HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-94-0587J-94-627
7/26/94
RESOLUTION NO. _ I
A RESOLUTION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, ACG=ING THE P
SUBMITTED BY VTlr--,= KEY MARINE GROUP, INC.
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT OF THE VIRGINIA KEY
PROP= LOCATED AT 3501 RICKE,NBACKER CAU
FLORIDA, SAID ACCEPTANCE CONTINGENT OF
SAID PROPOSAL BY THE ELE=RKrB OF ITY OF
AT A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL zLBCTION.
WHEREAS, on January 27, 1994, by olut No. , the City
Commission authorized the issuance of a R for s ("RFP") for
Unified Development C"UDP") of a optional ancillary
marine related retail us r Virginia Key Boatyard property
("Property"), selected *021,
ti Pub Accounting ("CPA") firm and
appointed members of elon ommittee ("Committee") to evaluate
i
the proposals as duties are or, by law; and
WHEREAS, the or the Pr ty was issued on February 4, 1994, and
contained i eval is to be used by the CPA and Committee;
and
one pro was received by the City from Virginia Key Marine
oup, C° in response to the RFP on June 6, 1994, the published
date receipt of proposals; and
I
1 the Proposer proposed to operate a boatyard, restaurant, and
mar ad retail facility on the Property, making a capital and equipment
i
tmezLt of no less than $3,566,943 and paying to the City a minimum annual
rent of $286,000 per year for a term no longer than 20 years ("Proposal"); and
CITY COMt4I5SION
+ MErTING OF
(o S""� t rt F E 2N f Jul,
9 4- 587
Rescinded by R-94-651
WHEREAS, the CPA rendered its written report to the City
analyzing the Proposal based on the financial viability of the
development team, its proposed financial strategies, a�
comparatively, the short and long range economic and return
evaluated the economic feasibility of the proposed developm
WHEREAS, the Committee received the presentation the C
after extensive analysis and discussion of the P 4 6 Wed
report to the City Manager containing an evaluaVedthe
the specific evaluation criteria in the tthe proposing entity, the capability of the
capability, financial return to th ign of the
development, extent of min cipatio-and local
participation; and
I WHEREAS, the City ger , after into consideration the
of the CPA, the evalua n of the Cc ttee, is recommending the aecel
the Proposal tted irginia ine Group, Inc.; and
in ago the City's UDP process as out:
Charter S on Code Section 18-52.9, the City Mangy
tr ted to tiYie City ssion his recommendations including the
rt, f the boned CPA and Committee; and
ptance of said proposal sha11 be contingent upon approval
of ropo the electorate of the City of Miami at a special municipal
ectio
, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to
{' this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated
i
i
herein as if fully set forth in this Section.
r
-2- 94- 587
i
Rescinded by R-94-651
rpwr
Section 2. The Proposal submitted by Virginia Key Marine p,
Inc. for the Unified Development of the Virginia Key BoatyasY3 0
located at 3501 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida, is he accepted,
said acceptance contingent upon approval of said Proposal by eleot e of
the City of Miami at a special municipal. election,
Section 3. This Resolution shall boo ef',
upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day 1
P. MAYOR
ATE
MA'1TY HipAi
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED APPROVED AS To FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
i
l LMINDA KFf T, A. III
ASSISTANT CITY ATT0
( /'W
bsslM45o4
1
94- 587
HGEhdUH OFf=ICE �a::3Qr�}�G�'1�'J 7U1 1;; '94 15:45 P.02/18
HERB
ERT ). BAILEY r �
Assistant City Mans er
�'
July 18, 19q,;
CE5AR H. ODIQ
City Manager
Mr. Ce ,as• H. Odia
City M.-am. ger
City of Miami
3500 Pan Arrmetacan Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
1. t= Nir. Odlo:
In response io tine City of Miami's Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the Unified
Development Proje::t ('`t'UP") or a boatyard facility, and optional ancillm mWine-
related retail use for the Virginia Key $aatyard pzagerty, issued Febraary 4, 1994, one
response was received.
The Selection Review Convrittre (`:C~, wmdttee") sele&0J to evaluate the proposal
convened a total of vi , o rucelings and on July 8, 1994 voted to reeomnren.d to the City
Manager the acceptance of the, proposal received frost Virginia fey Marine Group, Inc.
The proposal evaluation was based on &e following seven criteria outlined in the RFP
docurnent:
Experience of the proposing entit j
2. Cap;abil:ty of the development team
3. Fi.nm.Ciai capability of the proposing entity
4. Firiancial retG.rn to the City
5. Overall desig-a of the proposed development
6. Extent of iviiiuritv participation
7. Local finn(s) Participation
In accordance with the City of Miami Charter, Section. 29-A(c) and the City of Miami
Code, Section 18-519, enclosed is the Com itee's Final Report outlining its
deliberation:; and evaluation of'the proposal subnussicyn.
DEPARTMENT Of DEVELOPMENT .BIND HOUSING r_pNSERVATION/DUPONT PLAZA CENTER
300 Bisoynz faouhward Way, SU.2e 00-AM/Miami. K 33131
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION (305) 5791W / HOUSING DWISION (305' V9. W/Telccopier (95) M-9710 9 A ,— 587
AGINDA OFFICE F.rc 3058581 ?Cll'� 2ul 19 15:46 P. 03/18
Cesar 14, Odio
Pap 2
On eh,�1f of e er"l.':Xe COMM-Itlec for the "Ji-relinia KQy Boatyard property UDP, we
appreciate'dic oppertunity to paid,-,ipatc Mth you in bringing, try Miami a deg elopinent
prc,� eci AvIlich -.-Ajlprcp-it(:lY fits with the exisri p ivalcrftunt uses of Mia
Sincerely,
AGENDA OFFICE Fax: 3058581 1'0 7 11.1 la '94 15:46 P.05f1Ell
TABLES OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Selection Review C:onm)-ittee......................_.......................r..,.,......._..........,,.....,.........,....,.... 1
Background...........................................................
•Y•IIV♦1r.•.. .. •...• IYY11111.•r•.••r•rr•rVrrr• I..Y •.r•....• 3
proceedu-Igs......................................... .....,.,,.....................................,............_ 3
Evaluation .........................
Findings ......................................................................................
...............................•..........,..............,................ S
Recommendation............................... ... •........ r..............................,............................. 6
..
Apk£NDLX A. Area Location Map/Site Location Map
4
94- 587
P ENDR OFFICE Fa.x : 3058S81707 Jul 19 ' 94 15 : a6 P. 06/18
SELECUON REVIEW CCy1 OG1-FEE
BILL RARRr G>,ON
Miami Vvaterfront. Advisory Board
'WARD OR.A:F T ON
Archit et
Grafron f'�xchitects
CAPTAIN ROBF-,R:X LE`vVIS
Mianx WaterfTont Advisory Boar:
K;EVIN F. KO'T E
Biologist, :Marine Facilines Program
Metro -.Dade County - DERCvI
WARREN BUI'LER
AssistAnt to the City Manager
City Manaears Office
ERDA.L DOi'�i
Financial Services Coordinator
Depart-4nt of Development and Housing Conservation
CMSTINA CUERVO
Chief of Staff
City Managers Office
j
}
i
94- 587 f
AGENDA OFFICE Fax: 0535 1707 Jul '9 '94 15:46 P, 07r18
JACK LiJFT
Assistant Director
Depwtment of DevOopment & Housing Consen'ation
C01TRT'1T17.'Y' D,-ALLEN
A,sistaj:t Development Coordinator
Departtiient of*D-.vdo�pment & Hcrosing Q�rnez-vation
X.INDA KEARSON,
Assistant Ciry Atromey
L.aw 17epartnaent
AX' N WHITTAiaSil.
Minonity/1XIr.nnen Procureinent Officer
General Servides .Adrninstraflon Del,ar=ent
AGENDA OFFICE Fax :'058531707
L oi,-I �]
Ju 1 19 ' 94 15 : aC P. 08/18
Resolution No. 94-46 adopted on January 27, 1994 authorized the issuance of a Request
for Proposals ('TtFP ') for the Ur:iified Development of a 1x)atyard facility, and opidortal
ancillary marine -related re.LMI uses on approximately 5.4 areas of Cite m m A 1; aterfroaat
located at 3501 16 kenbacktzT taus,.-. 'ay, Nflarni, Florida
The Cirs Gm-urkission, throwh Resointior) ldo_ 94-46, appointed seven naetr_bcrs to a
Section Review Conimitt.ce charged with evaluating proposals in response
to tlt(�. City issued RPT and to rerider a v;ritten evaluation of its findings to the City
Managc-r as required by City of Miami C:harta Section 29-A(e) for Unified Development
Projecta. Resolution No. 94-46 tit, thf r selected A-rthur Andersen & Cu., Cext:ill-.d Public
Accounting ("CPA") fzrrn, with tLa rninority owned I-= of Watson & Cho, to aintlyze the
finatr,i��l �apabilit r, c;oanmi ,er�t ar�d projections of the proposal submrsston.z.
The'PUT T dry4=-1e11t issued F~ �- ruaL Y 4-, 1 994, sought a um'fled development package fc-om
a priva,t- entity to i.noltude planning and design, construction, leasing and management of
a boatyard and marino-related rata 11 uses. The Virginia Key Marine Group, 'Inc. proposal
was the only responsc that the City received cm the proposal submis ion date of Julie 6,
1994.
E9QCLEDMUM
The Co.nu ittee, appointed by the Cite Commissioza, held a total of two ("?) meetings.
'nuoughout the pro=dings. the Committee observFel mquirements as set forth in the
"Go-venunent in the Sunshine" a.,a,A, and ` _PubEc Records" Act. All zrieetings were
advertised and recorded.
The Fust meeting of the CoLrxnitt.e i%as- i.1old on Edy 1, 1994. At this time, the
Cownuttee °-,vas briefed on the Dei.elopinent Project pros: ss and its
re;vonsibilitit.-s fcx evalvaling, die proposal submission. The Department of Development
staff infuiined the Committee with respect U) the: Virginia Key Marine Gaup, Inc.
Proposal's aornpliance vith the SLIbinh.$10.n -requir,�.,ments in tl,Y RIP document.
J'he second meeting o. the Cor>aailttee was held o, July 8, 1994 at which time the
prinripai developer and Chief architect far the Virginia Key Iviaiihe Group., Inc. presented
the overall doveloprneut plan for the proposed boatyard fa.cilir/, and optional ancillary
marine -related ret:-ffl wes. The development team also answered questions directed by
the Commttee in thy: areas of project devckopment and financing.
-3-
94— 587
RGENDA O'r-PICE Fax 1 I'C.1 Jul l i9 't,W 15 -4 F . ► 9 %41
s
At This m ml.ing, the rep!esetmative.5 of :f e CPA !r- n Jarodviceci the preliminary mia) psis
of the \ rg� 'nret Key ?%4nine Grourl, :Lta p.:rul:x�s,�:, strcJsin�, the fcanciW r,.ypt�ct of the
proposed cin•&)p�uent. Che Cpsk txwn ad,,,ised the Co-Oltnince tf.iat the !In-ncial
it fonnat"or, P.resmted thy t,ho PI-o user in 115 ptiCgj;O'iitl to Tale Ciry, is (tms,',klered tCj be is
satisfActory .fi"irralia'tal cctilxl xiIn..cnt NvIbi respect to the un4nalin of taxis develcopuient
pro,�cc;t.
4
i
L
r
i
1
-4M
94- 587
I 94- 587
1
i
EVALUATION PROC]~ SS
City of Miawi Charter :ieotion _19-Akcj, Urei.od Development Project, requires the
Conurlttee to "evaluate e.ivh propo e.1 hawed only on. the evaluation criteria arplicabh. tU
the Sec6oxi R.'-view Couuuitiee and contaiuod in the Request for Proposals'.
Section VI of the RIT document induced w: extcnsivc: outlay of die, criteria t?iat would
be used to evaIi�te the �z�pPr?sa7:�. Tlr:: $�aivation criteria was as folln�.s:
1. Experience of'rhe proposing enti.ty................. . ............... 20
2. Capability of file development te4tm.............. .........15%
3. lrinanciat Capability .............. .................................. ......... 2011/o
4. Fbiancial Rotiwn to the City.............................................20%
5. Overall design of the proposed development....... .115%
5. Extent of Minority Participaiion......... .................... I ..........
10°%
7. LOC d firni(s) part;.cipation...................................................,.6%
'Me above matrix was extabiislued to eval=e, rar,.k and recommersd proposals subraitted
in response to said RFP. Nevenheless, the Committee had only one Proposal to cons-tde;,
therefore, each member of toe, Conm ivix evaluated all releva;lt comporcecuts of the
proposal and vfoted withuat assign. n.g Points according tc,, ilie rnatrix illustrated above,
F�RLqS
* The experience. of the proposing entity was found to be substantial and relevant to -the
proposed development.
The capabihtyy of the development team was found to be substantial and relevanw to
the proposo' development, covering the: range of necessary professionals including a
restauranteur.
The f nwicial capahiliiy of the proposing entity was found to be satisfactonj .
* The financial return to the City was found to be fayorahle based on the proposed cash
flows. f
* The overall design of the proposed de-velopment met all nea �:ssarc, criteria as set firth
W the RFP, including the design of an outdoor restaurant are.;.
+ The extent of minority participation was found to be satis{'actory, tiie proposbig __With;
is partially minority owned, and the general contractor is minority owned.
The Development team is local.
-5-
94 - 587
AGENDA OFFICE Fax : 3058581707 Ju 1 19 ' 94 15 : d? P.11/18
RF-QQ iMhNDATTC-N
The following motion was adopted by the Committee unait mously:
i
The Committee recommends the acceptance of the
proposal submitted by the Virginia Key Marine
Group, Inc. for the development and management of
the 'Virginia Key Boatyard Property,
All correspondence between the Committee, City Staff', Arthur Andersen & Co.;
proposals documents; supplemental materials; tape recordings of the Co..nmittee i eeting;
and any other materials related to the Viggnna Key Boatyard project are on flit and
available at the City of Miami Department of Development and Housing C:oMervation,
Development, Division,
i
AGENDA OFFICE
T t I R
15:47 F.
. --.. a
I A'M t
9 E A l,"o' H
0,*A-N klry.
-
irginta
Key
F
VIRGiNIA KEY BOATYARD
Regional Location
04- 687
R. a
Ng�
wi
rp.
I
M, MEL ML ML M
; r,
CITY OF MIAMi, FLORIDA 32
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO
Honorable Mayor and Members DATE : JUL 19 1994 FILE
of th ty Commission Approval of Virginia Key Marine
SUBJECT : Group, Inc. Proposal
Cesar H. Odio City Commission Meeting
FROM : city Manager REFERENCES Of 7/26/94
ENCLOSURES:
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached Resolution accepting
the proposal submitted by Virginia Key Marine Group, Inc. for the Unified Development of the
Virginia Key Boatyard Property located at 3501 R.ickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida.
BACKGROUND:
On January 27, 1994 the City Commission, by Resolution 94-46, authorized the issuance of an
Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the Unified Development ("UDP") of a boatyard facility and
optional ancillary marine related retail uses on City owned waterfront property, selected a
Certified Public Accounting Firm ("CPA") and appointed members of a Selection Review
Committee ("Committee") to evaluate the proposals to be submitted for this project.
The Request for Proposal document was issued on February 4, 1994 and the City received one
proposal on the proposal deadline date of June 6, 1994.
The Committee received the presentation of the proposer and, after extensive analysis and
discussion of the proposal, adopted a motion to recommend the approval of the proposal to the
City Manager unanimously. The motion is as follows:
The Committee recommends the acceptance of the proposal
submitted by Virginia Key Marine Group, Inc. for the development
and management of the Virginia Key Boatyard.
The Committee rendered a written report to the City Manager containing an evaluation of the
proposal based on the specific evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP document.
c�•�U�• 94- 587
Independent CPA Report and Summary ,
The CPA rendered its written report to the City Manager analyzing the proposal based on the
financial viability of the proposed development team, its proposed financial strategies; and
assessed comparatively, the short and long range economic and fiscal return to the City and
evaluated the economic feasibility of the proposed development.
According to the CPA report the information provided in the proposal is sufficient to affirm that
the proposing entity has the financial capability to effectively execute the project. Letters of Intent
from Ocean Bank and from Ready State Bank regarding the proposed financing for the project are
included within the proposal. An irrevocable letter of credit from Ocean Bank given to Virginia
Key Marine Group, Inc. is also included within the proposal. The letter of credit and the
supporting letters of intent from each institution, in the opinion of the CPA, exhibits confidence in
the proposer and the project.
Attachments:
Proposed Resolution
Selection Review Committee Final Report
Certified Public Accounting Firm Report !
Selection Review Committee Minority Report
CHU of �fiiami
l"1` O{ I
HERBERT J. BAILEY �'� CESAR H. ODIO
Assistant City Manager ( City Manager
� `1„I�I II,rr1
f`\ J
July 18, 1994
Mr. Cesar H. Odio
City Manager
City of Miami
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
Dear Mr. Odio:
In response to the City of Miami's Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the Unified
Development Project ("UDP") of a boatyard facility, and optional ancillary marine -
related retail use for the Virginia Key Boatyard property, issued February 4, 1994, one
response was received.
The Selection Review Committee ("Committee") selected to evaluate the proposal
convened a total of two meetings and on July 8, 1994 voted to recommend to the City
Manager the acceptance of the proposal received from Virginia Key Marine Group, Inc.
The proposal evaluation was based on the following seven criteria outlined in the RFP
document:
1. Experience of the proposing entity
2. Capability of the development team
3. Financial capability of the proposing entity
4. Financial return to the City
5. Overall design of the proposed development
6. Extent of minority participation
7. Local firm(s) participation
In accordance with the City of Miami Charter, Section 29-A(c) and the City of Miami
Code, Section 18-52.9, enclosed is the Commitee's Final Report outlining its
deliberations and evaluation of the proposal submission.
94- 587,
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CONSERVATION/DUPONT PLAZA CENTER
300 Biscayne Boulevard Way, Suite 400.401/Miami, FL 33131
MWI rwhoh r rNVISInki rmcS ran over , unr rn .-• .
Cesar H. Odio
Page 2
On behalf of the entire Committee for the Virginia Key Boatyard property UDP, we
appreciate the opportunity to participate with you in bringing to Miami a development
project which appropriately fits with the existing waterfront uses of Miami.
Sincerely,
Erdal Donmez
Chairman
Enclosures
i
� 1
I
TABLES OF CONTENTS
l' PAGE
I
i Selection Review Committee.............................................................................................. I
Background......................................................................................................................... 3
Proceedings......................................................................................................................... 3
Evaluation........................................................................................................................... 5
Findings.............................................................................................................................. 5
}i Recommendation................................................................................................................ 6
APPENDIX A. Area Location Map/Site Location Map
587
1
SELECTION REVIEW COMMITTEE
J
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
BILL HARRINGTON
Miami. Waterfront Advisory Board
WARD GRAFTON
Architect
Grafton Architects
CAPTAIN ROBERT LEWIS
Miami Waterfront Advisory Board
KEVIN F. KOTE
Biologist, Marine Facilities Program
Metro -Dade County - DERM
AMBERS OF THE CITE
WARREN BUTLER
Assistant to the City Manager
City Managers Office
ERDAL DONMEZ
Financial Services Coordinator
Department of Development and Housing Conservation
CHRISTINA CUERVO
Chief of Staff
City Managers Office
t
94- 587
Resolution No. 94-46 adopted on January 27, 1994 authorized the issuance of a Request
for Proposals ("RFP") for the Unified Development of a boatyard facility, and optional
ancillary marine -related retail uses on approximately 5.4 acres of City owned waterfront
located at 3501 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, Florida.
The City Commission, through Resolution No. 94-46, appointed seven members to a
Section Review Committee ("Committee") charged with evaluating proposals in response
to the City issued RFP and to render a written evaluation of its findings to the City
Manager as required by City of Miami Charter Section 29-A(c) for Unified Development
Projects. Resolution No. 94-46 further selected Arthur Andersen & Co., Certified Public
Accounting ("CPA") firm, with the minority owned firm of Watson & Co. to analyze the
financial capability, commitment, and projections of the proposal submissions.
The RFP document issued February 4, 1994, sought a unified development package from
a private entity to include planning and design, construction, leasing and management of
a boatyard and marine -related retail uses. The Virginia Key Marine Group, Inc. proposal
was the only response that the City received on the proposal submission date of June 6,
1994.
]PROCEEDINGS
The Committee, appointed by the City Commission, held a total of two (2) meetings.
Throughout the proceedings, the Committee observed requirements as set forth in the
"Government in the Sunshine" Law and "Public Records" Act. All meetings were
advertised and recorded.
The first meeting of the Committee was held on July 1, 1994. At this time, the
Committee was briefed on the Unified Development Project process and its
responsibilities for evaluating the proposal submission. The Department of Development
staff informed the Committee with respect to the Virginia Key Marine Group, Inc.
proposal's compliance with the submission requirements in the RFP document.
t
The second meeting of the Committee was held on July g, 1994 at which time the
principal developer and chief architect for the Virginia Key Marine Group, Inc. presented
the overall development plan for the proposed boatyard facility, and optional ancillary
marine -related retail uses. The development team also answered questions directed by
the Committee in the areas of project development and financing.
94- 587
-3-
94- 587
EVALUATION PROCESS
City of Miami Charter Section 29-A(c), Unified Development Project, requires the
Committee to "evaluate each proposal based only on the evaluation criteria applicable to
the Section Review Committee and contained in the Request for Proposals".
Section VI of the RFP document included an extensive outlay of the criteria that would
be used to evaluate the proposals. The evaluation criteria was as follows:
1. Experience of the proposing entity...................................20%
2. Capability of the development team.................................15%
3. Financial Capability..........................................................20%
4. Financial Return to the City..............................................20%
5. Overall design of the proposed development ....................15%
6. Extent of Minority Participation........................................10%
7. Local firm(s) participation...................................................6%
Total Maximum Points lDffi
The above matrix was extablished to evaluate, rank and recommend proposals submitted
in response to said RFP. Nevertheless, the Committee had only one proposal to consider,
therefore, each member of the Committee evaluated all relevant components of the
proposal and voted without assigning points according to the matrix illustrated above.
FRO-INGS
• The experience of the proposing entity was found to be substantial and relevant to the
proposed development.
• The capability of the development team was found to be substantial and relevant to
the proposed development, covering the range of necessary professionals including a
restauranteur.
• The financial capability of the proposing entity was found to be satisfactory.
• The financial return to the City was found to be favorable based on the proposed cash
flows.
• The overall design of the proposed development met all necessary criteria as set forth
in the RFP, including the design of an outdoor restaurant area.
• The extent of minority participation was found to be satisfactory, the proposing entity
is partially minority owned, and the general contractor is minority owned.
The Development team is local.
15- 94- 587
The following motion was adopted by the Committee unanimously,.
The Committee recommends the acceptance of the
proposal submitted by the Virginia Key Marine
Group, Inc. for the development and management of
the Virginia Key Boatyard Property.
All correspondence between the Committee, City Staff, Arthur Andersen & Co.;
proposals documents; supplemental materials; tape recordings of the Committee meeting;
and any other materials related to the Virgina Key Boatyard project are on file and
available at the City of Miami Department of Development and Housing Conservation,
Development Division.
i
j
j
� 58587
r
6
I.
AM I
8 E A C H
sf
Virginia
Key.
EY
Of E
97
OR
r air46
1YYr r jr , • '
0
V ID_SECUR I TY_LIST
BID ITEM:
VIRGINIA KEY BOATYARD
_A_____------ _—_____----.____—____-.____
DID
NO.:
------------------------------------------------------
RFP
._.e_______________,
FOR
UNIFIED
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
___---_—_____..__..._____.__..________—__
DATE
BID (S) OPENED:
_ J U N E
6__
1994 —__
2! 0 0 p n11._______...____________________
Y
/f
TOTAL. SID_DOND_(orj
BIDDER DID CASHIER'S CHECK
- - --- - - ----------
-� _ —� — E
-1
15 Copies, 1 Board
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
and 1 Envelope
---------------------------------------
-------=r-- --------------
---
----------------------
--------------------_—_
----------------
--------------
---------------------
-----------------
--------------
I
I --------------------------
-----------------
L----------------------------------------
I
-----------------------
---- -------- --
-------------
-
_____________
___-----_____
_____C'.7__-���__--
_______________
_________--__
__-__ -
_______________
______________
_________________________
______________
t ---------------------- __
/ 2 ' 01 rr,)1t4 . j
received (_`_) envelopes on behalf of
LP so receiving bids)
EVELP ENT DEPARTMENTon
(City Department)
SIGNED: _ ____ ______b
( eput—
City Clerk) _
i
11:i i;l 2
;uttetzdmt�t�ts to
Virginia Kc.y 11miyard Rt't'
March 30, 1994
pi,oposai .Stanitission ti,c.-quirements (page 20)
A. Submissiol9 l'ro.,ecictrc
d .e submission p.ickage shad 4c submitted by
2;UU P.M.
Z4itM ty', May-,6, 4994 INIonda • auric (j, 1994
(n c: ` he several rcferences throughout the RUT that refer to tiVe flirty
199 iubmission date shalt be disregarded. The revised due date is .rune 6,
1994 �.
" Wtlyds strtw thtmtgh are do e c. ' 1 ottgitt<tl
It F E�. trtttt;uage. .
II
r" ;�tz'?.,R,F4la'P tit
1 UEST' FO
THEVIR(I'FINIA KEY BOATYARD
3501 RICKENBACK R C"'AUSFWAY
MIAMI, FLORIDA
'rig ILL ISSUED: February 4, 1994
r-TTY OF MTAMI
Stephen P. Clark, Mayer
Miller J. Dawkina, Vice Mayor
1 Victor ii. Do Yurro, Conunissioner
wifredo (Wily) Gort, Commissioner
J.L. Plummer, Jr. , CO='iw*ion6r
i
Cesar H. Odio, City Managsr
A. Quinn .Jones ITZ . , City Attorney
i
Preparod by
Department of Devolopment & Housing Cr„Ysez:vatiOn
Devulopjntant Division
300 BI SCayr►ce Boulovazd Way
M].ami, Flor'i.da 33131
Tel, (305) 579- 3-166
i
Proposals Dual: 2:00 p.M.
Friday, May 6,
HERMT i, t3ARLY
Assistant City Manager
tu tit l i mu
A'lif h 30, 1994
Notior, to Prospcctivc. Pr'r)txtscrs:
A1)111F:LUMM
CESAR H. ODIO
City Manager
Retercnm : Rquest. for Unified Deve.lopinerit Propsals for Virginia Key Boatyard / 3501
Rik-Ievbacker Cat>_smay issued Febr'uaxy 4. 1994.
Please he advis{:d (hat tho iho follwilag sections of the RFP have bcen a monded by City
Comrnissiofa RCS011ttlOat 94-21 1, adopted March 24, 1994, as t'ollows-
Scctlon 1J. - c. Site Dcwriptia)ta (page 4)
The total :acreAge of the prop" is 4-194 5.41kt
Exhibit 1 - Sketch of Sutwey
(rr*lalace Ut ain;al survey sketch with attached survey sketch showing an
additional 1.11 nacres labeled "Lease Expansion Area".)
)Figure 3 - Ali q;iniat Key Boatyard - Site Location
(replaec original Site Location "+aaap with Ati:ndied Revised Site Location Map
showing the expanded site area adjacent to theshorcliuc.) •
Section 11, - F. Financial Rrturn to the City (page 5)
Miniartttna alltlaal lc�.use laaayments shall be. ha70,4ld(1 _286,00Q ...
Section IV, -- E. 1',stlatt,tted (.ollstr'rlctjolt (page 14)
The total cost of all iutproveltlerms. strait be not less than one 111illion dollar's
($l,ot)o,000), 'tile v;Ilale of any existitaf, lltimr+Jvements on (tit: hi(e shall not be
eretlitCei towards aAKetirtl; red emc, million dollar cost of all Imp r(11Yemept .
I he C itY is -a- lcingulrt m1ded value to tlle, existing (lL !� t. 4f not less_th,a►a
p�,(NN?,UOU itt n�.w itnitt'()�rtit�rlts.
WTARTMI-NT ell t.)t V A01'MENT AND HO OS1NC, PLAYA ("0411 R
300 Uiwaync (i:url,:,grd N'ay, SQirc arr)-. 0/Mimnl, f!. 33111
NV11OPMENT tliVN014 (305) 579 3SW / HOUSING f)IYUIVN (A15) !,71 3316fTrleivplec (305) 371-9710
Mr. Odio: So I would like to see it placed back into the RFP, then increase the minimum
payment to $286,000 a year to pay for the additional property. Also, we need to clarify, where it
says estimated construction cost, it should specify that the City is requiring a total of new
investment in the site of no less than $1,000,000.
Commissioner Plummer: Wait a minute. No, no, no. I...
Mr. Odio: In other words, we don't want anybody to say that all equipment or all buildings can
be considered as part of the investment cost that we are requiring.
Commissioner Plummer: I thought it was $2,000,000.
Mr. Odio: It's $1,000,000 in the RFP.
Commissioner Plummer: Wasn't the other bid $2,000,000?
Mr. Odio: This one is $1,000,000.
Commissioner Plummer: How much was the previous one?
Mr. Odio: Well, let me finish, and then you can discuss it, Erdal.
Unidentified Speaker: That was for a restaurant...
Mr. Erdal Donmez: My name is Erdal Donmez, Department of Development. I believe it was
$2,000,000.
Commissioner Plummer: Well, my understanding was that this RFP absolutely tracked the other
RFP. Now, why have you dropped it...
Mr. Odio: No. The other one was a different RFP. It was based on the restaurant, the isolated
restaurant. The other...
Commissioner Plummer: You're talking about a restaurant again.
Mr. Odio: No. We're talking the different RFP. We had required on this RFP a minimum
investment of $1,000,000. We just want to make sure that it is new.
Unidentified Speaker: The marina is already there.
Mr. Odio: That it will be additional investment into the property to enhance the property.
Mayor Clark: Not old, old merchandise.
Mr. Odio: Exactly. And also, if you do approve these changes, to give us time to send the
addendums out.
Mayor Clark: Thirty days.
Mr. Odio: And to give everybody the time to comply, give them an additional extension of 30
days to June 6th to have all the replies in.
Commissioner Plummer: All right. Now, they can come in offering a higher annual minimum
guarantee.
190
March 24, 1994
rq r City
�.= lJ iy of Miami
COLLECTIONS REPORT
f O/
Report of Collections Wr- de r ��
DR N2 2 7 0 7 4 epartment/Division:
T
ANS. DOCUMENT UBSIDiARY .
ODE REFERENCE NO. ACCOUNT INDEXOBJ. PROJECTAMOUNT
CODE OF (KEYPUNCH LEFT
I REu.ZERO FILLED)
R P. series a G/L series
F. no. no.
C-i
Cash:
Checks:-
e1714"o of
Total:
Date:
Prepared By:
• Signature
/W,Ar 1:2... DESCRIPTION
-2 va'd,y71
:e.a-ew-
ee _ —
C;FN/TM 403 Rev 06/89 Routing: Carry both copies and funds to Treasury M11
anagement (Finance Dept) OISTRI®UTIOtdI Whfte - TreasuryManagement Bement; Canary -Department (After validated by Treasury Management)
la^rr: ..r 5 Afn.-`"QM.: v"•T--Yi 't ::.w kr :w-r :...:...7v-w:.�Ift t]5' t "r rt '"17y:w^It. _" .w'—'If.�7: .>•"^+5
v' a{�A.TC�rre.�tua.L!��
y. .aL"u�ir.�i4s�rlvic.��is+....fe •'b _ a�.CJi�`� — r.�a:—.
►Mal 01 No.250456�
OCEAN RANK
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33126 63-1139
JUN-66-94 sso
REMITTED. YTRGINIA KEIN GROP*
DEBITk PAY TOTH
I� 0Q0
*****************CITY OFMo
ORDER O
-
OCEAN
BANK 1521 �A� �LLARS `
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS A MICHOPRINT SIGNATURE LINE AND AN ARTIFICIAL WATERMARK ON BACK, THE WORD VOID INDICATES A COPY '
x AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE i
NOTICE TO CUSTOMER: THE
PURCHASE OF AN INDEMNITY BOND WILL BE w
p CASHIER'S CHECK REQUIRED BEFORE THIS CHECK WILL BEj.
REPLACED OR RETURNED IN THE EVENT IT IS — I
LOST, MISPLACED OR 5TOLEN.
'k of 2 S045611R 1:0660 L L 39 21: 0 L000 1413501180 L
i I� _.��"Q.�<,'.'�i�""'"a�..,'_2°:��.�e�"�"'`��''i.E,�'�d�"z`-?��',;ar_ A, r�, :�. .�:,.. rs .<w,. R"...f;"sm"�'•'s�`...... .....,. ..wee ,,.., �
op
C114 1 4co -, � e-1,- � Y/-V-
REQUEST FOR
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
FOR
THE VIROINIA KEY BOATYARD
3501 RICKENBACKER CAUSEWAY
MIAM19 FLORIDA
TO BE ISSUED° February 4,1994
CITY OF MIAMI
Stephen P. Clark, Mayor
Miller J. Dawkins, Vice Mayor
Victor H. De Yurre, Commissioner
Wifredo (Willy) Gort, Commissioner
J.L. Plummer, Jr., Commissioner
Cesar H. Gdio, City Manager
A. Quinn Jones III., City Attorney
Prepared by:
Department of Development & Housing Conservation
Development Division
300 Biscayne Boulevard Way
Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33131
Tel. (305) 579-3366
Volume I
Letter of Interest
And
Statement of Qualifications
For
Unified Development p ent Proposals
For
The Virginia Ivey Boatyard
3501 Rickenbacker Causeway
Miami, Florida
a
A Of
c
4t .
Il s
F, ck I
Prepared By: Virginia Key Marine Group,
inc.Znc
Date: .Tune 6, 1994
_ I
.f
i
VIRGINIA KEY MARINE GROUP, INC.
2550 S. BAYSIiORE DRIVE
COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133
June 6, 1994
Mr. Herbert J. Bailey
Assistant City Mariner
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
SUBJECT: The Virginia Key Boatyard Proposal
Dear Mr. Bailey:
The Virginia Key Marine Management Group, Inc. is pleased to submit our proposal for the above
referenced project. We welcome the opportunity to propose development and management for
this challenging marina.
We have assembled a team of professionals who are tops in their fields. They have maximized in a
most attractive manner the highest and best use of the property. All requirements as stated in the
RFP have been addressed.
The enclosed qualification document is. organized in a manner that addressed the RFP criteria. If
you have any questions, please phone us at (305) 261-4731.
We are eager to meet with the City to discuss how our expertise can match your needs.
ou r our time.
S'
Sergio Pino
President
SP/cg