The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-95-0678J-95- 834 9/18/95 RESOLUTION NO.9 5 — 6 i� 8 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUND, LTD. FOR THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT OF A CAMPGROUND AND RELATED RECREATIONAL AND RETAIL FACILITIES, ON i APPROXIMATELY 133.8 ACRES OF CITY -OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED ON VIRGINIA KEY, MIAMI; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH SAID PROPOSER, SAID AGREEMENT TO BE IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CITY CHARTER AND CODE PROVISIONS, TO BE SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION AND TO INCLUDE CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; FURTHER PROVIDING THAT THE HEREIN SELECTION OF VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUND, LTD. AS THE SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER DOES NOT CONFER ANY CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS UPON SAID PROPOSER UNLESS AND UNTIL THE PROPOSED LEASE IS APPROVED BY A FAVORABLE VOTE OF THE ELECTORATE, AND THE LEASE IS DULY EXECUTED BY THE CITY; FURTHER PROVIDING THAT IN THE EVENT AN AGREEMENT WHICH IS FAIR AND REASONABLE TO THE CITY CANNOT BE REACHED, THE CITY MANAGER MAY DISCONTINUE NEGOTIATIONS AND j THE SELECTION PROCESS SHALL TERMINATE WITHOUT j FINANCIAL OR LEGAL LIABILITY TO THE CITY. i 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, by Resolution No. 95-282 adopted April 27, 1995, authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEP 2 8 1995 (� Resolution No. ei�` IDt�C) (RFP) on May 5, 19954for the development of a campground and related recreational and retail facilities on Virginia Key, as a previously designated UDP; and WHEREAS, the City Commission appointed members to a Review Committee and selected the certified public accounting firm of Verdeja & Gravier in association with the firm of KPMG Peat Marwick to evaluate proposal submissions; and WHEREAS, on September 1, 1995, the City of Miami received two (2)proposals in response to the RFP, only one (1) of which was determined to be responsive and responsible, thus eligible for consideration; and WHEREAS, said certified public accounting firm analyzed the proposal based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP and rendered a written report to the City Manager; and WHEREAS, said Review Committee evaluated the proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFP, and rendered a written report to the City Manager of its findings; and WHEREAS, the City Manager, taking into consideration the findings of the certified public accounting firm and of the Review Committee, recommends the acceptance of the proposal submitted by Virginia Key Campgrounds, Ltd.; 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 2 65- 678 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 29-A and 29-C and Code Section 18-52.9; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The proposal submitted by Virginia Key Campground, Ltd. for the Unified Development of a commercial campground and related recreational and retail facilities on approximately 153.8 acres of City -owned property located on Virginia Key, Miami, Florida, I is hereby accepted. Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to negotiate an agreement with the selected proposer, said agreement i to be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to be in compliance with applicable Charter and Code pp provisions, to be subject to final approval of the City Commission, and to contain, without limitation, the following provisions: a) The term of lease shall be a maximum of forty five (45) j years. I b) The successful proposer shall pay to the City an amount not less than $300,000 as the minimum annual guaranteed base rent, which may be adjusted annually subject to Consumer Price Index increases over the lease term, or 7% of gross annual revenues, whichever is greater. 3 c) The successful proposer shall be responsible to construct improvements to the property in an amount not less than $2,000,000 as specified in its proposal and pursuant to the provisions of the RFP. Section 3. The herein selection of the successful proposer does not confer any contractual rights to said proposer unless and until there has been a favorable vote cast by the electorate at a referendum and an agreement has been executed by the City of Miami. Section 4. In the event that an agreement which is fair and reasonable to the City cannot be reached with the successful 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 5. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of September , 1995. '�?kv vi o: QC' , ST PHEN P. C ARK, MAYOR ATTEST: WALTER FOEMAN CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: L114DA K. KEARSO ASSISTANT CITY TTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND rnRRFrTNF.Cq 4 95- 678 CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM 24 Honorable Mayor and Members TO: of the City Commission Cesa o FROM : City V ger REC0100NDATION: DATE : SEP 19 1995' FILE : Acceptance of proposal for the SUEUECT :development of Campground & Recreational Facilities on Virginia Key REFERENCES: For City Commission ENCLOSURES: meeting of 9/28/95 It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached Resolution to accept the proposal submitted by Virginia Key Campground, Ltd. for the Unified Development of a campground and related recreational and retail facilities on not more than 153.8 acres of City -owned property located on Virginia Key. The legislation would also authorize the City Manager to negotiate a lease agreement with said proposer, including particular terms and conditions listed in the Resolution and subject to final approval of the City Commission. The legislation contains additional disclaimers regarding contractual rights of said proposer (not until there has been a favorable vote of the electorate, as required by City Charter and the agreement has been executed by the City), and provides for the termination of the process without financial or legal liability to the City in the event that negotiations fail. BACKGROUND: The Department of Community Planning and Revitalization (CPR) has administered the Unified Development Project (UDP) process for the development of a campground and related recreational facilities, on Virginia Key. In accordance with applicable City Charter and Code provisions, this UDP has obtain 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, two sealed proposals were received by the City Clerk on September_ 1, 1995. One proposal was determined to be "non responsive" to the RFP, thus was removed from consideration and returned to the proposer. Evaluation of the remaining responsive proposal has been completed by the Review Committee and the CPA firm. vl Their independent written reports have been submitted to the City Manager and forwarded to the City Commission with this legislative package. Taking these reports into consideration, the City Manager �l - G 17 CS Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission Page two recommends the acceptance of the proposal submitted by Virginia Key Campground, Ltd. Adoption of the attached Resolution to accept this proposal is recommended, so that we may proceed to place the item before the voters on the November 7, 1995 election and negotiate a lease agreement for this project. If authorized to commence negotiations with the successful proposer for a lease agreement, these minimal terms and conditions will be included: a) A term not exceed forty-five (45) years. b) A minimum guaranteed base rent of $300,000, or, 7% of gross revenues. c) A minimum investment in property improvements of not less than $2,000,000. Note that the proposer has stipulated an initial investment of $12,097,000. Note: This is a companion item to a Resolution which would place the proposed lease on the November 7, 1995 general election as a referendum item. Attachments: 0 Proposal Highlights Review Committee's Final Report CPA Report Proposed Resolution 7 VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUND, LTD. PROPOSAL HIGHLIGHTS PROPOSER: Virginia Key Campground Ltd., a limited partnership comprised of GENERAL PARTNERS: ♦ Campground Company Inc. Managing general partner (41% interest) Michael Brown, Art Hertz ♦ Flazim Corporation Non -managing general partner (24%) Bernard Zimmerman LIMITED PARTNERS ♦ John Chappelear (10% interest) ♦ David L. Hill (17% interest) ♦ Patrick Sessions (2% interest) ♦ James Smith (3% interest) ♦ Virginia Key Eco-Camping (3% interest) SUBLEASE ♦ Maho Bay Camps, Inc. Stanley Selengut OPERATIONS ♦ Virginia Key Eco-Camping: Wendall Collins, Richard Herrick, Craig Voight, MANAGEMENT: James Smith ♦ Maho Bay Camps: Stanley Selengut EXPERIENCE: 0 Principals of VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUND, Ltd. have extensive expense in real estate development, and in the development and management of hospitality, retail, restaurant, entertainment facilities and tourism attractions 0 Principals of VIRGINIA KEY ECO-CAMPING have more than 25 years experience in the fields of campground development, operations and management 0 Stanley Selengut and his Maho Bay Camps are known internationally as pioneers in the fields of sustainable development and eco-tourism CAPITAL INVESTMENT: IMPROVEMENTS: 0 The proposer pledges to construct improvements to the site valued at $12,097,000 • 200 - 300 RV sites • 3+ acres for primitive tent sites • Visitor Center • Fishing Pier • Black History Exhibit • Picnic Shelters • Nature Trails • 100± EcoTents • Up to 4 Dormitories for group camping • Clubhouse/Activity Center • Campfire Theater • Tennis, Volleyball & basketball courts • Dockage at Shrimpers Lagoon • Food Service • 100 - 200 cabins • Improved Public swimming beach • Fresh water pool • Turtle Hatchery • Concession Kiosks • Canoe Trails SCHEDULE: 24 Months required for deign, permitting and construction FINANCIAL • GUARANTEED MINIMUM ANNUAL RENT OF $300,000 or 7% of gross TERMS: receipts, whichever is greater, over the 45 year lease term • Ad valorem taxes of more than $230,000 per year revision 9/21/95 95- 6'.8 k] _j • Assumption of City operating costs for public beach at $280,000 per year • Estimated Annual Operating Expenses $ 2,715,100 • Total Est. Annual Expenses (incl. debt service) $ 4,482,900 • Estimated Gross Revenue $ 5,882,600 FINANCING: 0 Virginia Key Campground, Ltd. principals will contribute $4,000,000 to the project. A $9,000,000 loan will be made by Aramco Corporation 0 The required letter of credit is in place 0 A performance bond will secure construction CONSULTANTS: * Grafton Architects, Inc.- Design Architects & Overall Coordination * Spillis Candela & Partners - Engineering & Technical Support * Rhett Roy - Landscape Architecture, Planning, P.A. * David Plummer & Associates, Inc., Civil, traffic engineering * Albert A. Will - Environmental Consultant * Solar Design Associates - Solar Design Consulting * Florida Solar Energy Center - Appropriate Technical Consulting * Argus Construction - Construction Consulting * Campanille & Associates - Surveying * K & B Consulting - Geotechnical Engineering/Testing * Feick Security, Inc. - Security Consultant * Sharpton Brunson & Co. - Accounting * Adorno & Zeder - Land lease legal * Holland & Knight - corporate legal OVERALL 0 The design of the project is responsive to the goals of the City for the site. DESIGN: 0 Principal use is an environmentally -oriented recreational campground 0 Project design preserves and enhances natural areas and environmental systems under "sustainable development" philosophy 0 Proposed structures utilize historic wood frame vernacular in their architectural features CAPABILITY: Development Entity & Consultants possess proven performance in administration of other development projects as well as professional qualifications and capability of team members. MINORITY ♦ Sharpton, Brunson & Co., CPA - Black -Owned Firm PARTICIPATION: ♦ Argus Construction - Black -Owned Firm ♦ Spillis Candela & Partners, Architects - Hispanic -owned firm ♦ Campanile & Associates (Engineers) - Female owned firm LOCAL FIRMS: • VIRGINIA KEY ECO-CAMPING, INC. - limited partner, manager • Campground Company, Inc. - managing general partner • Sharpton, Brunson & Co., CPA - consultant, Accounting • Grafton Architects, Inc. - consultant, architects & project coordination • Campanille & Associates - consultant, surveying L,l revision 9/21/95 G78 L U JACK L. LUFT Director September 19, 1995 of 'ffliavat- Or1/ G�qV F � k e Cesar H. Odio, City Manager City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. Odio: CESAR H. ODIC) City Manager Pursuant to public notice, the City of Miami received one (1) responsive proposal in reply to its Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development and operation of a campground and related recreational and retail facilities on Virginia Key. The proposal received from VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUND, LTD. was reviewed and evaluated by the 15-member committee in accordance with guidelines provided to us by staff pursuant to applicable City Charter and Code provisions pertaining to Unified Development Projects. The Committee convened a total of three meetings, culminating in a final session on September 18, 1995 during which the designated Certified Public Accounting firm and the proposer itself both made presentations. As directed in the City Code, the Committee evaluated the proposal based solely on criteria contained in the RFP document, with relative weights for each criteria also as stipulated therein. The criteria were: Value Criteria Poin s Experience of the proposing entity....................................15 Capability of the Development Entity & Consultants ........... 15 Financial capability of the proposing entity .........................15 Management & Operating Plan..........................................15 Overall design of the proposed development .....................10 Environmental Design & Enhancement..............................10 Financial return to the City ..................................................10 Extent of minority participation ........................................ 10 Local firm(s) participation......................................................6 Total Maximum Points ........................106 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND REVITALIZATION i" As required by the City Charter and Code, enclosed is the Committee's final report outlining its deliberations and evaluation of the proposal submitted by Virginia Key Campground, Ltd. By a majority vote of its members, the Committee recommends that this proposal be accepted by the City and forwarded to the review of the voters as a referendum at the upcoming general election. On behalf of the Committee, we appreciate the opportunity to participate in the development of this valuable waterfront of the City. Sincerely, Don Chinquina, Chairperson Review Committee for the Virginia Key Campground UDP Project cc: Committee Members Jack Luft, Director, Community Planning and Revitalization I Linda K. Kearson, Assistant City Attorney to - 678 CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT VIRGIN'IA KEY CAMPGROUND REPORT OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE TO CESAR H. ODIO, CITY MANAGER September 18, 1995 prepared by Department of Community Planning and Revitalization L T.A►BLE OF CONTENTS REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND SUPPORT STAFF............................................3 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................3 PROCEEDINGS............................................................................................................4 THECRITERIA.............................................................................................................5 EVALUATION AND DISCUSSIONS...............................................................................5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................8 APPENDIX A: RATING SUMMARY AND EVALUATION SCORE SHEETS .......................9 L REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND SUPPORT STAFF COMMITTEE MEMBERS MEMBERS OF THE;PUBTC . :'City......'STAFF;.>OR ':OFFICIATSI . John Kiskinis Maggie Genova-Cordobi Kiskinis Communications NET Administrator (Planner II) Mayor Clark Gene Hancock Adrienne Macbeth East Coast Advertising Deputy Director Vice -Mayor Plummer GSA/Solid Waste Rolando Delgado, Attorney Nancy Fernandez Dezayas, O'Naghton & Diaz Asset Management and Capital Projects Comm. DeYurre Hon. Betty Sime, Vice Mayor Miranda Albury Village of Key Biscayne NET Administrator (Community Comm Gort Development Specialist) Linda Eads, Principal (or designee) Terrence Griffin, Asst. Director MAST Academy Parks & Recreation Dept. Comm. Dawkins Don Chinquina, Exec, Director Ana Gelabert, NET Administrator Tropical Audubon Society (Landscape Architect/Planner) Danielle Bazin (student) Terry Buice, Asst. Director MAST Academy Conferences Conventions & Public Facilities Dept, Amy Fleisher (student) MAST Academy SUPPORT STAFF Jack Luft, Director Linda K. Kearson, Community Planning & Revitalization Assistant City Attorney D. E. Johnson, Development Coordinator Maria Perez, UDP Coordinator Community Planning & Revitalization Community Planning & Revitalization BACKGROUND Following the 1987 adopted master plan for Virginia Key, the City Commission, by Resolution No. 95-282 of April 27, 1995, authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the development of a campground and related recreational and retail facilities on Virginia Key as a previously designated Unified Development Project. The RFP was duly issued May 5, 1995. The deadline for submittals was extended by the City Commission (Resolution No. 95-551) from August 1, 1995 to September 1, 1995. The City Commission 3 "f I additionally selected the certified public accounting firm of Verdeja and Gravier with the firm of KPMG Peat Marwick as subconsultants and appointed members to a Review Committee, each to independently evaluate proposal submissions. On September 1, 1995, the City of Miami received one (1) responsive proposal in reply to the RFP, from VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUNDS, LTD. (PROCEEDINGS In the course of fulfilling its responsibilities, the Review Committee met a total of three (3) times. All meetings were duly advertised, recorded and conducted pursuant to "Government in the Sunshine" regulations. The first meeting was held August 24, 1995 during which staff presented the City's RFP document in detail to the Committee. Additionally, the Committee was given a briefing on the intricacies of the City's UDP process. Mr. Don Chinquina, Executive Director of the Tropical Audubon Society was elected chairperson of the Committee. The Committee's second meeting took place September 7, 1995. The Committee considered different methods of evaluating the proposal and formulating its recommendation to the City Manager. Ultimately, the Committee voted to utilize this process: the Committee would independently score the proposal according to the City's evaluation sheets (provided pursuant to Administrative Policy # 1 /89); taking into consideration the total point score from those sheets, each member would individually (and somewhat subjectively) assign a value of either 1 or 0 to the proposal -- 1 meaning "acceptable" and 0 meaning "not acceptable"; a simple majority of acceptable votes would render and "acceptable" recommendation to the City Manager. Upon further deliberation, the Committee additionally adopted a process under which the proposal could be recommended as "excellent": if initially determined "acceptable", the Committee would conduct a second vote, a two-thirds majority of favorable votes by the members would render the proposal "excellent". The Committee went on to request that the record reflect its recommendation that significantly more time be allotted in future UDP's for both proposal preparation and evaluation. The Committee felt disadvantaged by the mere two (2) week turnaround time from proposal due date to final committee review. The second Committee meeting concluded with a request that staff seek to /0 4 9r- C°'7g secure some clarifications from the proposer regarding: environmental issues, plans, credentials, and permitting; proposed policy for horseback riding; parking plans; background on the proposed financing institution; and minority participation. Of particular interest was the continued involvement of Dade County's Department of Environmental Resources Management as both a regulatory agency and an advisor to the project planning process. It was further agreed that the CPA and proposer would be scheduled to make presentations at the third and final meeting of the Committee. THE CRITERIA As mandated in the City Charter and Code, the Committee evaluated the proposal based solely on criteria contained in the RFP document, with relative weights for each criteria also as stipulated therein. The criteria were: Value Criteria (Points) Experience of the proposing entity....................................15 Capability of the Development Entity & Consultants ........... 15 Financial capability of the proposing entity .........................15 Management & Operating Plan..........................................15 Overall design of the proposed development .....................10 Environmental Design & Enhancement..............................10 Financial return to the City..................................................10 Extent of minority participation............................................10 Local firm(s) participation......................................................6 Total..................................................106 EVALUATION AND DISCUSSIONS CPA PRESENTATION The CPA firm of Verdeja and Gravier, with a representative of its subconsultant, KPMG Peat Marwick presented a fairly comprehensive report of its preliminary findings to the Committee. Using information from the proposal, from outside sources and data contained in a study commissioned by the City and in the City's two appraisals of the proposed project, the firm outlined its findings as follows: 1) calculated revenues appear high; 2) vacancy rates appeared low; 3) operating revenues seemed low; and 4) development costs (per site) are higher than the industry average. The CPA firm additionally stated that industry averages were used for comparison and that the proposal may in fact present "a better mouse trap". A brief discussion'by the Committee followed. PROPOSER PRESENTATION At 11:00 a.m. the proposer, represented by Wendall Collins of Virginia Key Eco- Camping, Inc., was introduced. Mr. Collins gave a brief overview of the project and then turned the presentation over to various members of the development team as follows: Stanley Selengut - eco-tourism and the Maho Bay Camp model, Thorn Grafton - architectural features and treatments, Rhett Roy - environmental and site planning, project master plan, and John Chappelear - development program and concepts. The proceedings were then returned to the Committee Chairperson for the question and answer period. Initial questions centered on the environmental aspects of the project. The proposer indicated that it planned on conducting more detailed studies of the site to improve environmental design; would involve environmental groups and Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management in pre -permit planning, and intended to utilize non - chemical means to address insect and odor problems. A series of questions were then posed on the issues of local area marketing and campground management, which were addressed by Mr. Chappelear and Mr. Herrick, of Virginia Key Eco-Camping. The Committee then sought and received additional information from Mr. Selengut on the success rates of his Maho Bay Camp from the eco-tourisn and group marketing standpoints. Mr. Selengut also provided detail on the use of recycled building materials and his relationship to the proposer as sublessee. At the Committee's request, the proposer went on to elaborate on its plans for environmental education programs, for parking, and for construction and operation of beach areas, particularly public access. In reply to specific queries, the proposer again pledged to conduct a traffic study and further indicated that the proposal was flexible enough to accommodate changes in the mix of campsites and other facilities if needed. The campground was described as an operation totally separate from other facilities owned by the principal(s) in the proposing entity. Supplementary information was then provided on equestrian activities and recognition of the site's historical use as the County's segregated beach. The project's financing and guarantees were also questioned, to which the proposer advised that loan financing will be negotiated and may be adjusted to coincide with phased construction. The proposer further indicated its willingness to put in more capital, to use local banks, or modify the number of campsites constructed. Ultimately, the proposer reiterated its commitment to the project, and its willingness "to ride out the lean years" and still pay the mortgage and the rent. li 6 95- " _J DELIBERATIONS After the departure of the proposer and its consultants, committee members entered into a lengthy discussion of the proposal, particularly regarding the experience of involved firms, the proposal's economic and marketing aspects, community impact, and potential long range implications. As to the experience addressed in the proposal, it was noted that no campground management experience had been demonstrated for the key financial parties to the proposal. However, a limited partner, Mr. Herrick of Virginia Key Eco-Camping, and the management consultant had shown considerable experience in this area, and all key members of the proposing entity had verified experience in the development and management of entertainment, retail and/or other real estate projects. The economic and market aspects of the proposal were extensively scrutinized by the Committee, particularly in light of the CPA's preliminary report. The absence of a detailed feasibility study and market plan by the proposer was considered a serious deficiency. Alternatively, this was also viewed as a public/private partnership, wherein the proposer was not required to produce in-depth studies, yet is to assume the financial risk of the venture for the public benefit. The interest of and impact on the community was further reviewed in terms of the community's need for recreational facilities, the current condition of this publicly -owned property and opportunities for continued public participation in the planning and operation of the site. Lastly, City Charter and Code provisions were inspected for guidance in addressing potential downfalls to the project and future modifications to its scope or extent. The Committee was advised that the site and all improvements would revert to the City in the event of failure, and another operator could be put in place by the City. Additionally, substantive changes or material alterations to the project would require additional public hearings, renewed consideration by the review committee, or a termination of the lease. At the conclusion of the discussion, it was suggested that Committee members reread portions of the RFP to absorb the entire text and scope of the evaluation criteria. It was then the general consensus that certain elements of the proposal, namely those represented by Stanley Selengut, Thorn Grafton, and Lee Tiger, were acceptable without question. The biggest concern of the Committee was the lack of documentation for the economics of the proposal as reflected in the CPA firm's report. None the less, the overall project design and approach were considered very good and appropriate to the site. 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Chairman of the Review Committee called for Committee members to score their evaluation forms, the totals of which were then checked by staff for mathematical errors. The Chairman then called for each member to vote by a rate of "1" for acceptance or zero "0" for non -acceptance of the proposal, based on the ultimate score listed on each member's respective evaluation sheet. The result was a total of 14 members for acceptance and one member for non- acceptance. As decided by the Committee at the previous meeting, a second vote was then called to determine if the proposal was to be recommended as "excellent". A two-thirds majority was required to pass this second issue, which failed by a vote of 4 to 11. The Committee concluded its deliberations by delineating final recommendations to be forwarded to the City Manager and Commission. RECOMMENDATION: THE REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY VIRGI.NIA KEY CAMPGROUNDS, LTD. BE ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS: i 1. During the programmatic planning and design phases of the project, and prior to construction, the lessee and City shall seek and obtain the participation of a broad range of community groups and local officials, including, without limitation, the following groups: the Sierra Club/Miami Group, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), the Black Archives, the MAST Academy, the Rosenstiel School, Biscayne Nature Center, Tropical Audubon Society, Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management, and the Miami Committee on Beatification and Environment. 2. The involvement and participation of Stanley Selengut and Maho Bay Camps, Inc. as a sublessee of the project shall be maintained at all costs and as a prerequisite to the lease. 3. The City of Miami shall closely monitor the development and operation of the campground and all facilities during the entire term of the lease. 4. Prior to the execution of the lease, the proposer shall prepare and present to the City a detailed market analysis and program for the project, specifically addressing the local urban market segment. 5. The proposer shall prepare and present to the City a detailed traffic study for the project, prior to issuance of permits. 6. Recognizing that the proposal, as written, presents minimal risk to City, the proposer and City shall conduct all due diligence on a timely basis to guard against any future failure of the proposed development. // s 95— 6178 L APPENDIX A RATING SUMMARY AND EVALUATION SCORE SHEETS 9 9ti - 678 �tv 0 UNIFIED �uj R A T City of Miami DEVELOPMENT PROJECT I N G SUMMARY tENCE: City of Miami Administrative Policy No. 1.89 t. VI8I;INIA KEY CAMPGROUND Proposer: Virginia Key Campground, Ltd. .ttee Member VOTE 1: To accept (1) or not accept (0) the proposal VOTE 2; To recommend the proposal as "excellent" (yes or no) 'hinquina, 1 N Kiskinis 1 N Hancock 1 YES ado Delgado 1 NO Sime 0 NO Eads 1 YES :lle Bazin 1 NO 'leisher 1 YES .e Genova-Cordobi 1 NO nne Macbeth 1 NO Fernandez 1 NO ida Albury 1 NO nce Griffin 1 NO elabert 1 NO Buice 1 YES LT 14 to 1: ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL RECOMMENDED 4 to 11: RECOM F ENDATTON AS "EX ELLENT" City of Miami �..;;;;....� UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT .��°p�c EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: Ci 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) Experience of the Proposer Entity 15 V Capability of the Development 15 7J� Entity & Consultants Financial Capability, Level of Financial Commitment 15 Financial Return to the City 10 V Overall Project Design 10 5-() Extent of Minority Participation 10 S Other. Management and Operating P1_an x 15 Yl6 10 3 O Environmental Design & Enhancement Local firm participation Other. TOTAL 106 To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + + — — Purpose Only Committee Member / d Name Printed Signature Date 1 95- l l' C8 in Of 41 City of Miami - UNIFIED • ,°P� DEVELOPMENT PROJECT '`` 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) Experience of the Proposer Entity J 15 3 49.r1 '�' Capability of the Development Entity & Consultants / 15 Financial Capability, Level of Financial Commitment i5 "!�G Financial Return to the City % 10 (J, �6 Overall Project Design ✓ 10� Extent of Minority Participation 10 f, 416 Other. Management and Operating Plan / % 15 l� � (• `X /.(' ✓ 10(l (� 1 Environmental Design & Enhancement Local firm participation ✓ 6 Other. \ TOTAL 106 1j To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL Purpose Only + + + + + + — — Committee Member. Name Printed Signature Date City of Miami UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: Ci 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) Experience of the Proposer Entity 15 Capability of the Development 15 Entity & Consultants i3O Financial Capability, Level of Financial Commitment 15 Financial Return to the City 10 Fu Overall Project Design 10 Extent of Minority Participation 10 15 !1 Other. Management and Operating Plan Environmental Design & Enhancement 10 6 v Local firm participation Other. TOTAL 106 {G To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + + — — Purpose Only Committee Member. �10441�y� XL - Name_ Printed Signature Date 05- 6178 7� ;,•� ,, City of Miami UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) Experience of the Proposer Entity 15 Capability of the Development Entity & Consultants / 15 Financial Capability, Level of Financial Commitment 15 Financial Return to the City 10 �0 Overall Project Design 10 lfL/ Extent of Minority Participation 10 20 Other. Managgment and Operating Plan 15 IJ 10 6 S.IU Environmental Design & Enhancement Local firm participation Other. TOTAL 106 To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + + _ Purpose Only Committee /Member. Name PrintKd Signatur Date City of Miami UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT cb_rL 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) Experience of the Proposer Entity 15 Capability of the Development Entity & Consultants 15 -� Financial Capability, 15 Level of Financial Commitment Financial Return to the City 10 (� Overall Project Design J 10 \ (� Extent of Minority Participation % 10 ? J 3 15 Other. Management and Operating Plan 10 C Environmental Design & Enhancement Local firm participation 6 Other. TOTAL 106 To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + + _ Purpose Only Committee Member. q f Name Printed ignature Date 95- 6'.78 1r City of Miami ,.,..;.;.,.. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 'Gf CO.f�•O�` EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: Ci 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION CALCULATIONS (SE) Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) Experience of the Proposer Entity 15 Capability of the Development 15 Entity & Consultants vi Financial Capability, Level Financial Commitment y 15 I 7 S- of Financial Return to the City 10 Overall Project Design 10 O T r�tr tows, Extent of Minority Participation A `r`r�s Pi�i 10 So Other. Management and Operatine Plan 15 7-6 10 Q Environmental Design & Enhancement Local firm participation 6 Other. TOTAL. 106 l To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + + _ Purpose Only Committee Member. T 1151 1 � Name Printed Sy ature Date 0 b — t�'�6 City of Miami UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: Citt 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) Experience of the Proposer Entity / 15 - 15 Capability of the Development & Consultants / 15 qdEntity V Financial Capability, Level of Financial Commitment 15 Financial Return to the City 10 v Overall Project Design / 10 I O Extent of Minority Participation / 10 40 Other. Management and Operating Plan 15 o 10 D Environmental Design & Enhancement Local firm participation V 4 Other. TOTAL 106 Pei - To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + i + _ Purpose Only Committee Member. nn G Name Printed Signature Date _—i a1A City of Miami UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT -FEVALUATION 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION CALCULATIONS (SE) Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) Experience of the Proposer Entity % 15 -7S Capability of the Development 15 Entity & Consultants C b Financial Capability, t( Level of Financial Commitment �` 15 Financial Return to the City 10 Overall Project Design }� 10 WD Extent of Minority Participation 10 3 ON Other. Management and Operating-2l an 15 75" 10 6 Go �<G Environmental Design & Enhancement Local firm participation Other. S"S I K ItTAL TOTAL 106 To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + + Purpose Only Committee Member. A My F'L r t S Nis (L 9 1 S 1 9..q- Name Printed Signature Date /1 I 111 (A 1 nn1� . r M City of Miami UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) Experience of the Proposer Entity 15C'^ Capability of the Development 15 (00 Entity & Consultants Financial Capability, X 15 O Level of Financial Commitment Financial Return to the City x 10 O Overall Project Design x 10 d Extent of Minority Participation 10 O Other. Management and Operating_ P] an Ix 1 15 1 30 x 10 6 3 0 3 Environmental Design & Enhancement Local firm participation Other. TOTAL 106 3o I To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + + — Purpose Only Committee Member. % SS f a god v-g _ r10 >/ I/S I Name Printed Signature Date -J City of Miami UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ct ca F Boa EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: Ci 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) t Experience of the Proposer Entity 15 f. s Capability of the Development & Consultants 15 1/6 Entity Financial Capability, 15 Level of Financial Commitment Financial Return to the City 10 Overall Project Design J 10 G Extent of Minority Participation 10 01her. Management and Operating Plan X 15 -5 X 10 3� Environmental Design & Enhancement% Local firm participation X, 6 3 Other TOTAL Son 106 + + + + + + — To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL Purpose Only mi ee Member. (� U Name Printed Signature Date //)! 1 r1 IMI / A 1 nn 4 n I� r Mn 5 _ G 0., "' City of Miami UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT cO.FL 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) Experience of the Proposer Entity 15 Capability of the Development Entity & Consultants 15 �O Financial Capability, Level of Financial Commitment 15 Financial Return to the City 10 Overall Project Design 10 Extent of Minority Participation 10 ^ ^ Other. Management and Operating -Plan 15 Li Environmental Design & Enhancement 10 6 �o Local firm participation Other. P 106ed For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + +urpose Only — CommitteeM11ember. . ' '� --, 1� ( U 14, ( (.k%*ku-� V�'rqP4A- 2- � i -(k-, - Name Printed �• .j �Gtc'�_ Si nature Date �j;�- t;'7N At) "" •, City of Miami UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT '°f��•F��4� 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) Experience of the Proposer Entity 15 / Capability of the Development Entity & Consultants1 15 LU Financial Capability, Level of Financial Commitment 15 Financial Return to the City 10 O Overall Project Design 10 Extent of Minority Participation 10 j Other. Management and OperatiniZ P1 an 15 Environmental Design & Enhancement 10 Local firm participation 6 Other. TOTAL 106 To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + Purpose Only + Committee Member l l iFAAldc� r, A I hGCi'� � �!�1��i�lL � ��ti•ry'�� d �� IJ Name Printed Signature. Date D IDL/Al- oni RPv n4/PP ,? 8 Vity OT Miami �,..,;;;;.... UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: Ci 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) Experience of the Proposer Entity 15 dj Capability of the Development 15� Entity & Consultants Financial Capability, Level of Financial Commitment 15 Financial Return to the City 101] Overall Project Design 10 6'0 Extent of Minority Participation 10 '� Q Other. Management and Overatin& Plan 15 i Environmental Design & Enhancement 10a 6 a Local firm participation Other. TOTAL 106 To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + + _ Purpose Only Committee Member. 4Signa#t Name Printed Date v v U : v 2 %. City of Miami l; •:;;; UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ;J EVALUATION FORM REFERENCE: Ci of Miami Administrative Policx 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION CALCULATIONS (SE) Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) Experience of the Proposer Entity ✓ 15 1-/1� Capability of the Development 15 (�+ Entity & Consultants Financial Capability, Level of Financial Commitment ✓ 15 Financial Return to the City ✓ 10 3 a Overall Project Design 10 -6-6 Extent of Minority Participation V✓ 10 `? 0 Other. Management and Operating Plan. V 15 Environmental Design & Enhancement t%" 10 6 4J 3 Local firm participation Other TOTAL 106 To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + + Purpose Only — — Committee Member. Name Printed S' nature Date D DL/AL l}01 Rev. 04/88 95-- 678 City of Miami UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EVALUATION FORM .F�a�'� e1 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 Virginia Key Campground Development Project Proposer. SUBJECTIVE EVALUATION (SE) CALCULATIONS Excellent Poor POINTS ASSIGNED CALCULATED, VALUE EVALUATION CRITERIA 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (PA) (SE x PA) Experience of the Proposer Entity `� 15 7S Capability of the Development \% 15 Entity & Consultants Financial Capability, Financial Commitment 15 /v{ Level of Financial Return to the City �� 10 Overall Project Design � 10 / D Extent of Minority Participation 10 --�C4J j.� 15 Other. Management and emigrating P] an Environmental Design & Enhancement k 10 Local firm participation x Other. TOTAL To Be Used For Tie Breaking TOTAL + + + + + + _ Purpose Only Committee Member. _ Na a Printed gnature Date D DLfAL 001 Rev. 04/88 - C. I 8 THE VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUND INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUNDS, LTD. TO THE CITY OF MIAMI VE R D 1;•.1 A& (AL•1V1 E R CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS A PA M4CRSHIP Of MOFLSSlONAL ASSOCIATIONS LEONARDO GRAVIER. P.A. OCTAVIO A. VERDEJA. P.A. OCTAVIO F. VERDEJA. P.A. September 20, 1995 Mr. Cesar Odio City Manager City of Miami Dear Mr. Odio: "9 PONCE DE LEON BLVD.- SUITE 500 CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33134 TEL (305) 446.3177 FAX. (305) 44"319 In May 1995, the City of Miami requested proposals for the development of a campground facility on approximately 154 acres of City -owned property located at Virginia Key Beach, Miami, Florida. The City Conunission appointed members to a review committee and selected our firm, Verdeja & Gravier, and our subcontractors, KPMG Peat Marwick, L.L.P. to evaluate proposal submissions and to report findings to you. During 1994, the City obtained two (2) appraisals of the subject Property. The appraisal dated December 1, 1994 yielded the following results: an estimated.'market value of $9,300,000 and a recommended annual market rent of a guaranteed minimum annual base rent of $300,000 or 7% of gross annual income, whichever is greater. The appraisal dated October 5, 1994 yielded the following results: an estimated market value of $1,700,000 and a recommended annual market rent of a guaranteed minimum annual base rent of $162,000 or 7% ofgross annual income (assuming real estate taxes on both land and improvements), whichever is greater. These appraisals were provided to our firm and a significant amount of our analysis was based on these two independent appraisals. The RFP required that the CPA firm specifically evaluate the following areas: A. the financial viability of the proposing entity, including prior record and experience B. the viability of the financing strategies, source and structure C. the short and long range economic and fiscal return to the City through comparative assessment D. the market analysis, marketing plan, and economic feasibility of the proposed development E. economic feasibility of the proposed development F. viability and appropriateness of management plan FR The Proposal received from Virginia Key Campgrounds, Ltd. (the only proposal received), was evaluated in light of these requirements. Our summarized, findings and comments by area are indicated below. The detailed procedures and calculations are included in this report as supplementary information. A: THE FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF THE PROPOSING ENTITY, INCLUDING PRIOR RECORD AND EXPERIENCE Virginia Key Campgrounds, Ltd. is a partnership whose partners include Campground Co., Inc. and Flazim Corp. and several limited partners. In turn, Campground Co., Inc. is owned by Michael S. Brown and Arthur Hertz, and Flazim Corporation is owned by Bernard Zimmerman. The names of the limited partners are included in the supplementary information section of our report. .As indicated by the proposer, Virginia Key Campground, Ltd. is a newly formed partnership created solely for the purpose of developing the campground. As a result, obtaining credit information and history is difficult at this time. Consequently, background searches were conducted on the company's principals. Background searches including criminal record, bankruptcy, litigation, and credit history, were conducted on the following individuals via Fidelifacts: Arthur Hertz Bernard Zimmerman Michael Brown John Chappelar David Hill Background searches were also conducted on the following organizations via Dunn & Bradstreet: Wometco Enterprises Leisure Systems, Inc. Ocean Hospitalities, Inc. Flazim Corp. Aramco Corp. Campground Company Inc. Eastland Development Summit Associates The information we received from Fidelifacts confirmed the information in the proposal, and showed no significant outstanding claims or bankruptcies. D&B maintained records for Wometco Enterprises and Ocean Hospitalities, Inc. but not on the others. Nothing unusual came to our attention regarding Wometco or Ocean Hospitalities. The reports provided by Fidelifacts and D&B are quite extensive. They are available to you should you request them. 3 In addition, we were provided with the financial statements of Mr. Hertz, Mr. Brown and Mr. Zimmerman. Their proposal indicated that the three partners have agreed to contribute $4,000,000. As our findings in this area are confidential, we will not report on them here, but will be made available to you should you request them. B. THE VIABILITY OF THE FINANCING STRATEGIES SOURCE AND STRUCTURE Virginia Key Campground Ltd., has indicated that they will obtain financing in the amount of $9,000,000. The proposers have provided a letter from ARAMCO Corporation where ARAMCO has indicated that they intend to recommend this loan transaction for financing. We spoke with Mr. Jim Effthinmiou of ARAMCO. ARAMCO appears to be a mortgage broker. They have been active in commercial lending for over ten years. ARAMCO provided us with references from reputable sources. It should be noted, however, that the loan application is not a commitment to lend. No financing has been secured to date, although ARAMCO states that there is much interest from institutions on this loan. Given the level of equity being contributed by the partners, Mr. Effthinmiou believes Virginia Key Campground, Ltd. should not have a problem securing the financing. In addition, the RFP required that the proposer obtain a standby letter of credit. The proposer provided a copy of an irrevocable standby letter of credit from City National Bank. We called City National and confirmed that there was such letter of credit. They indicated that there was. C&E. THE SHORT AND LONG RANGE ECONOMIC AND FISCAL RETURNS TO THE CITY THROUGH COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT AND THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT In 1994, the City of Miami requested that independent appraisals from Appraisal First Inc. and Lewis Appraisals, Inc. be made. We were provided with such appraisals. In addition, we obtained other corroboratory information and made phone calls to other campgrounds in the state of Florida to test the validity of the revenues and expenses as indicated by the proposer. Our results indicated the following: 1. Revenues as calculated by the proposer appear to be high when compared to other sites and the independent appraisers' reports. Unit rates used by the proposer for R-V. pads, cabins, etc. are often higher than most campgrounds. 2. The vacancy rates used by the proposer average 32%. The two independent appraisers suggested vacancy rates of 55% and 44%. Per ARVC, the State of Florida's average was about 50% and 52.5% for 1993 and 1994, respectively, and the Dade County average was 50.8% for 1994. ' Y 3. The operating expenses reflected by the proposer represent 46% of net revenues. The independent appraisers, however, suggested operating expense rates of 50% and 68% of operating revenues. 4. The average cost per site for the 500 sites per the proposer is approximately $22,000. Both appraisers reflect an average cost of about $14,000. David Gorin of ARVC suggests that the cost per site should not exceed $12,500. Additional information and findings are included in our report. The RFP indicated that the lease payment to the City would be the greater of $300,000 or 7% of gross annual income. Based on the independent appraisers information, the computations we made indicate that it is unlikely that the lease payments will exceed $300,000 which is the minimum as required by the City. The proposer only presented a statement of operations for one year. Therefore, analysis of long term projections could not be made. In addition, the City will receive property taxes which may range from $200,000 to $250,000 although this amount is difficult to calculate at this time. In addition, the proposer has indicated that they will save the City $250,000 which they indicate is the current operating loss at Virginia Key. We had no information available to verify this amount. We must bring to your attention the fact that the proposer has presented a very ambitious project modeled after Maho Bay in the Virgin Islands. Consequently, the rates, amounts, etc. used by the appraisers and therefore by our firm, may not reflect the revenues that could in fact, be derived from such a unique campground. D&F. THE MARKET ANALYSIS, MARKETING PLAN AND THE FINANCIAL. VIABILITY AND APPROPRIATENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN The proposer assumed a 68% occupancy which is high compared to those assumed by the two appraisals submitted to the City of Miami. Information provided by the National Association of RV and Campgrounds (ARVC) shows an average occupancy of 47.5% for member RV Parks and Campgrounds in the state of Florida in 1994. Specifically, the ARVC average occupancy for Dade County was 49.2% in 1994. The basis on which the proposer plans to achieve such a strong occupancy number remains unclear. In order to achieve a 68% occupancy, the proposer plans to attract a variety of market segments to the campground including, extended stay seasonal visitors, families within a 100 mile radius of the campground, short-term seasonal tourists and eco-tourism within the international market. The following facts should be considered in the proposer's ability to attract these groups: • According to Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau survey, of Dade County's 8.7 million visitors in 1994 only 0.1% elected to stay at a campground, Ito representing approximately 8,700 visitors. 95- E7S 5 • The Florida Association of RV Parks and Campground study cites the Panama City Beach area and the panhandle as the number one destination for Florida campers citing the reduced driving time compared to Miami or Orlando. In terms of "camper nights", central Florida with its many attractions including Walt Disney World, Universal Studios and SeaWorld is the main destination of Florida campers. The Virginia Key project must position itself to attract those who do not wish to make the long drive to Miami and must compete with the attractions and offerings of Central Florida. While the initial marketing plan outline proposed covers the main areas of advertising in national directories and membership in licensed networks, industry sources contacted suggested the need for a more detailed plan, geared toward specific market segments and one which included a detailed outline of start-up costs. In addition, industry sources suggested that a 200 site campground would have to consider a minimal marketing expense of $250,000 for the first year and emphasized the importance of a detailed marketing plan for a successful project with strong occupancy. The proposer budgeted $240,000, which is inline with the market, for an initial marketing campaign. This letter is intended to be a summary of our findings. In addition, we have enclosed computations and additional information in the Supplementary Information Section that follows this letter. Finally, our workpapers as well as confidential information about the proposers are available for your review. We did not compile, review, or audit any historical financial statements or financial information in connection with this assignment in- accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on them. We appreciate the opportunity of serving you. VERDEJA & GRAVIER 95- C178 y/ ♦ 1 ' SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUNDS, LTD. (PARTNERS PERSONAL ADDRESS) CAMPGROUND CO. MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER 1. MICHAEL S. BROWN 2. ARTHUR H. HERTZ FLAZIM CORPORATION 1. BERNARD ZIMMERMAN ORIGINAL LIMITED PARTNERS 8079 SW 86TH TERR MIAMI, FL 334143 610 FLUVIA AVE. CORAL GABLES, FL 33134 21133 ORMOND CT. BOCA RATON, FLA. 33432 1. JOHN M. CHAPPELEAR 1015 BEL AIR DR. HIGHLAND BEACH, FL 33478 2. PATRICK E. SESSIONS 754 S. BAYSHORE LANE COCONUT GROVE, FL. 33133 3. JAMES SMITH 1411 NE 14TH CT. JENSEN BEACH, FL. 34951 4. DAVID L. HILL 6700 SW 118TH AVE MIAMI, FL. 33143 5. VIRGINIA KEY ECO-CAMPING, INC 3560 MAIN HWY COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133 915- 67 L 5W (INIT R V. PARK A CAIAKA40UN0 RESTAURANT, BOAT 6 RECREATIONAL CO 6SIONS COMPARISON OF PROPOSED OPERATIONS WITH INDEPENDENT APPRAISERS ERATING IN GROSS POSSIBLE LESS: ARREARS CHARGED OFF LESS: VACANCIES OTHER INCOME (NET) TOTAL OPERATING INCOME OPERATING EXPENSES PROPERTY TAXES INSURANCE LAND LEASE TOTAL FIXED EXPENSES RESERVES TOTAL EXPENSES INCOME PRIOR TO DEBT SEAV. DEBT SERVICE (11% $9,000.000) INCOME AFTER DEBT SERVICE (') Based on P.14 of RFP from City of MIaml AS AS PER APPRAISAL FIRST, INC. DATA 8,379,500 6,392,700 (41,898) - (2,659,175) (3,515,985) 204,205 39,600 5,882,632 2,916.315 2,715.132 1,438,357 240,000 209,000 (') 96,000 96,000 411,784 300.000 747.784 605.000 60,000 60,000 3,522.916 2,103,358 AS PER LEWIS APPRAISALS, INC. DATA 6.417,795 (2,648,859) 598,200 4.167,136 2,833,652 209,000 (') 96,000 300.000 60,000 3,498,652 2,359.716 812.957 668,463 960,000 990,000 990,000 1,399,716 (177,043) (321.517) VERoEJA & GRAVtER CERTMED PUBLIC ACCOUt(TWM 999 Ponce 9e Leon Blvd. 5th Floor Coral Gables. Florida 33134 �'� C-1 a"In Rogow a0 P000I•Lt VA1111 C"AROC Orr Amin Ica I MCoa �►rtoo tall P ! IO;D rf2allq[� 6 Rt0i7Ntf Iat (1O;Y. Or $300,000 OR 75 Or Wr P.W.) (a) MOM Moot DCOT Immict •T •twice COO; ArM Dt9T 09WXCt ►- AOPJXZ W WITH CXTV cAI.i3O MR LZAOt PYWT •t $300,000 X101" OR 7. Or Mr Rtvt1R)t0 ICM CVM I• CXZATM 1- ACTUAL LtAOt P'YHr AMOUNT CALCULATID Ito OM RI IWM VAN M 660,000 • 7%-106,760 )-ACTUAL LZUE PYHT A19OM CALCIRATZ0 AM ON RC42MZN MAR 4,006,727 - 7%m260,471 i I)- MACENTAOt IAA• CWAXOM rMH P0.16 Or RJPORT �)- DtRmprAOt MA• Comm rR01i P0.76 Or RiSKM OPERATION COMPARISON PER AS PER AS PER PROPOSER % APPRAISAL FIRST % LEWIS APPRAISALS % DATA DATA 0,]79,600 60392,700 6.417,796 (41#090) 0 0 (2.659.176) 32% (30516.906) 55% (2.040,659) 44% 204,205 29,600 690,200 5,802,632 2,916,316 4,167,134 (2,716,132) 46% (1,430,M) 50%(d) (2.073.652) 68%(0) (396,000) (366.000) (366.000) (411,704) 7 4 (300,000) 10% (b) (300,000) 7 % (0) 2,359,716 40% 012,957 28% 660,403 16% (960,000) (990,000) (990,000) 1,399,716 24% ( 177, m ) -6% (321,517) -8% m � CD Q,(D�L^ CO r cc) a 0 5 Q° o z n � d o c C cnrrI N N OF SEASON: Dec 15 thru Anr1130 UNITS Cabins 100 R.V,Pads 300 Eoo-Tents 50 Camp Site& 50 Platforms 10o Daily Total x 136 days In Season r. Doc 1 th Cabins 100 R,V. Pads 300 Eoo-Tents 50 Camp Shea 50 Platforms 100 Daly Total x 107 days In Stwulder Season SUMMER SEASON: June_t thru Sect 30 Cabins R.V, Pads gr, Eoo-Tents Camp Site& Platforms Daily Total x 122 days In Summer Season C� f;37 I Other Inoome - Group Area Protected Gross Income for One Year 1L U 00 n 1 w 100 300 60 so 100 As Per As Per As Appraisal 1 it Inc. Lewis Appraisals Inc. Proposed Appraisal Appraisal Unit Unit Unit �pria TQ�� 191W iml $89 58,900 $50 $5,000 565.27 $6.527 $45 $13,500 $25 $7.600 $25.14 $7.542 $70 $3,500 - See Ptattormo - See Ptadorma $20 $1.000 - See Pullorrtr - S" PLK%rma - Sae TemslCvr4ww S50 S5,000 05.14 $3,514 $26.900 $17.500 $17,563 $3.668.400 $2.380,000 $2,391,288 $75 $7,600 S35 $10,500 S80 $3,000 $20 $1,000 - So*TenwCampsttw $22.000 S2,354,000 $70 $7,000 $30 $9,000 $50 S2,600 $20 $1.000 - Sae Tenls�Campaitw $19.500 $2.379.000 $8,379,500 $50 $5.000 $25 $7.600 - 8a Pwlanr See Putlorm, S50 $5,000 $17.500 $1,872.500 $50 $5,000 $25 $7.500 — See Ptatrorme eas Ptauorms $50 $5,000 $17.500 52,135,000 $5.200 $6.392.700 565.27 56,527 $25.14 $7,542 - Sw Pullortns - Sw Platforms $35.14 S3.514 $17,583 S1.881,381 $65.27 $6,527 S25.14 s7,542 — See Ra�tarn+a E35.14 $3,514 $17.03 $2.145,1 A $6.417.795 N r u. cc 4 L 0: U cl 4 � e d CO 0 o G oci W O y W a • • PROJECTED REVENUES OF RV SITES, CABINS AND FIXED TENTS son No. of Days Occupancy No. of Sites Occupied Nights Average Daily Rate Total Revenue RV SITES Nov 15- Dec 31 45 50% 300 6,750 $25 $168.750 January - March 90 95% 300 25,650 $30 $769,500 April 30 50% 300 4,500 $25 $112,500 May - Nov 15 200 40% 300 24,000 $20 $480,000 Total or Average 365 56% 300 60,900 $25.14 $1,530,750 CABINS Nov 15- Dec 31 45 50% 100 2,250 $65 $146,250 January - March 90 95% 100 8,550 $75 $641,250 April 30 50% 100 1,500 $65 $97,500 May - Nov 15 200 40% 100 8,000 $55 $440,000 Total or Average 385 56% 100 20,300 $65.27 $1,325.000 FIXED TENTS ON PLATFORMS Nov 15- Dec 31 45 50% 100 2,250 $35 $78,750 January - March 90 95% 100 8,550 $40 $342,000 April 30 50% 100 1,500 $35 $52,500 May - Nov 15 200 40% 100 8,000 $30 $240,000 Total or Average 365 56% 100 20,300 $35.14 $713,250 Total Sites: 500 GRAND TOTAL OF REVENUE FOR RV SITES, CABINS AND FIXED TENTS Source: These projections are by the author based upon the KOA Directory Road Atlas and Camping Guide 1994 and a survey of campgrounds. File: Campexl 12/1I94 3 569 000 C— HIGHEST AND BEST USE (Continued) Therefore, for this analysis, occupancy for the campground is estimated to be 45% based on the above survey. This -is at the low end of the national average. This is considered to be conservative, since the proposed campground will offer beaches and a water park, which is not the typical campground surveyed. Expenses are concluded at 50% of revenues, which is typical based on the experts that were surveyed. Thus the net operating income of the proposed campground is as follows: 300 RV sites x $25.00/night x 365 nights - $ 2,737,500 100 cabins x $50.00/night x 365 nights - $ 1,825,000 100 platforms x $50.00/night x 365 nights - $ 11825,000 1 group area x $100.00/night x 52 nights - $ 5,200 Total Camping Income (100% occupancy) $ 6,392,700 Less 55% vacancy $ 3,515,985 Expected Stabilized Revenues, Campground $ 21876,715 Less 50% expenses $ 1,438,358 NOI Campsites $ 1,438,357 Stores and Concessions (5,500 SF x $15.00/SF) $ 82,500 Less vacancy 20% $ 16,500 EGI $ 66,000 Less 40% expenses $ 26,400 NOI, Stores and Concess. $ 39,600 Total NOI Proposed Campground $ 1,477,957 In order to estimate a value, the resulting net operating income must be capitalized by an overall rate of return. The appraiser was unable to find campground sales in the Dade , Broward and Palm Beach counties. Some sales were found in the Florida Keys, but they were for mobile home parks, which according to Mr. Denton of Denton Properties are not comparable to the proposed campground. Mr. Denton and Mr. Goren were not aware of any sales that could compare to the subject proposed development. As a result, a weighted average overall rate was estimated for the subject. Capitalization rates special purpose properties like ACLF°s, nursing homes and hospitals usually have high overall rates of 12% to 13%. These higher rates are a blended rate taking into consideration business values. These blended rates typically allocate 80% to real estate and 20% to business. C- J5 - G 7 8 CONSTRUCTION COSTS COMPARISON PROPOSER APPRAISAL LEWIS APPRAISAL PER FIRST A CONSULTING INC. DAVID GORIN TOTAL COST OF CAMPGROUND $10,910,000 $7,000,000 $6,690,000 $6,2SO,000 FINANCING COSTS 1,187,000 0 0 0 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $12,097,000 $7,000,000 $6,690,000 $6,2SO,000 AVG. COST PER SITE OF 600 SITES $21,280 (2) $14,000 (b) $13,380 (c) $12,SOO (d) (a) AVG. COST PER SITE WAS DETERMINED TAKING TOTAL COST OF CAMPGROUND BEFORE FINANCING COSTS OVER THE NUMBER OF SIT,t (b) AVG.COST PER SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM PG.18 OF APPRAISAL FIRST REPORT (a) AV(LCOST PER SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM PG.60 OF LEWIS APPRAISAL'S REPORT (d)AVG. COST PER SITE WAS OBTAINED FROM ATTACHED COPY OF EVALUATION REPORT ON THE SITE Pn CR �i Pape 1 CA i ti . 1 1 VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUNDS, LTD. ESTIMATE OF TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS A. GENERAL. SITEWORK CONSTR11MO COST! Shoreline and dune restoration work (contribution to Federal, State do grant funds) S 100,0W Earthwork for canoe trail (Phase 1 of program) 100.000 Paving, grading and storm drainage 925,000 Site water distribution 125,000 Site sewer distribution 280,000 Site electrical, CAN, street lighting, distribution 420,000 Fences and gates 150.000 Landscape work - contribution to Landscape restoration, exotic removal, and new landscape at buildings, campsites, etc. 750,000 SUBTOTAL A, SITEWORK 2,8S0,000 R, BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION COST., Clubhouse Activity Center - Pod 1- Recreational support bldg. 2350 sf x $85 210.000 Pod 2 - Food and drink service 2000 sf x $100 200.000 Kitchen equipment 60,000 Pod 3 - Clubhouse multi -purpose room 2600 sf x S85 220,000 Check -in and General Store 4,000 sf x $70 280,000 Security entrance station (main entrance) 300 sf x S 100 30,000 Security entrance station (beach entrance) 50 sf x S 140 8,000 Maintenance complex 7000 sf x $35 245,000 Comfort Station buildings 1000 sf x 7 units x $54 375,000 Public Restaurant 4,500 sf (subleased) 0 Resident Group Camp (phase 1) Program oli'ke/ staff lounge 800 sf x $50 40.000 Demonstartion classroom 1250 sf x $60 75,000 Program chickees 800 sf x 2 units x S20/sf 30.000 Dining - assembly area 700 sf + 300 sf x $70 70,000 Kitchen equipment 25,000 Dormitories 1400 sf x 2 units x $65 192,000 Camping cabins 398 sf x 98 units x S45 1,755.000 Eco-tents 250 sf x 97 units x $30 (may be phased w/ 25 initially) 680,000 Raised connective walkways, decking, steps 375,000 SUBTOTAL B, BUILDINGS 41860,000 C. AMENITIM SPECIAL,TT�/ EO�MENT fFiXED OR RU LT.IM. — — CONSTRUCTION MST! Equestrian center 50,000 Swimming/ wading pools and decking 345.000 Campfire amphitheater 110.000 Game courts (volleyball, tennis. basketball, putt -putt golf, etc.) 100,000 Picnic shelters S0.000 Concession shelters 50,000 Renovate existing shelters 35,000 Fishing pier 100,000 Dockage at Shrimper': Lagoon 85.000 Turtle hatchery 15.000 Trash dumpsters/ recycling station 10,000 Lifeguard stands 10.000 Signage/ entrance features 30,000 SUBTOTAL C, ANMNMES 990,000 I). — TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST EST_ A + 8 + C 8,700,000 9-- C 7 8 E-2 62� 16 piuntBT " y Res T USS (Continued) Costs not detailed above were obtained from the Marshall Valuation Services item Quantity Cost Total Cost RV Sites 400 $4,000/Site $ 11200,000 Cabins 100(400 SF) $50/SF $ 2,0001000 Platforms 100 $7,500/Site $ 750,000 Stores i Conc. Stands 51500 SF $40/SF $ 220,000 Oper. Bldg. 21000 SF $50/SF $ 100,000 Group Bldg. 31000 SF $45/SF $ 135,000 Roads 400,000 SF $1/SF $ 400,000 Paths 50,000 SF $.50/SF $ 25,000 Landscaping $ 500,000 Clearing and Fill $ 500,000 Pump Station $ 2500000 Impact Fees $ 250,000 Subtotal $ 61330,000 Miscellaneous (3S) $ 189,900 Total Costs $ 61519,900 Entrepreneurial Profit (10%) $ 651,990 Estimated Campground Cost $ 71171,890 Rounded to, $ 71000,000 Cost/Site of 500 Sites $ 14,000 The above estimated cost of $7,000,000 is deducted from the indicated value of the campground to obtain the residual value to the land, as a 500 site campground. Indicated value of the campground $13,0000000 Less: Replacement Coat new $ 710001000 Residual value to the land $ 60000,000 el 3 ,, 4 V'; 17 The indicated value of the proposed use is purely hypothetical, since no plans and proposed uses were submitted by the client. The residual value to the land for the campground is positive to a great degree and indicates a high degree of feasibility of this hypothetical use. E- f - 6178 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF CAMPGROUND EXCLUDING THE WATER PARK Quantity Unit Cost/ Unit Est Cost RV Sites Cabins Fixed Tent Sites Store Floating Slips IRental Concession Buildings Snack Bars I Group Camping Area Recreational Facilities Roads Paths Landscaping Entrance and Signage Pump Station 300 Site $4,000 51,200,000 100 Catlin $22,100 $2,210.000 100 Site $7,800 $780,000 3,000 Sq. Ft. $40 $120,000 8 Floating Slips $5.000 $40.000 1.500 Sq. Ft. $40 $60.000 1,500 Sq. Ft. $50 $75.000 4,000 Sq. Ft. $45 $180.000 ' $40,000 ' 8,000 Linear Foot $34 $272,000 • 5,000 Linear Fool $5 $25,000 • Land Planning, Permitting, etc. j Impact Fees i I I $500.000 • $20.000 ' $90.000 Subtotal A $5,612,000 3% of Subtotal A $168,360 ' $300,000 Subtotal $8,080.360 Entrepreneurial Prord 10% of Subtotal 8 $608.036 i Total Cost of Campground" $6,688.396 Rounded $8,690,000 Per camp site (SW sites) $13,380 'Rough Estimates "Excluding water park and 10 acre RV storage area. i FILE: Campex2.xls 12/1/1994 i I 1 95- 678 Page 1 E-5 I ors I OCCUPANCY & VACANCY PERCENTAGES (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Ln PROPOSER APPRAISAL LEWIS STATE OF NATIONAL AVG. ~ ` FIRST APPRAISAL FLORIDA PER MR. GOREN W r `^ C=� �; OCCUPANCY % 68% 4S% 56% 56% 48% � o CU Q CO VACANCY % 32% S5% 44% 44% S2% ' o aW to W . ►- .W � V (a)OCCUPANCY & VACANCY PERCENTAGES WERE OBTAINED FROM PROPOSERS 1998 PROJECTION STATEMENT (b)PERCENTAGES FOR APPRAISALS FIRST WERE OBTAINED FROM P.16 OF APPRAISAL REPORT. (c)PERCENTAGES FOR LEWIS APPRAISALS WERE OBTAINED FROM P.64 OF APPRAISAL REPORT. (d)STATE OF FLORIDA PERCENTAGES WERE OBTAINED FROM ARVC THREE YEAR STUDY OF FLORIDA CAMPGROUNDS LOCATED IN REPORT. AVERAGES OF SECTION K AND L FOR 1993. (e)NATIONAL AVERAGES PER MR. DAVID GOREN WERE OBTAINED FROM APPRAISAL FIRST REPORT P.1 S C:Tt 1 VERDEIA & GRAVIER r'`J CERTIFIEO PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 'Q 999 Ponce De Leon Blvd. 5th Floor Page 1 � M tl Coral Gables, Florida 33134 1 16 HIGHEST AND BEST USE (Continued) Therefore, for this analysis, occupancy for the campground is estimated to be 45% based on the above survey. This is at the low end of the national average. This is considered to be conservative, since the proposed campground will offer beaches and a water park, which is not the typical campground surveyed. Expenses are concluded at 50% of revenues, which is typical based on the experts that were surveyed. Thus the net operating income of the proposed campground is as follows: 300 RV sites x $25.00/night x 365 nights - $ 2,737,500 100 cabins x $50.00/night x 365 nights - $ 1,825,000 100 platforms x $50.00/night x 365 nights - $ 1,825,000 1 group area x $100.00/night x 52 nights - $ 5,200 Total Camping Income (100% occupancy) $ 6,392,700 Less 55% vacancy $ 3,5151985 Expected Stabilized Revenues, Campground $ 21876,715 Less 50% expenses $ 1,438,358 NOI Campsites $ 1,438,357 Stores and Concessions (5,500 SF x $15.00/SF) $ 82,500 • Less vacancy 20% $ 16,500 EGI $ 66,000 Less 40% expenses S 26,400 NOI, Stores and Concess. $ 39,600 I - Total NOI Proposed Campground $ 1,477,957 - In order to estimate a value, the resulting net operating income _ must be capitalized by an overall rate of return. The appraiser was unable to find campground sales in the Dade , Broward and Palm Beach counties. Some sales were found in the Florida Keys, but they were for mobile home parks, which according to Mr. Denton of Denton Properties are not comparable to the proposed _ campground. Mr. Denton and Mr. Goren were not aware of any sales that could compare to the subject proposed development. As a' result, a weighted average overall rate was estimated for the subject. Capitalization rates special purpose properties like ACLF's, nursing homes and hospitals usually have high overall rates of 12% to 13%. These higher rates are a blended rate taking into consideration business values. These blended rates typically allocate 80% to real estate and 20% to business. si �ratso ^ E 95— 678 I 64 d ects -occupancy Projected 4rCam round P y PE' IProjected SeasOccupancy LJ E Nov. 15 to December 31 50% (Shoulder) January 1 through March 31 95% (High Season) April (Shoulder) 50% May I to Nov. 14 (Low 40% Season) Annual Average Occupancy 56% The annual average occupancy projected at stabilized occupancy in the above table is 56%. In order to test the reasonableness of this figure, the approximate annual average occupancy was calculated for C.B. Smith Park and T.Y. Park in Broward County from the total revenues. The results were 56% average annual occupancy in C.B. Smith Park and 43% in T.Y. Park. The lower occupancy in T.Y. Park is probably explained by the absence of sewer hook-ups at the RV sites. Considering these two cases, the projected average occupancy of 56% at stabilized occupancy for Virginia Key appears reasonable, although perhaps conservative given the attractive ambience and proximity to downtown Miami. RV Site Rates. Not surprisingly, the rates of public campgrounds were found to be substantially below rp ivate campgrounds. There are no known campgrounds on the ocean in Dade County. Therefore, three oceanside campgrounds in the Keys were the primary rent comparables, two KOA campgrounds and one non-KOA campground. According to the KOA Directory as supplemented by phone calls to the campgrounds, the rates for RV spaces with full hook-ups (electricity, water and sewer) are shown on the table below. �u1 rs r_C.,Is Florida Campground Occuponcy Slalewide and Regional 1991-1993 occupancy Percentages -1991 - Region Jan Feb Mor Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sap Oct Nov Doc Yr Avo Reg, A 47.1 67.6 63.4 44.1 32.1 35.8 50.7 38.9 22.7 33.4 41.9 41.4 42.4 A d 67.6 49A 51.9 34.1 25.1 25.1 22.9 21.2 24.0 31.6 37.8 41.2 35.9 1 - C 50.6 79.2 81.8 57.2 40.3 42.3 48.3 38.7 34.8 37.8 41.9 47.6 60.0 C D 70.6 67.0 55.8 30.2 24.3 18.3 18.2 21.5 21.5 - 22.7 40.9 51.4 36.8 D E 71.4 86.6 78.1 39.8 37.1 22.6 26.3 25.7 29.4 33.5 50.3 60.1 46.7 E _ F 96.3 123.6 119.2 67.3 34.4 32.3 35.5 28.4 28.3 29.9 48.0 24.5 55.6 F G 90.9 967 90.4 63.3 37.1 35.0 29.7 33.2 30.0 40.3 61.9 68.1 56.3 G H 84.1 96.2 83.5 60.6 32.0 29.7 38.4 35.5 35.2 34.6 62.2 70.2 55.1 H J 66.5 91.6 71.8 43.7 15.4 16.3 17.3 12.7 7.8 15.5 $1.9 69.0 41.6 J ' K 90.6 98.4 84.8 51.4 38.2 22.6 23.0 51.3 37.6 40.5 60.6 74.9 56.1 K L 78.2 96.7 97.3 37.7 28.5 30.4 37.4 43.1 20.7 12.6 26.0 50.8 46.6 L _ STATE 78.9 $9.8 $3.6 51.3 35.4 27.5 29.9 32.1 30.2 3l.1 52.8 62.3 $0.6 STATE _ Occupancy Percentages -1992 Region Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yr Aver Reg. ' A 55.5 66.3 53.6 51.7 35.1 33.8 41.4 38.2 31.0 27.1 39.0 42.9 42.9 A - 8 $4.3 55.7 5d.6 36.5 26.4 20.4 26.7 23.1 23.6 34.8 37.3 31.7 35.4 e C 66.8 71.1 79.7 62.4 46.7 42.6 48.4 37.1 32.6 35.9 44.9 43.3 50.1 C - a 65.4 74.5 51.7 25.3 20.7 16.2 17.8 19.6 29.1 24.7 48.5 55.7 37.4 D _ E 73.7 85.d 76.7 49.2 28.9 26.7 22.0 26.7 19.8 29.0 54.2 59.3 45.9 E F 40.0 63.3 51.6 28.4 25.0 33.4 23.2 21.6 18.1 23.8 16.4 52.8 33.1 F - G 82.3 97.8 81.1 63.2 40.9 31.5 39.3 25.9 37.9 32.0 64.0 70.6 55.5 G H 82.9 91.2 81.8 59.9 23.6 35.3 29.5 35.4 26.5 33.0 50.7 66.4 51.3 H - J 88.8 91.3 83.0 54.7 14.0 5.1 7.9 7.1 5.2 24.0 75.6 69.0 43.8 J K 92.9 103.1 86.8 $4.0 52.0 20.1 49.1 41.2 51.1 64.2 60.5 73.1 62.3 K L 77.2 85.9 79.5 39.6 31.0 23.5 41.8 31.2 19.0 26.0 34.1 78.9 47.3 L STATE 77.0 $8.9 77.6 53.2 33.8 28.1 322 29.3 28.2 3d.5 54.4 62.6 50.0 STATE Occupancy Percentages -1993 _ Reglon Jon Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Yr Ave Reg. A 45.5 53.3 57.7 52.1 45.6 45.8 49.5 42.3 29.6 25.1 29.7 32.3 42 3 A B 50.7 58.5 58.8 34.8 29.2 26.2 22.2 24.6 24.6 31.8 39.9 40.6 36.8 1 - C 61.3 69.7 79.7 $5.5 40.0 28.5 48.0 38.9 34.8 39.3 45.6 45.3 46.8 C D 73.3 64.3 51.7 31.3 26.7 26.1 26.7 22.6 24.1 40.3 37.3 33.0 39.7 D E 87.9 90.7 76.7 60.9 19.9 25.0 16.7 19.1 31.2 38.6 40.8 68.0 47.4 E _ F 49.8 72.0 51.6 4.0 36.8 40.8 30.6 13.3 15.3 16.6 30.0 34.5 36.0 F G 88.6 99.5 81.1 69.7 42.2 30.5 25.9 33.6 23.2 31.8 53.6 63.0 53.5 G H 85.6 98.0 81.8 53.0 20.3 17.5 18.7 15.6 17.3 31.1 53.1 63.9 46.3 H J 83.9 97.6 83.0 53.1 8.8 9.5 9.9 4.2 4.2 24.0 73.1 68.0 43.2 J -. K 89.3 102.2 86.8 49.2 48.3 42.7 44.4 45.9 48.1 44.2 48.6 66.4 59.6 K L 88.0 97.0 79.5 45.7 48.9 19.7 48.9 43.7 50.0 29.7 35.4 55.4 53.4 L STATE $5.0 93.8 8d.5 57.A 29.4 27.7 - 2A.3 26.2 28.0 34.6 47.3 63.1 60.1 STATE E_9 r SUBJECT COMtPARABLES APPRAISERS -- C) (C) (C) -(C) -- -- (a)-� (D) PROPOSER FCAM)GROUND MAWR FORT WILDERNESS FIESTA KEY KOA BLUEWATER KEY R.V LEWIS APPRAISAL APPRAISER'S FIRS! ST USTINE WALT DISNEY FIESTA KEY SUGERLOAF KEY REPORT REPORT L I I MILERS R SEASON N/A WA $195. 3 NIGHTS) WA $67.95 'N/A WA WA - A SEASON N/A WA N/A WA WA $40.00 WA N/A .AR N/A $38.00 N/A WA $31.95 50.00 N/A WA - )A MONTH N/A WA I N/A WA WA N/A N/A N/A DER SEASON N/A WA N/A WA WA N/A N/A N/A TENTS R SEASON $70.00 WA N/A $52.00 WA N/A $40.00 S50.00 :R SEASON 50.00 WA N/A 35.00 WA N/A 30.00 550.00 :AR N/A $22.00 N/A N/A $38.95 N/A N/A N/A DER SEASON 60.00 WA N/A WA WA N/A 35.00 $50.00 V. PADS R SEASON $45.00 WA $36.00 $43.00 WA N/A $30.00 - $25.00 :R SEASON 30.00 WA 31.00 43.00 WA N/A 20.00 S25.00 .AR N/A WA N/A WA WA WA WA WA )A MONTH N/A WA N/A 25.00 WA N/A N/A N/A DER SEASON 35.00 WA N/A WA WA N/A 25.00 2S.00 :MNS SEASON $89.00 WA N/A $195.00 • WA N/A $75.00 $50.00 R SEASON 70.00 WA N/A 180.00 WA N/A $55.00 AR N/A WA N/A WA WA N/A WA N/A DER SEASON 75.00 WA N/A WA WA N/A 65.00 50.00 iA MONTH N/A WA N/A 89.00 WA N/A WA WA -T SITES SEASON $20.00 W A N/A W A W A N/A N/A N/A R SEASON 20.00 WA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A AR N/A WA N/A WA WA N/A N/A N/A DER SEASON 20.00 WA N/A WA WA N/A WA N/A '0 THE DESIGN TRAILERS AT FT. WILDERNESS THEY ARE CLASSIFIED TES PER LENS APPRAISAL REPORT WERE OBTAINED FROM P.66 OF APPRAISAL ES PER APPRAISAL FIRST REPORT WERE OBTAINED FROM P.16 OF APPRAISAL. -- - - -ES FOR THE FIVE MOST COMPARABLE SITES WERE ACCORDING TO PROPOSER VERIFIED AGAINST AAA CAMPBOOK. RATES ARE VALID THRU 2/96 ------------------------------------------------------ DID XO.z RFP ---------------------------------------------- DATE BIDS) OPENED: _— SEPTEMBER 1st, 1995 2:00 pm ---------------- --- V 4w TOTAL DID SOND_SorZ, BIDDER DID AMOUNT CASHIER'S CHECK MANATEE BAY CAMPGROUND, INC. -------------- —1— ------ ---- -- VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUND, LTD. ��4 1 w� �. Oilers -1rroom the -ven ors s-Tiere'�n izr� tfie aniy received timely as of the h2yg_21mnil , other offers submitted in re ponse to 'this - so iaitation, if any, te& cis 4% `= ---------- --------- ----------------- �--------------------------------- __- _--_-____-_-L------------------.--_--ram.-__-__ ------------ -----L-------------------- ------------------- ------------------------------ ----------------------- ----------------------------------- �J ____--- --- ----- _ -------------- ---�-- -------- _----_-_-_----------------------------------------- -- - --------- - -- - ----- - --- - - - ----------- ------ r ----- -- -- —received (_) envelopes on behalf of (Parson r4G�. nQ bids) COMMUNITY PLAAND REVITALIZATION on—— ---------------- -- — ------------- (City Department) S I G7: _____ __—__ __--- ( putt' Ci y—Clerk) 0 City of Miami Cash: COLLECTIONSChecks: REPORT Tot 4 al: Date: Report of Collections DR Department/ Divisio Prepared By: N 0— 27091 Prepared B y - Signature 41 BANS. DOCUMENT SUBSIDIARY INDEX OBJ. PROJECT AMOUNT 'ODE REFERENCE NO, ACCOUNT CODE OF (KEYPUNCH LEFT REV. ZERO FILLED) IQN -71 DESCRIPT/ F �2 P. A G/L series 1. P. series Of F. no. no. FAI' 403 Rev. 06/89 1 Routing: Carry both copies and funds to Treasury Management (Finance Dept) DISTRIBUTION* White - Treasury Management; Canary - Department (After validated by Treasury Management If this Official Check is lost, stolen or destroyed, It will be necessary for the PurchasetlRemilter to supply the Bank with an Indemnity Agreement In addition to a Surely bond, for twice the value of the SUN BAN K/ M IAM I check, with a waiting period of 30 days, before a duplicate check Is NATIONAL ASSOCIATION issued or any refund Is made. No.6 7 8 J 2 l o Miami, Florida 33131 0 REMITTER D. LaRussa, Trustee (William B. Rebozo) SEP I�N.AT10itAL i;M2,000.00 OFF:CE 000�01"s00;$PAY **** r 'A PAY ******** City Of Miami ******** CASHIER'S CHECK . To THE ORDER OF 11506 5 78 5 211, M0660006041: 0 1890000004 3 311' 63.436 City National Nana 660 A 0237782-05 o IF F L 0 R 1 0 A AUGUST 30, 1995 AY TO THE ORDEROF— * CTTY OF MTAMI*2,QQQ�QQ* mf CITY A!h1K4�►t JrrM?' finfll li!!!I, V��r.nlj, ark r !3L;;r ! n CASHIER'S A r� lim,r►141nit� !�nn1� l�lu!N ,ua�a, Cff dK _ CAMPGROUND CO. 7 I 1100 2 3 7 78 2110 1:0 6 6 0 0 4 3 6 71:15000000 50u AU HORIZED SIGNATURE i i , V. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Submissions received in response to the RFP shall meet all requirements specified herein in this Section. Submissions deficient in providing the required information shall be determined non- responsive by the City and ineligible from any further consideration. A. Submission Procedures A complete proposal submission package shall be delivered to the City as follows: 1. One (1) original and fourteen (14) copies of bound proposals in an 8-1 /2"x 11" format and one set of board- mounted illustrative drawings not to exceed 30" x 40". 2. Proposal submissions must be marked "Unified Development Project Proposal for Virginia Key Campground, Virginia Key Beach, Miami, Florida" and addressed to: Herbert J. Bailey Assistant City Manager City of Miami Proposals must be received at: Office of the City Clerk City of Miami, City Hall (First Floor Counter) 3500 Pan American Drive Dinner Key Miami, Florida 33133 4. The submission package shall be submitted by: 2:00 P.M. -Friday,—August 4,-1995-- r0, a14 The time deadline and proposal receipt location will be strictly adhered to by the City. No proposals shall be received or accepted after 2:00 p.m., August 4, 1995 or at any other City office location, other than the City Clerk's Office (First Floor Counter). 5. Proposal submissions must be accompanied by: A non-refundable cashier's check in the amount of $2,000 made payable to the City of Miami. Funds accompanying the proposal submission will be used by the City to cover actual expenses for advertising, printing, and mailing incurred by the City in preparing and issuing the RFP. Expenses incurred in evaluating proposal submissions, in excess of the total amount collected shall be reimbursed to the City by the selected proposer upon execution of a lease agreement. 37 '95 SET -1 P2 :00 WALTER J. FOEMAN CITY CLERK QITY O� 3,I, Fl- C t -of �n�� j0 HERBERT J. BAILEY 's Assistant City Manager NOTICE ADDENDUM #2 July 14, 1995 CESAR H. 01310 City Manager -1 D M -4rn c 3 :o rr !;-Tt ✓' L" Zd.. TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF CITY OF MIAMI REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP") for Virginia Key Campground - Second Issue, Dated May 5, 1995 The City of Miami is issuing this Addendum #2 to the RFP for Virginia Key Campground dated May 5, 1995 in order to provide certain clarifications and corrections to all potential proposers. The City Commission further authorized an extension of the submittal deadline from its original August 4, 1995 date to September 1, 1995. The Addendum consists of the written information provided below and all attachments to this Notice. In the written information, all additions to the original text appear underlined, and all deletions are strieken t r^ug . Should you have any questions regarding the Addendum, please contact Dianne Johnson at the Office of Development at telephone (305) 579-3366. Your continued interest in development opportunities in the City of Miami are greatly appreciated. Jahk Luft, re or i qeanp d Vev it of Community Planning talization DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CONSERVATION/DUPONT PLAZA CENTER 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way, Suite 400-401/Miami, FL 33131 MVP A"IT nl\IIC Ill Al /lnC1 C'O licL / ij^...... P nwocon. i— —n —i n— `l CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO : Matty Hirai DATE : May 22, 1995 FILE City Clerk SUBJECT Receipt of UDP Jack Luft Proposals FROM Assistant Di ct REFERENCES: j Department o elopment ENCLOSURES: On April 27, 1995, the City of Miami Commission authorized the issuance of Request for Proposal (RFP) documents for three (3) Unified Development Projects. Below please find the proposal submission due dates and time for each project. Staff from the Department of Development will be at your office to assist in the receipt of these submissions. I PROJECT SUBMISSION DUE/ SUBMISSION DUE DATE /TIME Watson Island Tuesday, August 1, 2:00 p.m. Mega Yacht Marina 1995 Miami Marine Thursday, August 3, 2:00 p.m. Stadium 1995 Virginia Key Friday, August 4, 2:00 p.m. Campg round 1995 CITY. ®F..MIAMI, FLORIDA NOTICE`!OF_.-REQU45T FOR MIAMI DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW MINIFIED DEVELOPMENT Published Deily except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays : 0R.®P®SAL c Miami, Dade County, Florida. STATE OF FLORIDA DADE:The'Ci of, Miami is. Seekin Unified Devefo ment Pro act P,rpposais"for the COUNTY OF DADE: ty 9 , , P ji � r ...� y , '-1 � -- improvement or: develo ment d,d •marii5e et' dil'trn/atn' h heaater faciif and ancil►a . Before the undersigned authority personally appeared P P . c, a r 1 y n - -� �� •, Octelme V. Ferbeyre, who on oath says that she Is the retail and recreational :services on:'. approximatelly=� 3 acres . of ;Cit r-oyy�flt �� Supervisor, Legal Notices of the Miami Daily Business waterfront�propelty located on.Virginia Key,.�lllarliu, Florida The City thr'ou hii� jS Review f/k/a Miami Review, a dally (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami In Dade offering is procuring from the.! pnvate:.sedtdr,,.an fn'(egrated package rof services' County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, consisting of planning and design; Construction, IeasincJ and management of the being a Legal Advertisement of Notice In the matter of ro osed `Comm.ercial;,develo ment ,. The roe bein offered,::for fievefo merit CITY OF MIAMI , FLORIDA P ,. t rty,_,.. , 9 P , , , . . p p P. includes 17:33 acres. of upland contiguous to the Marine Stadium basin and 1 acre NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR of submerged land in Marine Stadiu,mbasin _� ' UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS • `;15 .. FE4�� tlti 1,l, a_:,•i r I r t i All proposals shall be submitted in accordancf5witn,thn Aeggest for' Propdsafs document RFP which ma be obtained from 11i11e City .of,�fYilaml_.Departmer>k pf Development and Housing Conservation; 30Q Biscayne Bdulavard Wg"" , Suite 400, In the.......................xxxxx court, =regarding da 33131, (305) 579-3366: This document C0(1ta1C�s'detaile'n�speoifi'c was published in said newspaper in the Issues of • • the parcel of lan0 contemplated (or development; the:uses the May 3, 1995 City is-seekin the -submission re uirementsand,sele6tion rocedures`ertinent:o this Unified.DevelopmentProject. �• - ..� • ..: 4 } ,. , 5 I. Afflant further says that the said Miami Daily Business •`N NOi C.1ty will conduct a Proposal Pre-SubmiSs166 ConTerenCe on Tuesday, June Review is a newspaper published at Miami in said Dade 6 1995.at`10:00 a m ;at'the De artment of Develo ment offices While attendance County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore at .the Pre -Submission COriferenCe i not _a _con`di on'. 'r-•offer In ' ro owls, 'ali been continuously published in said Dade County, Florida, $ >( - 0 9'; P P each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and prospective developers are invited to attend.!', ---- has been entered as second class mail matter at the post I " office In Miami In said Dade County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached PfOPOS8IS mUSt be''deilvered to V,.' Hirair�City Clerk, City Hall; "350Q Pan copy of advertisement; and afflant further says that she has Am' erican Drive; Miami;: Fladda.•33131':by 2:00-p m ,Thursday, August 3,1995,and neither paid nor promised any pemo rm or corporation _ any disco t, rebate, commissl r refun for the purpose will be publicly opened on that;Pay` of sec rig this advertise t r publl ation in the said c , , per to t.. c a`a r,rr^ r7.,Fr new The Ci of Miami reserves the right to acre tan ro ry.p y l pos s deer ed o b� in the, best:interest of the City;, to waive any frreguiaritiea "zany proposals, or to reject any . ••.......................................... or'all proposals�antl to re-advertise•for;new,:proposafs,`Jn,:. ciirda}mga V thrthe` fty Charlik and Code sections -regarding. Unified DeVelopmnt:,ProJects ,Furtherrtmore, Sw d subscribe afore me this until such: time as 'a lease :agreement is executed,'-Ithe. selected proposer -shall not 3 y 95 ........ day have vested rights,, nor title'! or.:interest in .the s Property or to the development proposed thereon, until such time as'the leasehold agreement is executed ; ................................................................................... _ Z?A"CTo' ARISFJ► CesarH (SEAL) ACNLq E. PENA Clty Manager Octelma V. Ferbe OVARY I3LIC_�rA eE OF FIARIDA p �i�t`R . cC 1n108 Adv. No. 0315 - .. MY COMMISSION O(P. AN. 6,1996 5/3 95-B-050390M J.tfia vt4fttrxmti HERBERT J. BAILEY Assistant City Manager � upo ume i NOTICE Addendum # 1 May 26, 1995 CESAR H. ODIO City Manager TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF CITY OF MIAMI REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP") for Virginia Key Campground Issue Date: May 5, 1995 (2nd Issuance) RE: Correction of Scrivener's Error Please be advised that the third paragraph of Section III.C. entitled "Commitment of Property" (page 19) has been corrected to be consistent with Section I.E. entitled "Term of Lease" and now reads as follows,": "The City intends to enter into a lease agreement for the Property with the selected proposer. (Refer to Section I.E.) The term of the lease to be entered into between the selected proposer and the City shall be a maximum of thirty—(30 forty-five (45) years,, %4th twe (2) five (5) year r-enewals. The lease agreement shall be structured to provide the City with a minimum guaranteed annual rent or a percentage of gross receipts, whichever is greater. " Words and/or figures ugh shall be deleted, and underlined words and/or figures shall be added to the text of the original RFP. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the project manager, Dianne Johnson at the Department of Development and Housing, (305) 579-3366. Your continued interest in development opportunities in the City of Miami are greatly appreciated. DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CONSERVATION/DUPONT PLAZA CENTER 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way, Suite 400-401/Miami, FL 33131 DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (305) 579-3366 / HOUSING DIVISION (305) 579-3336/Telecopier: (305) 371-9710 HERBERT J. BAILEY Assistant City Manager t,ll NOTICE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION NO. 2 July 27, 1995 CESAR H. ODIO City Manager ` TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF CITY OF MIAMI REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR THE VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUND - Second Issue, dated May 5, 1995 RE: REQUIRED SUBMITTAL OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Enclosed for your information is a copy of the reply furnished to a potential proposer to the subject RFP regarding proposers' submittal of required financial statements. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Dianne Johnson, Development Coordinator, or me at the Department of Development and Housing, (305) 579-3366. Your continued interest in development opportunities in the City of Miami are greatly appreciated. r; =+ > ns ef 7! cc: Linda Kelly Kearson, Assistant City Attorney Review Committee Members DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CONSERVATION/DUPONT PLAZA CENTER 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way, Suite 400-401/Miami, FL 33131 DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (305) 579-3366 / HOUSING DIVISION (305) 579-3336/Feiecopier: (305) 371-9710 QIiiij of �fiianti HERBERT J. BAILEY Assistant City Manager July 27, 1995 Mr. William B. Reboso 7500 Red Road South Miami, Florida 33143 CESAR H. CIDI9, City Manager RE: VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUND REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP") Clarification of the Requirement for Submittal of Financial Statements Dear Mr. Reboso: This responds to your letter of July 20, 1994 concerning the inclusion of certain financial statements in proposals responding to the City's RFP for the development of a campground on Virginia Key. The specific requirement is located in Section IV.J. entitled "Development Proposal Contents" on page 34, and reads as follows: "11. Recent (as of 1994) Financial Statements (audited statements preferred) for each principal of the proposing entity. (For the purposes of this RFP, `principal' shall be defined as the general partners, stockholders owning 5% or more of the corporate stock, and all corporate officers.)" The purpose of this requirement is to provide the City, and all required reviewers, sufficient information to ascertain the financial viability of the proposing entity and the parties that comprise it; to identify all those with a substantial interest in the proposing entity and their respective financial capabililities. Accordingly, financial statements are required from any stockholder that owns 5% or more of the proposing entitu-s corporate stock: each such stockholder, whether an individual, corporation, or other business entity, shall provide its respective financial statement. All corporate officers of the proposing entitu shall submit financial statements. All general partners, if any, -in the proposing entity shall provide financial statements. In the interest of clarity, no financial statements are required of any corporate officer or shareholder of any entity which owns an interest in the proposing entity. DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CONSERVATION/DUPONT PLAZA CENTER 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way, Suite 400-401/Miami, FL 33131 DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (305) 579-3366 / HOUSING DIVISION (305) 579.3336/Telecopier: (305) 371-9710 14 Inasmuch as the City holds and manages public property in trust for the community, such requirements are necessary to protect the public interest. It should also be noted that failure to comply with this stated requirement may result in a proposal being found "non -responsive" and thus be removed from further consideration. Should you have any further questions regarding this or other issues, please contact Dianne Johnson or me at the office listed below. Your participation and interest are truly approciated. Truly Yours, Jac uft] Director qCq un}ty Planning and Revitalization Department -cc: Linda Kearson, Assistant City Attorney D. E. Johnson, Development Coordinator Review Committee Members All Recipients of the RFP _j JACK L. LUFT + Director G late " 1 1 Y 1 NOTICE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION NO. 3 CESAR H. ODIO City Manager August 23, 1995 TO: ALL RECIPIENTS OF CITY OF MIAMI REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR THE VIRGINIA KEY CAMPGROUND - Second Issue, dated May 5, 1995 RE: Exemption of Financial Statements from Disclosure under Public Records Law This notice is being furnished in response to a potential proposer's written request for clarification on the matter of public records laws and the disclosure of financial statements submitted in reply to the subject RFP. Please be advised that the City Attorney has opined that financial statements submitted by proposers are exempt from public disclosure under "Government in the Sunshine" laws pursuant to Florida Statute. The City and the particular custodian of records pertaining to this RFP may exclude such financial statements when responding to public records requests. However, all parties determined by the City to require examination of such documents during the review and evaluation of proposals, or thereafter, shall be furnished with those documents. Proposers are requested to segregate financial statements from the remainder of the proposal documents, place them in a separate envelope or other enclosure marked "confidential" and submit same with the proposal no later than the date and time specified for the receipt of proposals. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Dianne Johnson, Development Coordinator, or me, at the Department of Community Planning and Revitalization (formerly, Development and Housing), (305) 579-3366. Your continued interest in development opportunities in the City of Miami are greatly appreciated. c? �! rn -rn G _ r•i ,..� N , > cc: Linda Kelly Kearson, Assistant City Attorney Review Committee Members DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND REVITALIZATION DEVELOPMENT DIVISION / 300 Biscayne Blvd. Way, Suite 400/Miami, FI 33131/(305) 579-3366/Telecopier: (305) 371-9710 PLANNING DIVISION / 275 N.W. 2nd Street, 3 Floor/Miami, FI 33128/(305) 579-6086/ Telecopier: (305) 358-1452 -- J