committee Member.
l 0/31 / 199(
Nam Printed - Signatur Date.
D-23 - 4 9 3
City of Miami -
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace
Proposer. Grove Harbour Mariria� and
CALCULATIONS
'Carribean Marketplace, LLC
POINTS
CALCULATED
%
SUBJEM-IVEEVALUATION
ASSIGNED
VALUE
(SE)
D _
(SE x PA)
(PA"
EXCELLENT
POOR
_
EVALUATION .CRITERIA
6
5-
-..4
3
2
1:
p
Overall Plan & Design of the:Proposed .
Development
_
.. ..
= 10
IFistoric Preservation
Experience/Design/Enhancement
k
10
�
Preservation of Second Hangar (Machine Shop)- -
Management & Operations -= _•==___.:-__ - =
-
x
- 15.
y5-
Financial Return to -the Gity-=--:--.
10 ._.. : ...
-:.. .
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
Experience of the Develo ment
Capability of the Development Entity &
-
xp
10--
Consultants
Extent of Minority Participation- -- °-------- °- - -
- --.
---k_
_ ._ .-
.-
_.....
-
10
Local Firm(s) Participation_ .
6
TOTAL
- 106
44�
To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL
+ + + + + +
Purpose Only
Committee Member: - __ - t
S: z7u J K JV /-1996--
N e Printed -.... _.. - -' _ ._._ ignature -- - ---------.D9.3:::...:.
City of Miami _
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
F.VAT,TTATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank:
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff
Project: The Boatyard at Dinner Key
Proposer; Hanger in the Grove,.Inc. ..
CALCULATIONS
POINTS
CALCULATED
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
(Sq
D
, (SE x PA)
i
.
(PA)
-
EXCELLENT
POOR
EVALUATION'CRTIA iER- _ : -: .. --
. _6 _
.--5 =-
"..4
3
2
1
0
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed - _ _ -- _ _
Development
x
_
10
3
EFistoricPreservation _,-.•,:..
- --
_ . 1 0 - ��
ExpenenceJDesign/Enhancement
Preservation of Second Hangar (Machine Shop)
10
Management &Operations-'
.
15
Financial Return to the City
.jc
-
- -
10 -
30
Financial Ca*iiliiy of the Development Entity
Experience of the Development Entity
—
y
10 -
30 =
Capability of the Development Entity &
10
Consultants
Extent of Minority Participation --
--
--
10
f
Local Firm(s) Participation
f 6
.ram
TOTAL
106
9 P,
To Be Used For Tic Breaking - _ - - - -
TOTAL
- -+ .: •+ --- - + _- - - + + + . _ -.
Purpose Only
Committee Member. _.....__
1996
Name Printed gnature . _....-_.__...._ ..
D-25 � Y 4,
City of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank:
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: Clipper Bay Marina/Boat Yard /Film Institute
Proposer. Atlantic Clipper Foundation; _
"„cAl:cuLaTl�Ns
Ltd. ; Z
POINTS..
CALCULATE
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
(SE)
D
(SE x PA)
(PA)
EXCELLENT
POOR
EVALUATION .CRITERIA - _ = - : -
6
S::
4
3
2
1
0
Overall Plan ,& Design of the —
Development
10
60
Historic Preservation ' - -y
Expeti6ce/Design/Enhancement
10
�-�
Preservation of Second Hangar(Machine-Shop)—
—
_X----
-------
-
_ -.
-- ---. __
...... _..
.. 10
Management & Operations-- _ ------ . _ . _ _ _ _ - _ :
-
}(
_ 15 <_
Financial Return to the City
x
=
10 =
6
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
15
-- `f 0 = -
Experience of the Development Entity
�(
10.
Capability of the Development Entity &
= t0 = :
-
Consultants
Extent of Minority Participation
10
3 0
Local Firm(s) Participation.
6
30
TOTAL
106
To Be Used For Tie Breaking. -- --TOTAL
+ + + + -f- - +
.
__._.. -�Yy
Purpose Only
Committee Member.
1996
Nae Printed Signature :.._........... ........... ..._._.._...,,.•_ Date
m
D-26 97- 493
i
City of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank: Z
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: Grove Barbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace
Proposer.,Grove Harbour Marina and
CALCULATIONS
" Carrbean Marketplace, LLC .
POINTS
CALCULATE_]
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE ,
VALUE
(SE)
_
(SE x PA)
/pDA
EXCELLENT
_ _ . .. ._....
_POOR
EVALUATION CRITERIA - _
6 .
-_5_ --
- 4
3
2-
Overall Plan & Design of the -Proposed - -
Development
-
=
-10
`
Hrstoric Picwnratioa. --
Experience/Des%uT,nh=ccment
x
=
10
�C
Preservation of Second Hangar (Machine Shop)
t
10
Management & Operations - --
Financial Return to the City- --: _-_-
10
Financial Capability of the Development Capab' ty P Ent1tY- - -
15
Experience of the Development - Entity
Capability of the Development Entity &
Consultants
10
Extent of Minority Participation
/`-
-10
Local Firm(s) Participation-,
6
1
3
TOTAL
106
To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL
+ + + + + + _
Purpose Only
Committee Member. -
Name Printed - _ . _ -.. _... Signature -- (� _ --Pt9 3 -.-.
n
0
City of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT .
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank:
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff
Project: Clipper Bay Marina/Boat Yard /Film Institute
Proposer. Atlantic Clipper Foundation$ _
_ _ - - --- --
-
CALCULATIONS .
Ltd. i
..
POINTS
CALCULATI
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
(SE)
D . e
(SE x PA)
ii
(PA) .
EXCELLENT
POOR'
EVALUATION CRITERIA :::
6 -
S --
- - 4
3
2
110
- :0:
_ •: ':
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed
0
Development
Historic Preservation ` _ _ •=- `- .:
10
Preservation of Second Hangar (Machine Shop)
10
Management.& Operations
—
15
Financial Return to the City
10
�, O
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
15
Experience of the Development Entity
10
Capability of the Development Entity & :
Consultants.'
10
Extent of Minority Participation
5
10
s
Local Firm(s) Participation
---- 6
3 . C
TOTAL
106
l6
To Be Used For Tie Breaking+
TOTAL
^ + + -
Purpose Only
Committee Member. /O1
/6 / 3 / / 1996
... -Namuree Printed SignatDate
D-2 ') +
Carty of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. TRank:
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff:
Project: The Boatyard at Dinner Key
Proposer: Hanger iu the Grove, Inc.
- _
- CALCULATIONS "
POINTS
CALCULATED
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
(SE)
D
(SE x PA)
_
EXCELLENT
- --. -
POOR
EVALUATION C U`11 A
: 6-
s.;
- 4.
3
- 2
1 7
0
Overall Plan & Design_ofthe Proposed
Development
-
- .10 =-
Historic won
�
_
-10
_ _
=
Eacpaience7Design/Enhanccment - _- . -
-
Preservation of Second Hangar (Machine Shop)'
10
Management & Operations
Fimancial Return to the City
10
•- v
Financial Capability of the Development-15
Experience of the Development Entity.
,T
- 10 -
5 0
Capability of the Development Entity &: -
-
105.
0
Consultants
Extent of Minority Participation --
-
10
is
0 .
Local Firm(s) Participation
`p 6-
TOTAL.
106
j %�•
To Be Ms arccilhaBreaking- _ -
TOTAL. -
+ .. -_+ _—+ _ + - _ + + ..
---- ..
Purpose Only
Committee Member.
�OBE�� 10131 / 1996
Name Printed ............... ..- .._ ._..._..Date
�7 ` `$b. i
D-3
City of Miami
UNIFIED l)hVELU1rMhiN'1" FKUJhU"1' _
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank:
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: Clipper Bay Marina/Boat Yard /Film Institute
Proposer. Atlantic -Clipper -.Foundation, ..
_. _ _.._. _....__ ... _ _ _
CALCULATIONS
Ltd. --
--=----
POINT'S.
CALCULATT:
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
(SE)
D
tTA) .
(SE x PA)
�.
-
EXCELLENT
POOR
.EVALUATION CRITERIA
6
5
4.
3
2
.1
0
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed —
—
-
--..:
✓�
10 .
Development
historic Presexxation
...,_ . .
F.xpenenee/Design/Eniiaticement ' -
10.
'40,
, .
.
Preservation of Second Hag� �in ..
hne Shop)
10
y O
Management & Operations
✓
15
TO
Financial Return to the City- -- -
✓
10 =
�:
Finaacial Capability of the Development l nti
15
Experience ofthe Development Entity -_
_ 10
V
Capability.of the: Development Entity
/
-
_ 10 .. _
Consultants
Extent of Minority Participation
✓
10
j J
Local Firm(s) Participation
�/ 6
TOTAL,
106 '
t
J�a7 t
To Be Used ForTie Breaking- - - — TOTAL -
- -+" - + _ - + - — + + +
Purpose Only -
Committee Member.
199(
Nairie Printed- _ _ -___. -:-- , .,,.., -_ . - . _. ..:.- Signature Date
D-5
97- 493
J b)3-)( 9,
City oI 1VIlam1
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
z
J
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace
Proposer: Grove Harbour Marina and
CALCULATIONS
/Carribean Marketplace, LLC
. POINTS
CALCULATED
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION -
-ASSIGNE,.
VALUE
(SE)D
_ .
(SE x PA)
Y
(PA" -
EXCELLENT
POOR
EVALUATION CRTIERIA
5 ; :
= 4
3
2
1:
0
Overall Plan 8t Design of the Proposed _ .
_......
: _
_ _
_
O
E[Istoric Preservation
10
i;�cperiencelDesign/Eahan •
,, .
-
Preservation of Second Hangar (Machine Shop)
e
10
S C'
---
___ :
-15
Management &Operations
Financial Returirto: the:Ci
_ 10..
=
3 O
Financial Capability of the-Developmcnt Entity - -.
_- _ _ -
- -
_ _
15
O
Experience of the Development Entity
10
Capability of the Development Entity 8t
10
J.
- 0
Consultants
Extent of Minority'Partieipation -.: - — -rj
10
J
Local Firm(s) Participation J�
6
;,3
;
106
I. �rO
AV
TOTAL
To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + +
Purpose Only
Committee Member
1996
Name Printed _ .. _.......... Signature
Date
City of Miami _
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT I
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank:
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
I
Project: The Boatyard at Dinner Key
r Proposer: Hanger in the Grove, Inc. -
P g �
- - - - _
CALCULATIONS -
_
POINTS
CALCULATED
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
(SE)
D
(SE x PA)
(PA)
EXCELLENT
POOR
�`
EVALUATION CRITERIA- `
6
5-
4
3
2
1`
0
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed
-..
✓
10
tt
Development -.
_
b
Historic Preservation
10
Experience/Design/Enhancement
Preservation of Second Hangar (Machine Shop)
✓
10
Management & Operations - - -
�%
�;. • ..
, . 15
q v
Financial Return to the -City - . ....::.:.
✓
10
(�
Financial Capability of the:Develo went-Enti
q
Experience of the Development.Entity_-. -
,�
-
U
Capability of the Development Entity. &
Consultants
_
10
1
Extent of Minority Participation - -
✓
10
Local Firm(s) Participation _._ _ ___
,/ 6
TOTAL
106
To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL
+ + + + + +.
Purpose Only ...-
-
Committee Member:
4�---f
►-Ih o� r� yn� /0. /./...r 1996 .
tk Y
Name Printed Signature Date
D-7
9?- 493
City of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank:
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace
Proposer. Grove Harbour Marina and
CALCULATIONS
Carribean Marketplaces LLC
POINTS
CALCULATED
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
(SE)
D
(SE x PA) -
(PA)
_
EXCELLENT
POOR
-EVALUATION CMERIA
6
5=
4
3
2-
1
0
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed
-
10-
Development
-
historic Preservation _ - - .. -
- 10
ExpenencdDesign/Bnhancement.
Preservation of Second ' e. Shop)
i3angariachm P}_,_416
10
_
Management & Operations -- --- _ _-- -_ _ - _ _ _---_-
-
= 15
-
Financial Return to the City
10
•
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
/
15
Experience of the Devel °PmEntity.ent : -
:.
10
Capability of the Development Entity 8t
10
I
Consultants
Extent of Minority Participation
10
3 ►'
Local Firms) Participation.
/ 6
TOTAL
106
To Be Used For.Tie.Breaking__ __TOTAL;-_
-
. ______� .- ..... _...... _ .............. ...... _...
... ,.. .
Purpose Only
Committee Member.
� 3 / 1996
Name Printed Signa -. a ..._: Date
City of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank:
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: The Boatyard at Dinner Key
Proposer: Hanger in the Grovel inc.
_ — -
CALCULATIONS
POINTS
CALCULATED
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
(SE)
D
(SE x PA)
(PA) •
-
-
EXCELLENT
POOR
EVALUATION CRITERIA... ..
- -6-_-
_ S
: _4
3
2
1
- 0
Overall Plan & Des of the
Development
-
10
t0
_ _ _-
11istoricPreservation
ExpeciencelDesign/Eahancemeut
10
=
Preservation of Second Hangar (Machine Shop)
10
Management & Operations
---
_ 15 - 1'
�..
Financial Return -to the City
10
6
Financial Capability ofthe-Dev_elopmentEntity-
15
Experience of the.DevelopmentEntit
10
400
- — — Capabilityofof the Development Entity & :: _ _ _ _ .::.- _:
_
10
Consultants
0
Extent of Minority Participation
10
!:
Local Firm(s) Participation. -
6
i
TOTAL
106
To Be Used For Tie Breaking
TOTAL.
+ . • -, .+ + + + + s
Purpose Only
Committee Member.
1996
Nadie Printed.... - Signature Date
D-20
9'7- 493
•
City of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. Rank.
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: Clipper Bay Marina/Boat Yard /Film Institute
Proposer. Atlantic Clipper Foundation,- _
- _ . _ . ...: _ _
CALCULATIONS
Ltd.
POINTS -
CALCULAT.
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
/
(SE)
D
(SE x PA)
(PA)
EXCELLENT
POOR
-
EVALUATION. CRITERIA.- _--
_ 6 -
S -
- 4
3.
Z
1"
0
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed
-
_-
_
t
10
Development
Historic Preservation
10 ---
--` - -
Experiei ce/Desiga/Enhancemeat10
�
Preservation of Second Iiangaro4achinaShop)
_
Management & Operations - : - -:. _-_ __: =__-__
__
=
15 _
Financial Return to the City --
_ -
- —
-
10
0-
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
Experience of tho Development Entity
S
- - _
=
10.O
.
Capability of the Development Entity &'�
=
10
Sp
Consultants
.
Extent of Minority Participation
`-
_
—
-10
Q
Local Firm(s) Participation.
6 �
3
TOTAL
106
40'P�q
To Be Used For Tie Breaking _ _- - TOTAL
+ : + + + + +
Purpose Only
Committee Member.
1 199
ame Printed - _:... Signature.. :: , .._ _ — _ -_ Date,- - . .
_
D-21 97— 493
iD �l
City of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank:
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project:. Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace
Proposer. Grove Harbour Marina-
CALCULATIONS -
Carribean Marketplace, LLC
POINTS
CALCULATED
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
(SE)
D
(SE x PA)
fi
(PA)
---
EXCELLENT
POOR
EVALUATION CRITERIA- _ _-_ :---- :
-- 6 _:.
5.'. ;
_ 4
3 .
2
1
-
Overall Plan & Design ofthe Proposed _--..--
_ _
_ _ __ _
10
Develo ment
P _
frlstoricPreservation _ _-__
(
10
L.
ExperiencelDesil ilEnhancement .
Preservation of Second Hangar -(Mac ' .hme Sho . P)--
10
Management & Operations_-_:_-._---.-
15
Financial Return to the -City------- - --- _
...
10
�O
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
—
S
15
Experience of the Development Entity
�
'10
J'a
Capability of the Development Entity.&
-
3
= -
10
;
Consultants
..°;
Extent of Minority Participation
_ _
10
.O
6
Local Firm(s) Participation;
TOTAL.
106.
.
To Be Used For Tie Breaking
TOTAL
- + + +
Purpose Only
Committee Member.
f� /0 / .3/ / 1996
Name Printed Signature _ ..... _ .... Date
i -
D-22
9'7- 493
/71�f) - /6 J
L City of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. Rank
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff. -
Project: Clipper Bay Marina/Boat Yard /Film, Institute
Proposer. Atlantic Clipper Foundation,
-- - -°
CALCULkTIONS
Ltd. -
-
• .
POINTS
CALC'ULAT 1
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNS
VALUE
(SE) _
D
-iPA)
(SE-x PA)
EXCELLENT
POOR
EVALUATION CRITERIA
6
S
4
3
2
1
0
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed
10
Development
_ 6
c
Historic Preservation - - -
- - -=
_
10
F •�j/p_
ExperiencelDesigmEnhancement--,- -
----
:-
?� .
-- :
- -..=
Preservation of Second Hangar -(Machine -Shop)--
- ---
- -
-
-
=
- -- -
. - -0 .
Management & Operations - .- --.:. _ _ - . _ - _
_
15
�6
Financial Return to the City
10
Sd
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
x
-
15
- �s
Experience of the Development Entity.
10d
Capability of the Development Entity &
10
Consultants
_
_
;;so
Extent of Minority Participation
,�'
10
- jp
Local Firm(s) Participation_ ..
6 %
"
TOTAL
106
y 3
To Be Used Forte Breaking
TOTAL
+ ' + + + +
Purpose Only
Committee Member.
Y.4 Toiv-117 �' 0131 / 199(
r
Nam rrinted _. __ _ . S'ignatur . _ .. -.. _:......._. _:: Date...: _
D-23
97- 493
•
City of Miami -
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace
Proposer. Grove Harbour MaridA: and
CALCULATIONS
'Carribean Marketplace, LLC
POINTS
CALCULATED
i'
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
-ASSIGNE-0
VALUE
(SE)
D _
(SE x PA)
(PAX,;..
EXCELLENT
POOR
EVALUATION CRITERIA
6
-5 -- -
_..4,
_3__
`.. 2=
1
0
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed
-
10
Development
Historic Preservation
Experience/Design/Enha
-
— --
—
-�
.: 10
acement
:
Preservation of Second Hangar. (Machine Shop)
-
t .
16--
- - -
Management & Operations_..
-
15
.,
�IS
Financial Return to the Ci
10
Financial CapabilityoftheDevelopmentEntity
15-
Experience of the Development Entity- - ...' = -
a, -_-
.. _
_
=
:.10
Capability of the Development Entity & _ _ -
-
- --- =
-
_ _
..
IO
-
Consultants .
Extent of Minority Participation
(,
. JrO
Local Firm(s) Participation_ .
6
36
TOTAL
- 106'�,�'
To Be Used For Tie Breaking
TOTAL
+ + + + + +
Purpose Only
Committee Member.
N e Printed ignature _...... .. Date
[I=
r
City of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City. of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank:
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff
Project: The Boatyard at Dinner Key
Proposer. Hanger in the Grove,.Inc.
CALCULAnONs
POINTS
CALCULATED
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
(SE)
D
x PA)
.
(PA)
.(SE
-
EXCELLENT
POOR
EVALUATION .CRITERIA- --- - -- - _
-6-
. 5. --"
-4
3
_2 _ .
_ 1. "
_ 0"
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed --
10
Development
Historic Preservation ' ° = - = `-- - . ---
-_ -
ExperieneelDesign/Entiancement
-
--
10
;.
Preservation of Second Hangar(Mac � Shop)
P) -
-
- -
�
-
- .
- ---
- "----
10
---
Management &Operations_-
15
h�S
Financial Return to the City - -
10
30 -
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
-
•
15
:
�d
Experience of the Development Entity
10
_ 3
Capability of the Development Entity & :
Consultants
10
Extent of Minority Participation : - - - - - -
-
10
Local Firm(s) Participation
6
TOTAL
106
To Be Used For Tie Breaking
_TOTAL
+ +
Purpose Only
Committee Member.
Ale,J - Oil/ u . 1a i3 i 1996
Name Printed - --- :__ -..... gnature __ :__:
D-25 1 97- 493
City or Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. -Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank: /
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: Clipper Bay Marina/Boat Yard /Film Institute
Proposer. Atlantic Clipper Foundation, :
--- - --- -: ° _ _ _ _- "=
CALCULATIONS
Ltd.
POINTS..
CALCULATI
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNS
VALUE
(SE)
D
(SE x PA)
(PA)
.
EXCELLENT
POOR
EVALUATION CRITERIA -
6
5-.-.
--4
3
-2 -
1
0
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed
-
10
60
Development .
Historic Preservation
.Experieace/Design/Enhancement
10
Preservation of Second Hangar(Machme ' Shop)--
-
-X-
Management & Operations- - _ -
}(
-
15
J
7S
Financial Return to the City-
10
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
�(
15
7
Experience of the Development Entity-:-- _-- _ -, --
----
�(
_
- 10
-5.0 —
Capability of the Development Entity &
10
Consultants
Extent of Minority Participation - -
1 0
3
- -- ---- - 6
/
3
Local Firm(s) Participation
106
TOTAL.
.
To Be Used For Tie Breaking= _..-- _ -,TOTAL
+ -
+ .. + -- ., _+--- - - +
Purpose Only
Committee Member.
Name Printed
31 199,
- .. Signature _. Date..- .
D-26 97- 493
r�
City of Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members.
Rank; Z
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: Grove Harbour Marina and Caribbean Marketplace
Proposer.,Grove Harbour Marina and
CALCULATIONS
' Carribean Marketplace, LLC
POINTS
CALCULATEI
-
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE ,
VALUE'
(SE)
D _
(SE x PA)
i
EXCELLENT
- _ - - "'POOR
-
EVALUATION CRITERIA__-_ : __:
"6°_'
`:5'_
4
3
- 2
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed -_ ._ - _: _ __
-
r; :
.-`.� .
-_:
-
_ _ =
10Q
_
Development
kistoric Preservation. ::_.__ _.- - . _
x
10
_
J �.-
FxperiencelDesign/Enhancement
Preservation of Second (Machine
(fin Shop) -
..
�
t -
•
10
-
Management & Operations _ __._ _ _
�(.
=
- _
15
0 -
Financial Return to the. City - - - - = =.; _ ° _ :- - _ _ _
-,:
_
_ .
10
Financial Capability of the Development Entity
Experience of the Development Entity--- =_--
IL
Capability of the Development Entity &
Consultants _.. _. _:
_
_. _
10
/ .. . .
Extent of Minority Participation -- _ _ --- -_ :.:_._
__v _:-
.-
--
` "
10
Local Firm(s) Participation-.
6
i
TOTAL
_ 106
To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL
+ + + + + +
Purpose Only
Committee Member. =
Name Printed Signature _a�
0 .0
City or Miami
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
THE DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
EVALUATION FORM[
REFERENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1-89
INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Subjective Evaluation to be completed by Committee Members. Rank-
2. Points assigned column to be completed by Development staff.
Project: The Boatyard at Dinner Key
Proposer. Hanger in the -Grove, Inc.
- CALCULATIONS -
POINTS
CALCULATEI
SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION
ASSIGNE
VALUE
(SE)
D
(SE x PA) ,
(PA)
—.—
EXCELLENT
POOR
-
"a+°
EVALUATION CRITERIA
6
5
.4
3
_2 _ _
1
0
Overall Plan & Design of the Proposed : = _ ...
-
_ .- -
_ -- -, : _
._ _ _ _..
10
-
Development - .................
Historic Preservation
Experience/Design/Enhancement
10
= c
u o:
- s
Preservation of Second Hangar (Machine Shop) '
10
/ Q
Management & Operations
X'
.
15
6 .�
Financial Return to the City
10
-3 -
Financial Capability of the Development -Entity
-
_
--
15�
-
p Entrty, -.:...
Experience of the Development -
- =
-
10
3 fl -
Capability of the Development Entity_&- -- - _ :
Consultants
_--:—
-"_ _ -
__
- - _
1 Y .
Extent of Minority Participation
x
10
Local Firm(s) Participation
6
.
TOTAL
106
To Be Used For Tie Brealdng TOTAL
+ + _ +_ _ _ . - +_ _ +.. +
Purpose Only_
Committee Member.
t
Name Printed .,
D-28 97- 493
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT I
r '
f
t J-96-374
5/23/96
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
("RFP"), IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE ATTACHED FORM,
FOR A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ("UDP"), TO
CONSIST OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND
RECREATIONAL WATER-DEPENDENT'FACILITIES -,-- WITH - - ---
OPTIONAL FACILITIES, AND ANCILLARY RELATED
USES ON APPROXIMATELY 13.5 ACRES OF CITY-
i OWNED, WATERFRONT PROPERTY KROWN� AS ;.THE -DINNER
KEW;BOAT YARD, LOCATED AT 2640 SOUTH BAYSHORE
DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, Section 29A(c) .of the Charter- of the- City: of .:Miami.,.__.
! Florida, as amended; -and Section-18-52.9 of ,the Code of -the--City= = of Miami, Florida, ..as„ amended, provide for a Unified Development
Project ("UDP") - process =-to - govern,_ the development bf : certain_
improvements to real property owned or to be acquired by the City
of Miami; and
WHEREAS, City -owned` property , known as. tie -Dinner Key.- -Boat __
Yard. ,-(the. "Property") _ [formerly the -Merrill --Stevens-.-. Boat Yard),,
located . in Coconut --Grove- at-.- 2640 South Bayshore Drive, Miami,
Florida, consists. -_of approximately: 6.9_ _acres-_. of upland and as
much as - .. 6.6 : acres of submerged lands well suited for: the--
- - --
development of' certain commercial -:and - _recreational- wat.6r-
dependent -facilities; -and --
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 95-48, adopted
January 12, 1995, the City determined that the development of- a
493
c=rY coru4usszozr
ATTACHMENT (S) FETING of
C 0 N T Q l f f B' MAY 2 3 1996
Resolutiaa Ni .
Y
I-1
0
Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized1/ to
issue a Request for Proposals, in substantially the attached
form, for a UDP to consist of the development of commercial. and
recreational water -dependent facilities, with optional
facilities, and ancillary related uses on approximately 13 acres
of City -owned waterfront property known as the Dinner Key- Boat -----
Yard, located --in Coconut _.Grove at 2640 South Bayshore Drive,..
Miami, Florida.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon.ts -adoption. -
PASSED AND ADOPTED-this-23x-d-- - day of
ST$PHEN P.-CLARK, MAYOR -_
ATTEST:
WALTER J . FOEMAN - _ _._---
CITY CLERK --.
PREPARED AND,RE.-I.FWED BY:
L KELLY -- _
ASSISTANT "CITY -ATTORNEY -- - -
APPROVED AS TO.FORM AND CORRECTNESS: -
A.' QUANN 40NE6.
CITY ATT
BSS:WS64
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.
I-3 9 ;% 4 9.3..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings set forth in the Preamble to this Resolution
are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully, sot -forth in
this Section.
Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to issue an Addendum to the
RFP issued May 30,1996 for the Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Pr6ject to. allow. --.-
for an additional optional primary -use, namely a film or -multimedia production facility:
Section 3. This Resolution shall be -effective immediately _upon,i_ts adoption:
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1996.
- ---------
MAYOR 2. b, .
ATTEST:
r .
_
WALTER J. FOEMAN; CITY CLERK =:
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNES:
LINDA K. KEARSON,
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
A. QUINN JONES, III
CITY ATTORNEY
0
1-5 97 - 493
J-96-588
7/1 1 /96 9 6 - 510
RESOLUTION N0.
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO A REVIEW
COMMITTEE AND SELECTING A CERTIFIED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING ("CPA") FIRM TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS
RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH A REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS, ISSUED ON MAY 31-, -1996;--FOR=THE-UNIFIED - -"
DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL
WATER DEPENDENT FACILITIES, AND ANCILLARY USES ON
CITY -OWNED WATERFRONT PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE
DINNER KEY BOAT YARD, LOCATED AT 2640 SOUTH
BAYSHORE DRIVE, IN THE - AREA OF DINNER KEY, MIAM1;
FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE- AN .AGREEMENT,. IN A FORM
ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY . ATTORNEY, --.WITH THE
SELECTED CPA FIRM FOR THE EVALUATION ---OF -SAID
PROPOSALS.
WHEREAS, the City_ -Commission, by "Resolution-=_No.="_96-360, authorized the- . =
issuance of a Request for Proposals. (RFP) for the Unified Development• of commercial and
recreational water --dependent facilities --and.--ancillary ---- uses__ -on -City-owned .-Waterfront-
property, known as the Dinner Key Boat Yard,. located at-.2640_South-Bayshore Drive-in
the area of Dinner Key, Miami; and
WHEREAS; this Unified Development Project (UDP) must-include"the-"development
of a marina and full service boat yard, the historical_ restoration -of the -existent large -hangar
structure and may optionally include a public market-and/or-ahistoric-facility; -and-.; - =
WHEREAS, the -City Charter requires that Unified Development Projec:r - (UDP)- -- -
proposals be evaluated by a review committee consisting of an appropriate number of City
I-6
97-. 0.33
ITY cobmnsslox
MEETING- OF
J U L 1 1 1996
Ae"uaon No.
officials or employees and an equal number plus one of members of the public,. whose
names shall be submitted by the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, review committee membership has been recommended by the City
Manager; and
WHEREAS, the City Charter also- requires that UDP proposals be evaluated by an
independent Certified Public Accounting (CPA) firm, which shall include at -least one
member with previous experience in the. type of development in question; and
WHEREAS, a competitive selectionprocedurewas followed -to recommend the CPA.
firm named.he*rein; and.
WHEREAS, in order to have. the...CPA firm in place to —begin -evaluations ,of the
proposals- immediately- upon their -receipt, it-- is recommended that Manage r be;
authorized to negotiate and immediately -execute the necessary agreement with said firm;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY -OF -
MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings set forth in the- Preamble to this Resolution:are:
hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated- herein --as -if -Jull y- -set - .f orth- in.this
Section.
Section 2. The CPA --firm- of Coopers ;& - Lybirand,_ LLP, -is. hereby -selected to:. evaluate-
.
development proposals received in -connection- with the -RFP_for__the__C_itV-o_wned 'wate rf ront
property, more commonly known as the Dinner Key Boat Yard, located at 2640 South
Bayshore Drive, in the -area of Dinner Key, Miami.
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute an
agreement with the --selected -CPA - f irmj.:-- provided -that -said- - agreement., is- in- a form
- . . - - -1 - - . .. . . . . . . . : - �
97- 493
0 - 0
_r ,
U
1
acceptable to the City Attorney and shall be in compliance with all applicable City Charter
and Code provisions.
Section 4. The following individuals are hereby appointed as members of the
review committee which is to evaluate each proposal and render a written report of its
findings to the City Manager, including any minority opinions:
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
Lynn _Lewis '
1101 Brickell. Ave.. Ste...:703
Miami, Fl 33131 (305)374-0148; . -
Jim Courbier
Capt. Bob Lewis--.-
4973 Ponce de Leon B1-vd.--
Coral-Gables,-F1- 33146 ------
CITY OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES
Eduardo Rodriguez,: Director, Asset -Management
Bibiana Legido, Marinas Assistant, Public -Facilities.,, _... _
.Thelma Edwards, NET Administrator -
Juan Ordonez, Professional Engineer-111, Public.. Works
Section 5. This Resolutionshall_become effective m ediately_upon.its-adoption.
PASSED -AND ADOPTED-this-1-1 th_day. of. July,-199
W04 DO GORT, VICE -MAYOR -
ATTEST:
WALTER J. AN, CITY CLERK
97- 493
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
n
J-96-1023
8/26/96
•
RESOLUTION J 648
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENT, AMENDING SECTION 2
OF RESOLUTION" NO. 96-510 ADOPTED JULY 11, 1996,
-.:._ THEREBY RESCINDING-_ THE SELECTION OF COOPERS. &
LYBRAND, LLP, AND SELECTING SHARPTON, BRUNSON--&--CO., --
PA, TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS "RECEIVED IN CONNECTION
WITH THE RFP FOR THE CITY -OWNED WATER FRONT
PROPERTY, MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE DINNER KEY
BOAT YARD, LOCATED AT 2640 SOUTH BAYSHORE DRIVE, IN
THE AREA OF DINNER .KEY, MIAMI. (UDP); ALLOCATING ATING FUNDS
THEREFOR ` FROM'.THE DEPARTMENT .-OF COMMUNITY
PL4NNING- ANDS _::REVITALIZATION OPERATING.. , BUDGET,..---_
ACCOUNT-NO..561301-280:iN_THE AMOUNT OF $9,0:00--FOR-
EVALUATION-.-
.OF..THE :_.FIRST ._PROPOSAL AND 54,500 .._.FOR_ _
EVALUATION OF EACH ADDITIONAL- .PROPOSAL.. PLUS -
AMOUNT, .NOT TO -EXCEED. TEN -PERCENT (10%) OF THE - -
CONTRACT AMOUNT, --FOR- EXPENSES; AUTHORIZING
CITY, . MANAGER TO' EXECUTE." AN .. AGREEMENT.- .- iN= -
SUBSTANTIALLY "THE ATTACHED FORM WITH SHARPTON
BRUNSON'& CO, -PA FOR THIS PURPOSE.
WHEREAS, the City, .Commission; b , Resolution No. 96-510 adopted_July-11_;_ 19.96,-
authorized selection. of-- a.-- Certified ..Public -Accounting (CPA) _firm to evaluate proposals --------
received In connection -.with --the Request for Proposals .for the -Dinner-=Key--Wa-terfront _
Redevelopment project, --Issued_ on _May- 31, 1996; for the. Unified Development: —of --
Commercial and Recreational Water -.Dependent Facilities and ancillary=uses on-city-o-,fined.---
waterfront property; -and_:
97- 493
-- CITY COMM5S101
MEETING OF
FATTA-C
'J�tSEP---1 2--1996
� T K i D- Resolution -No.-
e-
WHEREAS, said Resolution further authorized the City Manager to negotiate and
execute an agreement with a selected CPA firm in a form acceptable to the City Attorney;
and
WHEREAS, the CPA firm of Coopers & Lybrand, LLP. was selected to evaluate
development proposals received :in -connection with the RFP for the Dinner Key Waterfront
Redevelopment UDP; and
WHEREAS, a satisfactory agreement regarding compensation terms was unable -to- -
. be negotiated with the CPA. firm of Coopers & Lybrand; LLP; and
WHEREAS, it is respectfully recommended that the City Manager -negotiate: and:.,._:
execute a contract -.for Professional- .Accounting -:Services with the firm. -of' Sharpton,.--, .
Brinson & Co., -PA;
NOW, THEREFORE,:: -BE IT -RESOLVED.- BY=THE -COMMISSION O.F THE. CITY OF
MIAMI, FLORIDA:
eamble to this Resolution:,are hereby.
Section 1. The recitals _ set . forth in the Pr
adopted by'reference thereto -and incorporated herein as if full set- forth in this Section.
Section 2.. Section 2' of. Resolution: No. 96-510 adopted July 11, 1996 is .hereby
arriended in the following -particulars:-
"Section 2. The CPA ;firm..of _LLP Sharpton,.
-.Brunson and Co., PA __.Is. hereby_"selected- to- evaluate development proposals';
received In connection with the RFP for -the City -owned waterfront property,,.'. _--%- ;-_--
more commonly known.as the.0inner Key Boat.Yard, locate.d at 2640`Squth
Bayshore Drive, in the area of Dinner Key, Miami.
-Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract) for
Professional Accounting Services, in substantially the attached., form,. with the firm of
Sharpton, Brunson & Co., PA., to perform the required professional services in the amount,
'. Word and/or figures underlined shall be added. Words and/or figures stricken through shall be deleted Asterisks
represent omitted and unchanged material:
I-11
49
0 . 0
of $9,000 for the evaluation of the first proposal and $4,500 for the evaluation of each
additional proposal, plus an amount, not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the contract
amount, for expenses, with funds therefor hereby allocated from the Department of
Community Planning and Revitalization Operating Budget, Account No. 561301-280.
Section 4. This Resolution. shallbecomeeffective immediately upon its adoption.
i PASSED AND ADOPTED thisl2thday of September , 1996. ^
J CAROLLO, MAYOR
ATTEST:-
WALTER . f0 AN,-CITY=CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
21Q,5� K. KEARSON
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY -
APPROVED AS TO-FORM-ANQ_CORRCTNESS: -- - - -
A.`QLUNf4 JO
CITY ATTOR
W1081:CSK
I-12
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 96-510,
ADOPTED JULY 11, 1996, COMFIRMING MEMBERS
APPOINTED TO A REVIEW COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE
PROPOSALS RECIEVED IN CONNECTION WITH A
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE -DINNER:: -„:KEY --
WATERFRONT .REDEVELOPMENT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT.
WHEREAS; on�:August 30, 1996,_-the City received three..(3)
proposals for the...unified- development of the ---Dinner Key
Waterfront Redevelopment Project'_in connection- with, -the Request
for Proposals issued. -May 31, 1996; -and -• v=_
WHEREAS, the ' City' Charter ...requires. that Unified 'Development°
Project (UDP) proposals be evaluated by a review. committee
consisting of an- appropriate:- number-. of - City-„7.offic-ia1s,.-, or
employees and an -,equal --number .,_plus one::of, -members :o.f-. the ,publ- c,
whose names shall.be submitted._by_the- City Manager;- -and
WHEREAS; the City_Commission.,adopted -Resolution _. No. 96=510-
on July 11, .1996, appointing certain City_ employees whose names`/
were submitted by the City Manager to serve on the review
committee; and
WHEREAS, members of the public have been duly recommended by
the City Manager for review committee membership;
I-13
97- 493
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are incorporated herein as if fully
set forth in this Section.
Section 2. The following- ind-i-vi-dual,-s-.-are hereby confirmed as
members appointed to the review committee which is to evaluate
proposals for the -Dinner Key- Waterfront Redevelopment UDP and
render a written report --ot..-its.._findings. to . the_. City_ Manager,
including any minorit-y. opini_ons::.
CITY OFFICIALS; EMPLOYEES = : _ ..=
Karen Coplin-Cooper, NET Administr-atox
-Ellie.Haydoc.k,.NET Administrator_
Bibiana..Legido, Marinas Assistant., Public Facilities
Juan Ordonez, Professional Engineer III, Public Works.
Eduardo Rodriguez, Director, Asset -Management
MEMBERS OF THE! -PUBLIC
Lolly Anderson-Viet-h-_-.;-
Capt James Courbi-er_.-__._ _ -
James Flanigan-
Capt. Bob Lewis
Robert Masrieh-
Joyce Nelson
Section 3.----T.his.. Resolution__ shall become effective.
immediately upon its adoption. -
r
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
WALTER J. FOEMAN
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
1111V Lr1 1\ .
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY_.,,
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
A. QUINN JONES,
CITY ATTORNEY
•
day of 1996.
Joe Carollo
MAYOR
1
J-96-1177
10/24/96
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 96-510,
WHICH APPOINTED MEMBERS TO A REVIEW ,
COMMITTEE AND SELECTED A CERTIFIED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM TO EVALUATE PROPOSALS FOR
THE UNIFIED :-.DEVELOPMENT. ("UDP") OF
COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL WATER DEPENDENT -
FACILITIES, AND ANCILLARY USES ON CITY -OWNED
WATERFRONT PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE DINNER KEY
BOAT YARD, LOCATED AT 2640 SOUTH BAYSHORE
DRIVE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY APPOINTING CERTAIN
INDIVIDUALS TO THE REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR SAID .
UDP.
WHEREAS, the City Commission; -,---.-Pursuant :.-to Resolution;-_
No. 96-360, authorized the issuance,. -of a Request for Proposals
("RFP") for. _the Unified_ Development of - =...commercial: , ' and - -
recreational water dependent facilitiesand ancillary uses on.
City -owned- waterfront. property, laiown as the Dinner Key Boat.,.
Yard, located at 2640 South Bayshore Drive in--the-.area- .of Dinner
Key, Miami, Florida; and:
WHEREAS, the . City.--,Commissioh, --;-pursuant_ .. to Resolution
No. 96-510, adopted .July 11, 1.9961 appointed certain -members-.-to- _a- _ --
Review Committee and selected the CPA firm of -Coopers--&---Lybran,_. -.;..
LLP, to -evaluate- development. proposals received .in .connection
with said RFP; and
WHEREAS, on August 30, 1996, the City of Miami received
three Request for Proposals; and
WHEREAS, the members of the City Commission wish to complete
the slate. of individuals to be appointed to said Review Committee
and to also substitute certain previously appointed individuals
with new appointees so the RFPs received can be reviewed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section_1. The recitals and findings_._set forth in the
Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by- reference._
thereto and incorporated- here -in gas -----if- fully ---set forth in this
Section.
Section 2.. Resolution No.. 96-510, adopted: July-�..11, _;1996, -
is hereby amended in the following particulars:1/
Section 4. The following individuals.. are
hereby. ..a ointed;_:=as___ members .. ,of.__ the review ' committee
PP - - ... .:
which is to evaluate each proposal and render..a written
report of its fin irigs "to -tne City- Manager, including --
any minority opinions:
Words.. and/or figures stricken through -shall be- deleted.
Underscored words and/or figures shall be added. ' The
remaning_.provisions_ are .now _in effect and remain unchanged.
Asterisks. -indicate omitted. and unchanged material.
z-17 493
CITY OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES
Eduardo Redriguez, Direeter, Ass
,,, �7 �e-1 —a �5r-wardS , NET r a .. ♦- r-, t-��
Juan
r,-i sri na Ahrams
Phil L.LPv
-" Fdua do Rodriquez
Chi of Frank -Rol laon
Chief Donald Warshaw
Section 3. --This:::: Resolution shall ---__become . effective
immediately upon -its_ adoption: -- -- - --
PASSED AND ADOPTED -:this. -day of - 1996.
EXHIBIT II
Review Committee List as of October 22, 1996
DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REVIEW COMMITTEE
Members of the Public:
Capt. James F. Courbier
James Flanigan
Lynn Lewis, Esq.
Robert Masrieh
Joyce Nelson =
City Employees:_
Bibiana Legido, Marina. Assistant
Dinner Key Marina
Karen Coplin-Cooper,°NET.Administrator-
Model City -
Juan Ordonez, Professional Engineer
Public Works Department. ---
Eduardo Rodriguez, Director ° -
Office of Asset Management
EXHIBIT III
Review Committee List as of October 24, 1996
DINNER KEY WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REVIEW COMMITTEE
Members of the Public:
Lolly Anderson -Vieth - unable to attend , sent Mr. Sean Reiekert, as a —representative—
Capt. James F. Courbier
James Flanigan
Capt. Bob Lewis --- = ---
Robert Masrieh
Joyce Nelson - - -
City Employees: _
Phil Luney, Assistant- Director of Finance
Christina Abrams? Director-,,.ConferenceS_COnventions & Public Facilities;.:-, :.
Frank Rollason,Deputy _Fire -Chiefs Risk -Management -
Eduardo Rodriguez;=Director
Office of Assef Management -
4 93
EXHIBIT V
Video Tape of Proposal Presentations on October 29, 1996
(Available Upon Request)
v-1
493
0 r'ENTS
•
DINGIER KEY WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
HANGAR IN THE GROVE GROVE HARBOR MARINA- ATLANTIC CLIPPED
PROPOSED MINIMUM RENT
a
ASSUMPTION: NPV (M 12%
o
YEAR
•. /....
$300,000.00
$100,000.00
YEAR 3
// ...• 1/
$300,000.00
$412,500.00
YEAR 4
10•.. ,.
$300.000.00
$412,500.00
YEAR 5
•......•
..../ ,.
.. ,t
YEAR 7
3300,000.00
$300.000.00
S412,500.00
YEAR 10
•. t•....
$300,000.00
$412,500.00
YEAR 12
••
.3.0000/t
S400,000.00
YEAR 14
..
•, •., ..
$400,000.00
YEAR 16
.,
3300.000.00
$AOO,000.00
YEAR 17
••
3300,000.00
3400.0W.00
YEAR 18
X ..
$300,000.00
3400,000.00
YEAR 19
..t
$300,000.00
$400,000.00
YEAR 20
X • /
• / t,t • / /
"1400,000.00
YEAR 21
•t ••/ ••
<// •/• „
$500,000.00
YEAR 22
•• t•• /•
<•■ ttt t
$500,000.00
YEAR 23
3300,000.00
$300,000.00
t/ /„ ••
YEAR 24
3300.000.00
$300,000.00
$500,000.00
YEAR 27
3300.000.00
X t t , t / / /
3500,qqd.00
YEA-28
/• /t, •1
$C•• •t/ //
•/ //• t/
YEAR •
•t ••/ •,
/• /// ,t
3500r.000.00
YEAR 31
•/ t// //
$300,000.00
$600,000.00
YEAR 32
/• •.tt •t
$300,OW.00
0 •.• ••
YEAR 33
•t 0 //
•• tt, ,tYEAR
-,• /•• •t
34
•/ /•• //
•/ •,t •/
.•/ 1•t ••
YEAR 35
'K/• •It //
$a r/ ••/ ••
.// ••• ••
YEA-
•• //./ t/
30 ••/ tt
.t• /•/ ••
YEAR 39
S300.00c).00
$300.000.00
$600,000.00
YEA- 40
•/ ••t •/
ww,00a.00
$600,000.00
JIMMULATIVE NET PRESENTVALUES
TEN (10) YEARS
TWENTY (201 YEARS
THIRTY (30) YEARS
FOURTY (40) YEARS
$1,087,597.04
91.941.391.78
$1, 695.066.91
$2,240,833.09
$2 416.555.19
S1.997.969.59 C-3 $2,473,133.00
ao2,576.oe
52,530,264.29 _
$2,023,134.47
1
12,936,290.09 �-
-r
4 RENTS
•
DINGIER KEY WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT
HANGAR IN THE GROVE GROVE HARBOR MARINA- .ATLANTIC CUPPED
PROPOSED MINIMUM RENT
io X.E' publ, c
ASSUMPTION: NPV C 12% , a th
-
..0..../
.......
..••
.... t .0
........
....
YEAR 7
..t...t
.000.0
....
00
YEAR 15
..
.......
0,00 • t
YEAR 17
...
30 00.0
.......
YEAR IS
x ..
........
$400,000.00
YEAR 21
..../.
..•.
$•.••/.t
.t.....
YEAR 22
.....
<...t..
$500,000.00
YEA- 28
/,• ••/ tt
Y/• •// •/
$500,000.00
YEAR 32
°° tt/ //
•• °/ //
.•• ••° •/
YEAR 34
.• ••• •/
300//. °•
sew,000.00
JMMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUES
TEN (10) YEARS
TWENTY (201 YEARS
THIRTY (20) YEARS
FOURTY (40) YEARS
$1,087,597.04
$1.941.391.78
S1,69s.o66.91
$2,260,833.09
$2,416,455.19
S1.997.9s9.59 C-3 $2,473,133.00
1,802,576.08� j
�.530,Z64.29>L.�.
�2 829� 13A.4T 1
12,936_ 290. 99 n•;
ilVl
JJJJ .1,
e
loill
Ar
t
�w
rt
r"
Notes
97- 493
r
Notes
97- 493
GROVE HARBOUR MARINAo AND CC1ARIBBEAN MARKETPLACE
��
'VN1NA D.w1W.IMr-1 Rb RY�bp.nYn1'� DnM KEY
6
c ph
ifl
�rl a
97— 493
PROJECTED RETURN
$5,000,000.00
$4,500,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$3,500,000.00
$3,000,000.00
$2,500,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$500,000.00
FIRST 10 YEARS
GROVE HA NGA R in
HARBOUR the GROVE
GROVE HARBOUR
+ TAX SAVINGS CREDIT
HANGAR IN THE GROVE
$49295,000
300,000
$4,595,000
$2,360,000
97- 493
�tLY
r "ISO Al 'UBLIC®
CIUDAD DE MIAMI,.FL®RIDA,
FAVOR DE DARSE POR AVISADOS TODOS QUE, la Comisi6n de
la Ciudad de Miami, IlevarA a efecto una Reuni6n Especial de Tra-
bajo e.b relaci6n con propuestas para el Proyecto de Redesarrollo
de Qinner .Key Waterfront y otras materias el Mi6rcoles,
,1997 alas 9:00 a.m. Dicha reuni6n sercA celebrada en las C
del Ayuntamiento de.la.Ciudad, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami,
Florida. Acci6rrlegislativa:puede•sertomadardurante dicha sesion.
WADER J.IFOEMAN
(#4690) CITY CLERK
Pag. 2-B - D.IARIO LAS AMERICAS JU ME -0 D
>
v.J
—r C)
d
L,•„
K
-
r)
STATE OF FLORIDA:
J
COUNTY OF DADE: g.
Personally appeared before me the undersigned; Jorge H. Consuegra, to me
well-known, who being duly sworn deposes and says that he is Credit Manager of Diario Las
Americas, newspaper of general circulation, published daily except Monday, in Miami, Dade
County; Florida. Affiant further says that the above named newspaper has continuously
published daily except Mondays in Dade County, Florida, for more than one year immediately
preceding first publication of said Legal Notice or advertisement and was during all such time
and now is entered as second class mail matter in the United States Post Office in Miami, Dade
County; Florida; and that the Legal Notice or Advertisement, all copy of which is hereto attached,
was published in
DIARIO LAS AMERICAS
on the following days:
- TEARSHEET ATTACHED
Amount $
INV.
P.O.
19 in Miami,
uv«v�cuar IZitPublic StaiJ0 Florida
Notary
a ? Commission No iCC 34104
es 01i0o19R
yrF of F�°e My Conmssion Exp
&Bonding Co.
BondedTtuoug' Fla. No1Wy Serclee
no
MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW
Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and
Legal Holidays
Miami, Dade County, Florida.
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DADE:
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared
Sookle Williams, who on oath says that she is the Vice
President of Legal Advertising of the Miami Daily Business
Review flk/a Miami Review, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday
and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami In Dade
County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement,
being a Legal Advertisement of Notice in the matter of
CITY OF MIAMI
WORKSHOP/SPECIAL MEETING
JULY 23, 1997
In the XXXXX .. , ... Court,
wea pytillsh In STI$ gv7paper in the Issues of
Afflant further says that the said Miami Daily Business
Review is a newspaper published at Miami In said Dade
County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In said Dade County, Florida,
each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and
has been entered as second class mail matter at the post
office In Miami in said Dade County, Florida, for a period of
one next preceding the first publication of the attached
co of a ertlsement; and afflant further says that she has
nel her p ld nor promised any person, firm or corporation
an disc unt, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose
of sc "ng this adve sement for publication In the said
no per.
15 Swoln tp and subscribed before me 1
JJ .LL Y
...... day of ......................... A.D. 19......
(SEAL) EOF;
OFFICIAL NOTARY SEAL
Sookle Williams personal) CHERYL H AIARTJlcR
cev"immi NUMBER
CC545384
My COPIMISSION EXPIRES
APR. 12,2000
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
.-.PLEASE ALL TAKE NOTICE THAT the City of Miami Commission
will -hold a Workshop/Special Meeting -in connection with proposals for
the- Dinner Key Waterfront Redevelopment Project and other matters.
on Wednesday, ag L3, J997 at 9 a.m. Said meeting will be held in
City. Hall Cham ers, 0 -Pan American Drive, 'Miami Florida.
Legislative. action may be taken.during said session.
un WALTER J. FOEMAN
¢ _0 CITY CLERK
w �
fCE `TO ,TIDE' PUBLIC
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
.PLEASE ALL TAKE NOTICE THAT the City of Miami
Commission will hold a Workshop/Special Meeting in con
nection with proposals for the Dinner Key Waterfront
Redevelopment Project and other matters on Wednesday,
duly 23-1997, at.9 a.m. Said meeting will be held in City
rChambers, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami Florida._
Legislative action may be taken during said seers l�
WALTER J. FOEMAN _ l
CITY CLERK �C .
900 NW 54th STREET. MIAMI, FLORIDA 33127
(305) 757-1147
Published Weekly
Miami, Dade County, Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA SS
COUNTY OF DADE
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared MOHAMED HAMALUDIN who, on oath, says that he is the
Managing Editor of THE MIAMI TIMES weekly newspaper published at Miami, Dade County, Florida; that the
attached copy of advertisement was published in said newspaper in the issues of:
July 17th, 1997
AfCant further states that THE MIAMI TIMES is a.newspaper published in Miami, Dade County, Florida, and that
the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Dade County, Florida, each week and has
been entered as second class mail matter at the U. S. Post Office in Miami, Dade County, Florida, for a period of more
than one year next preceding date of publication of the attached copy of advertisement; further affiant says that he
has neither paid nor promised any firm, person or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the
purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in this newspaper.
-s, iraaa�i� a.
f t�
Sworn ID qnd subscribed before me on this, the 17 t h day of ii i I A.D. i191:` J
NOI�OAY PUBLIC SPATE
AT LARGE. My commission
Iti`,1�. iF! .�F:�Ii c :�"1CL111I
ieF(;"c"v.Y ;�Usil.�t: �eA'g LF FLQTelD
Ct'�1:T43.:: �iOrd '.40, CCOM37
csY