HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-85-1061I
CITY OF MIAMI% FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO. Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
FROM Sergio Pereira A �
City Manager
52,C7
DATE: QGT
FILE:
SUBJECT Personal Appearance:
Representative of Reliatime, Inc.
REFERENCES Street Clocks Time and Temperature
Displays Proposal by Reliatime, Inc.
ENCLOSURES
Per Motion 85-1017; September 26, 1985,
the City Commission directed that a
personal appearance be scheduled for a
rep resen a ive oT Reliatime, Inc.,
pertaining to Resolution -965; September
, which resolution rejected e
so a proposal or street Clocks Time an
Temperature Displays by Reliatime, Inc. as
being non -responsive to the Request -for
Proposals criteria and standards issued
January 11, 1985.
On September 12, 1985, the City Commission, by Resolution 85-965, rejected the
sole proposal for Street Clocks Time and Temperature Displays offered by
Reliatime, Inc., as being non -responsive to the criteria and standards of the
Request for Proposals issued on January 11, 1985. The administration had
recommended rejection of this sole proposal.
On September 26, 1985, by Motion 85-1017, the City Commission directed that a
personal appearance in a representative of Reliatime, Inc. be scheduled at the
next City Commission meeting on the basis that Reliatime had not had the
opportunity of presenting their case.
For your information, the full agenda package from the September 12, 1985,
meeting is attached together with a copy of Resolution 85-965. This package
contains the analysis of the Selection Committee which recommended rejection
of the sole proposal by Reliatime, Inc.
The administration continues to recommend rejection of the proposal.
SP/SR
Attachment
bwllol-gSioG/
__.__
-_.-....-,.,.-.mm.F�•�J7CS7IPLl14'R'dM�
f.Fiu..,- _.;•, .....-ry.�•r...+s.
-
AWOL
CtTY or MIAMI. FLORICIA
i(
ItJ-1%?j=CIrFICE
MEMORAt`IDUM
1!
Sergio Rodriguez,
Director
May 13, 1985
7O
Planning
Department
DATE FILE
Street Clocks Proposals
SULUE: r
Carlos E.
Garcia
i'_NON,
Director
of .Fi nanc
oFKrnENCES
f 't CL0'4.9 CS
I have the following comments regarding the referenced proposal
as it relates to its evaluation criteria:
Financial Capability of the Team
The proposer, Reliatime, Inc. is owned by four companies with
varying degrees of ownership. The corporation statement indicates
1,000 shares issued with a book value of $100 for a total
capitalization of $100,000, which seems insufficient for this
venture. In addition, there is no auditors verification of this
financial information.
Reliatime is owned by several companies that may be financially
capable, the City will contract only with Reliatime, and will
have no legal recourse against the related companies, if
necessary.
I
Equity Commitment
d
s
Although the firm has indicated willingness to fund total cost of
the equipment and installation, Reliatime's ability to meet
_
commitment is not guaranteed, as explained in previous paragraph.
3
Financing Strategy; Access to Construction_ and Permanent
Financing
i
It is not clearly stated by Reliatime, although there is
correspondence from several banks stating credit worthiness of
1
the related companies.
Financial Return to the City
According to the proposal prepared by the proposer, financial
3
return to the City is over 30% of pre-tax profits for first five
years. We would prefer a formula as a percentage of gross sales,
with a minimum }ease payment, since the inception of the
—.
contract.
~
CEG:hb
0
CITY OF fAMMI. FLORIDA I '
INTER -OFFICE MEMONANDUM
r,
If -s
it r
to; Air. Howard Gary D,1TC. August 25, 1982 FILE:
City 21ana�er INSTALL4TIOIr Or- FRIVAT"ELY 01a-MID
SUU:Er- T ADVERTISING/ TIME/TF'MT- MMP.E
SIGNS 111. PUBLIC RIGHT OF k:AY
gyp. Dona 1d 14. Cather EVEN=E9:
�i ctor of Public Works
E�:CLb4tIn ES:
We have reviewed the proposal by YRS International Consulting to
provide time and temperature readings on advertising signs in the
public right of way.
The following facts and considerations should be evaluated prior
to an -roving or rejecting the proposal.
1. The Law De-oartment should render an opinion .as to whether
or not it would be necessary to obtain permission from a
property owner before obstructing the visual area in front
of his property with a privately owned advertising sign.
Would this open the door for other stores to request
suns to project over and into the public ri-ht of anny?
The advertising to be displayed must be acceptable to the
merchants in the area and approved by the City, of Mani.
3. The physical size of the sign presents a severe location
problem. It is Almost b feet wide and 8 feet high mounted.
almost 9 feet above ground with the top ex'tendinn to 17
`feet above the street. .
For example: '
A sign placed on downtown Flagler Street would have the
following effect. All obstructions must ba set two feet
from the curb line unless they are 14 feet above the
curb line. This would place the pole near the center of
an ll'-O" sidewalk. In many locations, the distance from
curb to property line is insufficient to allow the instal-
lation of the sign.
4. The benefit of time readings to a public, most of whom -'
wear Watches, would be minimal, and the advertising of
temperature during the sur=cr when it is in the 90's or
above could have an adverse effect, therefore, the major
benefit to be considered will be the advertising or
information provided.
s✓ "� 170
_....�... .: �� ..�;..r.;.. � . . T4s,uls cnr.w•ir<. ti.':'e- - .. �� :.ry .:..:�.. ......-ram -ar ....-.nT1`:.�lR'r�.'.'y'e°� � �r
j
j
I
i
Mr. Howard Gary
City r:ana�;er
August 25, 1982
Page 2
5, The JbvntoT,rn streets have street signs as part of the
traffic signali.cation system. To include street signage
simply duplicates the existing signs and would require
a inini;murn of two units per intersection to indicate both
street and avenue names. ' _ - -
6,
An ordinance must be prepared and passed by the City
Co=ission to permit the sale, lease or use of public
land or right of way for private purposes after which
all parties should be invited to submit proposals for '
consideration.
pro T E -
Approval should not be given without specific locations
having: been previously approved, thus protecting the
City from liability because the desired location for
the sign: installation cannot be used.
7.
There are various other changes that will •be required in
Article =V of the zoning ordinance to allow these '
signs in the public right of way.
•
8.
The sign installation.uill require permits from the Fire,
Rescue and Inspection•Service Department and the Public
Works Department which will entail considerably more work
...
by these departments than the normal permit on private
property: ,
a) An electrical permit will require administrative
;.,
procedure changes to provide competent inspection to
private structures in the public right of way.
b) The fire rating.•of all components must meet fire,
Rescue and Inspection Services Department and N.F.P.A.
requirements.
c) A Metro -Dade County product control number and -
certification by a Florida Registered Professional .:
Engineer will be required to show that the complete
structure complies with the South Florida Building
Code.
8S "1a6,1
t
i
Mr. t:oward Gary
City Manager
August 25, 1982
Page 2
5, The Jotrnto:rn streets have street signs as part of the
traffic signalication system. To include street signage
si.;;ply duplicates the existing signs and would require
a ininLzum of two units per intersection to indicate both
street and avenue names,_. -
6. An ordinance must bo prepared and passed by the City
Commission to permit the sale, lease or use of public
land or right of way, for private purposes after which
all parties should be invited to submit Proposals for
consideration.
N0 l E -
Approval should not be given without specific locations
having been previously approved, thus protecting the
City from liability because the desired location for
;. the sign installation cannot be used.
7. There are various other changes that krill •be required in
Article )0:IV of the coning ordinance to allow there
signs in the public right of way.,
8. The sign installation.u-111 require permits from the Fire,
Rescue and Inspection,Service Department and the Public
Works Department which will entail considerably More wort;
by these departments than the normal permit on private
property:
a) An electrical permit will require aclninist?-ptive
procedure changes to provide competent inspection to
private structures in the public right of way.
b) The fire rating..of all components must meet fire,
Rescue and Inspection Services Department and N.F.P.A.
requirements.
c) A Metro -Dade County product control number and
certification by a Florida Registered Professional
Engineer will be required to show that the complete"
structure complies with the South Florida Building
Code.
�i
T
i
r
yf
Mr. Howard Gary -•�-
} City Manager
August 25, 1932
Page 3
d) The Public Works permit will require a careful under•-
Zround records search for each location in order to
avoid existing facilities and a site inspection or
survey to prevent interference u-ith overhead facili-
ftes .
9. overhead electrical connections will not be permitted.
This will necessitate trenching in sidewalks and paved
areas to obtain the necessary power supply.
-10. In some areas of the city the poles must meet State and
Federal set -back and breakaway requirements.
Because of the physical and statutory limitations on these signs,
approval should be granted for specific locations where tY►c:•
successful entrepreneur has demonstrated a solution of the prob-
lems encountered.
• 1
GLL/WEP:ss
' cc, Clark Merrill
bc: Structures..K:::�J, F
Highway
Sewers
Central
a..., s_:...
j
Pow
CITY OF MIAMI. FIORIOA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO. Howard V. Gary OAM May 9, 1983
City Manager
SUbJECT: Time/Temperature
Clock Advertising
ERo�� ergio �20� iguez, Director REF EREtICES Personal Appearance Item
Tanning Department City Commission Meeting
ENCLOSURES. May 12, 1983
The Planning Department opposes'the installation of time/temperature
clocks with commercial advertising in public rights -of -way (side-
walks) through a concession/lease arrangement with a private vendor
for the following reasons:
1. This Department strongly opposes the use off -site advertising
throughout the City as visually disruptive, aesthetically
blighting and an unneccessary physical intrusion, especially
within neighborhood commercial and residential areas.
2. This would be a step backwards from the progress the City has
made, at considerable expense, to upgrade and beautify the
public sidewalk environments in Downtown, Little Havana,
Coconut Grove, Little River, Brickell, Omni, Biscayne
Boulevard and Allapattah.
3. The most intense activity areas would be those most desired
by the lessee and least capable of withstanding the
pedestrian obstructions of poles.
4. Invariably the clock/sign standard would block the view of ,
legitimate owner -identification business signs in commercial
areas, and may actually advertise competitive products
directly in front of a given business.
5. There is no essential public service provided. Streetside
clocks prevailed 100 years ago when no one wore wristwatches;
most people wear watches today making this proposal a minor
convenience, at best.
6. Attaching advertising to various pieces of street furniture is
a common scheme and by approving the "clock" proposal ve
would open the door to a proliferation of similar requests
(bicycle :racks, waste receptacles, institutional signage etc.)
7. The "clock" proposal is entirely different from the bus bench/
shelter concession the City maintains. People do not carry
chairs with them (unlike wristwatches); bus stops are of
necessity throughout the City thereby dictating the placement
of benches; waiting periods of 20 to 40 minutes for a bus
are common which necessitates a bench, the sub -tropical climate
makes shelter more than a convenience; cost of placement and
maintainence is considerable making advertising an economic
means to a necessary end.
SR/JL/cf
c
t
• T
INT�i2-C�F1Cc :AE`IORANDUM
Y
_ - Mar 10 , ly 83
' Howard V. Gary re, -
City Manager - Time and Temperature Sigi
In Public Right of Way
r4ON+ William E. Pr3r2$ :Er£RENCES
Assistant Director
Department of Public Works INCLOSURES
This Department has been informed that Mr. Al Cardenas has requested
a personal appearance at the next commission meeting concerning the
placement of time and temperature signs in the public right of way.
On August 25, 1952 (copy of memo enclosed), we went on record
opposing these installations and we reiterate those same objections.
1. Such installations are not permitted by either the South Florida
Building Code or the City Code. This would be a case of using
a public right of way for private enterprise.
-2. The size of these signs, six feet wide and eight feet high mounter
nine feet above the pavement, could obscure the names or
advertising on adjacent stores.
3. The advertising on these signs might be in competition with the
adjacent businesses, and might put the City in the position of
having to regulate advertising.
4. If these signs were placed along State Roads (such as Flagler
Street) , they would have to meet their set -back from the curb,
and for safety requirements in case of accidents.
5. These signs are mounted on concrete bases, approximately three
feet square and four feet deep. The bases could severely limit
future underground 'utility installations, and would be very
difficult to find a clear location for their original installation.
6. The downtown streets have street name signs as a part of the
traffic signal system. Duplicating these signs would serve no
public purpose.
7. Overhead electrical connections will not be permitted. This
requires excavation in the right of way to a duct line, or
installation of a drop and buried duct from the nearest over-
head power line.
It is the opinion of this Department that permission to install any of
these signs should not be granted.
i -
GVC:slf
cc: James R. Reid, Assistant City 14anager
j Sergio Rodriguez, Director of Planning Dept.
# Clark Merrill, Assistant to City Manager
t
.a
7
Reliatime, Inc.
June 19, 1985
Mr. Sergio Pereira
City Manager
City of Miami City Hall
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
Dear Mr. Pereira:
As representative of Re1tat ime. Inc. which has submitted a
proposal for the erection and maintenance of streetelock displays,
as per City of Miami Commission Resolution 84-1502, I would like
to reply to the comments made by Mr. Sergio Rodriguez in his memo
to you of June 11, 1985, which I enclose.
1. "The overall size of the clock display is 50% larger than the
preferred size specified in the request for proposal."
The relevant passages in the RFP are as follows:
The overall size of the display panel shall not exceed thirty
square feet (exclusive of supporting post) with the maximum width
not to exceed five feet. An overall size of twenty square feet
maximum is preferred. (RFP pg. 7).
Advertising displays in excess of the preferred 20 sq.ft. overall
area shall be penalized up to fifteen points on the evaluation
matrix. (RFP pg. 12).
240 CRANOON BOULEVARD / SUITE 21 7 /KE V BISCAYNE. FLOR1OA 331 49/TELEPHONE (305) 361.621 4 / 361-6215 • TELEX 516769 GUETARV KaiS
8� �-1�U 1
t
Mr. Ser6io Pereira
June 19. 1985
Page No. 2
Our proposed clock's advertising display panel has an area of
13.92 sq.ft. It is thus well within the preferred area of 20
sq.ft. and is therefore totally acceptable.
The total area of advertising display panel and the time -
temperature digital display is 29 1/2 sq.ft., also in strict
compliance with the RFP.
Therefore. the street clock proposed by Reliatime meets all of the
conditions of the RFP. The area given to advertising is only 70%
of the area specified by the City as the preferred amount, not 50%
greater, as stated by Mr. Rodriguez.
2. "The 100 proposed display locations violate REP standards for
spacing between signs, distance from parks, distance from
Metrorail alignments and zoning district restrictions for
residential areas."
At the presentation by Reliatime to the Street Clock Selection
Committee on May 10, 1985, Professor Malt stated that upon a
cursory examination of the exhibits contained in the RFP it
appeared that some locations were not in compliance.
8L,:; ---100" 1
14r. Sergio Pereira
June 19, 1985
Page No. 3
Jack Luft acknowledged that the Department had not conducted a
survey to determine if in fact some locations were not in
compliance.
At no time was it suggested that all of the proposed locations
were in violation of the RFP.
At the meeting, I replied that the selection of sites had been
conducted with great carp to ensure compliance with the Request
for Proposals.
If, for any reason the City of Miami disapproved of a location.
Reliatime was prepared to offer an additional 60 sites from which
to choose acceptable alternatives.
Therefore, we state that, to the best
of our knowledge
and
ability, the 100
proposed locations are
in compliance with
the
RFP. If, after a
survey, it is determined
that some are not
(and
to this date not one location has been specifically
identified
as
such) or, if the
City chooses to reject
a location, for
any
reason, although
it is in compliance with
the RFP, Reliatime
has
prepared a list of
suitable alternatives.
Mr. Cergio Pereira
June 19, 1985
Page No. 4
3. "Alternative display Incatinns referenced in the proposal
presentation are not identified and therefore cannot be evaluated
as to cnmp1iance with RFP standards.'I
There is no request in the RFP for alternative display locations.
We freely offer this possibility to the City in order that the
Administration can choose what it feels to be the most attractive
locations.
Consequently, it is unfair to criticize Reliatime for failing to
provide additional information on a subject not requested or even
contemplated in the RFP.
4. "The team financial capability shows a total corporate
capitalizatibn of $100,000, which is considered insufficient for
this venture."
In sec. VI, 2(c) of our proposal, Finance and Accountiny.,
Reliatime estimated the total investment cost for the installation
of 100 streetclocks to be $1,026,550.00.
We state in that section of the proposal that "Reliatime intends
to finance $500,000.00 at 12% interest with a five year
amortization. The remaining $526,550.00 will be additional
--- — — ------ ---
capital disbursements by shareholders". (underlining added).
�`��10U
Mr. Sergio Pereira
June 19, 1985
Page No. 5
In sec. U, UwnPrship of Reliatime, which describes the
shareholders of the company, we give considerable detail to their
financial strength, their bank relations, and their ability to
arrange lines of credit. (see the chapters on Sign Craft Inc.,
and Estacionamientos Urbanos S.A. in particular).
As explained in the proposal submitted by Reliatime, the company's
shareholders will adequately capitalize it when the cost of the
project desired by the City of Miami becomes clear.
Therefore, we have in fact guaranteed adequate: funding of
{
f Reliatime as a condition of a contract with the City of Miami.
5. "Funding Commitments for the total cost of equipment and
•a installation are not guaranteed."
This is answered in our reply to the previous assertion.
6. "No commitment for permanent financing or a financing strategy
is provided."
A
Mr. Sergio Pereira
June 19, 1985
Page No. 6
Fti1
Please see our rep.y to assertion 4. As the size and cyst of the
project becomes clear, we will of course supply a detailed
financing strategy as well as lending commitments.
7. "Proposed financial return to the City of 30% of pre-tax
profits is unacceptable. Prefer percentage of gross sales with
minimum lease guarantee."
In sec. VII, 3, of our proposal. Financial Return to the City,
Reliatime offered the following:
■ (a) 10% of all clocks. The maintenance of the clocks would be at
k
f.
i
no charge at ail1. The value of the investment of ten percent of
streetclocks erected is $102,000 plus the pro-rata share of the
expenses incurred annually by Reliatime, which in the first year
• would amount to approximately $46,680.00
If the City chooses to lease the clocks for additional revenue, it
should receive $66,000 profit in the first year alone.
(b) In addition to the streetclocks given to the City, Reliatime
offered to make the following payments, guaranteed:
y
e
monesr�mn�ri�
�� uy<,yq [ u"'X°¢i4G��li iisun'fiP�1413.1 7!9}IpllR1�� -
Mr. ;iergio Pereira
June 19, 1985
Page No. 7
Year
1
$25,000
guaranteed
payment
Year
2
$40,000
guaranteed
payment
Year
3
$50,000
guaranteed
payment
Year
4
$50,000
guaranteed
payment plus increase in CPI
Year
5
$50,000
guaranteed
payment plus increase in CPI
(c) For years 6-20 Reliatime proposed to pay the City of Miami a
percentage of gross sales with a minimum lease payment every year.
In conclusion, Reliatime does not propose a financial return to
the City of 30� of pre-tax profits. It doeso£fer valuable
revenue -producing assets free of maintenance charges, plus
guaranteed cash payments the first five years, plus guaranteed
cash payments' and a percentage of sales £rota year 6-20.
What was found unacceptable by Mr. Rodriguez was never proposed.
i
What he desires as the City"s formula of financial return has been
1 included as part of the total compensation package, offered by
Reliatime.
Mr. Sergio Pereira
June 19, 1985
Page No. 8
(6) "The three months earnings report included in support of the
financial capability of the applicant shows a deficit for the
majority shareholder in the ownership company."
The majority shareholder, Sign Craft, Inc. is well capitalized and
financially sound. We provide a great deal of financial
information on Sign Craft in our proposal, which substantiates
this statement. For example:
( 1 ) Sign Craft has a net worth of $2,451,209.00, well in excess
of the deficit reported.
(2) although Sign Craft's financial statements show a deficit of
$148,791.00 for the three months ending September 30, 1984, at the
same time they reveal a positive cash flow of $68,448.00 during
this period, even though during these months Sign Craft
voluntarily reduced its long term debt by $120,000.00. Had the
debt not been prepaid, the quarter's positive cash flow would have
been $188, 444.00.
ss,y1061
a
r..
d ..
Mr. Sergio Pereira
June 19, 1985
Page No. 9
(3) We provide references from the Company's major lender and
auditor, Pacts of which attests to the financial strength of Sign
Craft. We urge you to contact them if you need any further
corroboration.
As stated in our reply to No.4, Reliatime is prepared to guarantee
adequate funding by its shareholders before undertaking this
project.
I hope this clarifies a great number of points. I shall be happy
to provide you with additional information.
Cordially yours,
Luis F. Parajon
LFP/gdeg
g4 �-it7�r►1
J-85-921
9/5/85
f
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY MANAGER AND
SELECTION COMMITTEE AND REJECTING THE SOLE
PROPOSAL FOR STREET CLOCK TIME. AND
TEMPERATURE DISPLAY BY RELIATIME, INC. AS
NONRESPONSIVE TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS ISSUED ON
JANUARY 11, 1985.
WHEREAS, on December 20, 1984, the City of Miami Commission
by Resolution 84-1502 authorized the City Manager to advertise a
Request for Proposals for street clock advertising displays: and
WHEREAS, a sole proposal was submitted to the City on
April 1, 1985; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 1985, the Selection Committee
established to review said proposal passed a motion recommending
rejection of the sole respondent's proposal on the basis of
nonresponsiveness to the criteria and standards as outlined in
the request for proposals;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Commission hereby concurs with the
City Manager's recommendation to reject the sole proposal for
street clock time and temperature display from Reliatime, Inc.,
dated March 1985.
Section 2. The City Commission hereby finds that said
proposal by Reliatime, Inc. is nonresponsive to the criteria and
standards set forth in the City's Request for Proposals dated
October 30, 1984, and submitted for responses on
January 11, 1985; to -wit:
a. The overall size of the clock display is 50% larcier
than the preferred size specified in the request for
proposal ("RFP").
b. The 100 proposed display locations violate RFP
standards for spacing between signs, distance from
parks, distance from Metrorail alignments and zoning
district restrictions for residential areas.
c. Alternative display locations referenced in the
proposal presentation are not identified and therefore
cannot be evaluated as to compliance with RFP
standards.
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
-10, --
I
f
d • The team financial capability shows a total corporate
capitalization of $100,000 which is considered
insufficient for this venture.
e. fiunding commitments for the total cost of equipment and
installation are not guaranteed.
f No commitment for permanent fi.nancinq or a f.inancinn
strategy is provided.
9. Proposed financial return to the City of 30* of pre-tax
profits is unacceptable.
h . The three month earnings report included in support of
the financial capability of the applicant shows a
deficit for the maiority shareholder in the ownership
company.
Section 3. BaEad on the aforementioned and
recommendations of the Select Committee, the sole proposal for
street clocks submitted by Reliatime, Inc.. and dated March 1985,
in response to the City's Reauests for Proposals on same is
3
hereby reiected by the City Commission.
a
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of SEPTEMBER 1965.
i
MAURICE A. FERRE
MAURICE A. FF.RRE, MAYOR
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
Y i 41
jo1 E. Maxwel
istant City Attorney
APPROVED.,A FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
Lucia A. Dgucfherty
City Attorney
JEM/wpc/slw/B096
sz«
�4y
-2-
8 1 w106l