HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-85-0965f
x
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION CONCURRING WITH
THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY MANAGER
AND
SELECTION COMMITTEE AND REJECTING THE
SOLE
PROPOSAL POR STREET CLOCK TIME
AND
TEMPERATURE MISPLAY EY R9LIATIMEf tNC.
AS
NONRESPONSIVE TO THE MUEST rOR PROPOSAL
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS ISSUED
ON
JANUARY 11, 1985.
fi
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
ep.
WHERRAS,
a sole proposal was
submitted to the City on
April 1, 1985;
and
�P
WHEREAS,
on May 10, 1985,
the Selection Committee
establishers to
review said proposal
passed a motion recommending
ry
rejection of
the sole respondent's
proposal on the basis of
z 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
Y Y
proposal. by Reiiatime, Inc. is nonresponsive to the criteria and
standards set forth in the City's Request for Proposals dated
October 301 1984, and submitted for responses on
January ll, 198vi to -wit:
a. The overall size of the clock display is SOt larger
than the preferred size specified in the request for
proposal ("RPP"I
5
b. The 100 proposed display locations violate ItPP
standards for spacing between signs,, distance from
parks, distance from Retrorail 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 000pltance with Rim
standards.
MT
r9. The team financial mabilitv shows a totat emrodrato-
capitalitatton of 1.00.000 wrhi.ch is considered
tnsuffictent for this venture.
Fending commitments for the total cost of equipment and
instattatimm are not guaranteed.
f. No commitment for permanent financing or a financing
stratogy is provided.
g. Proposed ftnanciat_ 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 majority shareholder in the ownership
company.
Section 3. Based can the aforementioned and
recommendations of the Select Committee, the sole proposal for
street clocks submitted by Roliatime, Inc.► and dootoO March 1985,
in response to the City's Requests for proposals can same is
hereby rejected by the City Commission.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of SEPTEMRER
PREPARED AND APPROVED SYs
6 fN
J
$'. eXW�
intent City Attorney
APPROSi84AT-W FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
bucta A.
City Att
J6wwP0/e 1w/SOOG
,.2..
MAURICE A. PERRE
MAURICE A. FERRE, MAYOR
s
F
CITY OP MIAMI, R16011116A
INTSM40IPRICIt 109MORANCIWM
ro. Honorable Mayor and Members parr: 8EP D 9 1985
of the City Commission
items to be scheduled for
City Commission Meeting of
September 12th Street Clocks
PROM. Selection Committee Findings
Sergio Pereira �ER6RE:NGES:
City Manager a> €NGLnWR�B:
IT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE STREET CLOCKS
SELECTION COMMITTEE AND THE CITY MANAGER
THAT THE CITY COMMISSION REJECT THE
PROPOSAL FOR STREET CLOCK DISPLAYS AS NON-
RESPONSIVE TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
CRITERIA AND STANDARDS.
1
k
f
On December 20th, 1984, the City of Miami Commission by Resolution 84-1502
authorised the City Manager to advertise a request for proposals for street
4 +
clock displays. As provided in the request for proposals, a selection
committee was convened on May 106 198S to hear a formal presentation of street
clocks proposals. One proposal, by Reliatime, Inc., was presented to the
committee whose members included Sergio Rodriguez, Chairman; Don Cather,
�r
Public Works; Carlos Garcia, finance; Albert Peres, Landscape Architect; Nat
a i
Malt, Urban Planner; Jimmie Allen, Architect; and peg Gorson, Interior
Designer. Al_l. were present except Peg Gorson who was out of town.
_
$
The Selection Committee, after hearing a presentation from Luis Parajon of PR S
a ,
international {representing Reliatimel and a question and answer period,
�
passed by a vote of five in favor and one opposed, the following motion:
^rt
"The Street Clocks Review Committee hereby recommends to the City Manager that
the proposal of Reliatime be rejected."
w
Subsequent discussion of the above motion prompted a second motion, passed
:x
unanimously, which states: "The Street Clocks Selection Committee asserts the
-
following considerations as a basis for recommending rejection of the
Reliatimne proposal;
1. The overall size of the clock display is 50% larger than the
preferred size specified in the request for proposal.
2. The 160 proposed display locations violate RFP standards for
spacing between signs, distance from pafts, distance from
Netrorail alignments and zoning district restrictions for :
residential areas.
4
0
n�
i
i
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
r
3. Alternative display locations referenced in the proposal
presentation are not identified and therefore cannot be
evaluated as to compliance with RFP standards.
4. The team financial capability shows a total corporate
capitalization of $1009000 which is considered insufficient
.a
for this venture.
S. Funding commitments for the total cost of equipment and
installation are not guaranteed,
4
6. No commitment for permanent financing or a financing strategy
is provided.
7. proposed financial return to the City of 30% of pre-tax
profits is unacceptable. :Prefer percentage of gross sales
with minimum lease guarantee.
°t
8. The three month earnings report Included in support of the
financial capability of the applicant shows a deficit for the
z}
r
majority shareholder in the ownership company."
z{rr
Appended to this memorandum are departmental reports to the Manager's office
which preceded the issuance of the request for proposals. These memos
outline, as background for your consideration of this recommendation, the
staff comments about the street clock issue.
It is 4y recommendation that for the above reasons and additional prior
-
considerations presented by staff of Public Works and the Planning Department,
the proposal submitted in response to the April, 1986 Request For Proposals be
a:
rejected.
SP/SR
Attachments
2.
YY
r
f-
�Tja
4 ]
o
IVI
i
Gift or MIAMI. PLOOVIDA
ihVi•OR Z ItPIC12. MCMUM44NDUM
Sergi o Rodriguez, Director I may 13, 1985 PL
tZ
Planning Department
Street Clocks Proposals
'rsuditc.r
Carlos E. Garcia
Director of Simane
i
7
r.t�lO�uttE5
s
I have the following comments regarding the referenced proposal
as it relates to its evaluation criteria:
y !
Financial Capability of the 'seam
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 $1006000, which seems insufficient for this
N
venture, In addition, there is no auditors verification of this
financial information,
Reliatime is owned by several companies that may be financially
s`
capable, the City will contract only with Reliatime, and will
have no legal recourse against the related companies, if
necessary.
1
Equity Commitment
4 s
f`
Although the firm has indicated willingness to fund total cost of
,_
,. -
the equipment and installation, Reliatime's ability to meet
�r
a :
commitment is not guaranteed, as explained in previous paragraph.
Financing Strategy; Access to Construction_ and Permanent
Financing
It is not clearly stated by Reliatime, although 'there is
correspondence from several banks stating credit worthiness of
the related companies.
Financial Return to the City
According to the proposal prepared by the proposer, financial
return to the City is over 30% of pre-tax profits for first five
years. we would prefer a formula as a percents a of g9ross salese
with a minimum lease payment. since the inception of the
contract.
CEG:hb
. lot, i..
0
A
t
i
• ��?Y C5F
te: Mr. HovArd Gar9 DAM August 25, 1982 R�e:
�Ciey t�sna or :NNS=L4TION Or PRIVATELY 01-111Mi11
SIGNS U." .PUL•L,IC TUGH'T Cr WAY
.
fpr3: AaAa .d id. Cathar KrFtfit Nets:
i ct-or of Public Works
r. r►a r..rr��.I'.
We have reviewed the propoaal by pRS International Consulting to
provide time and temperature readings on advertising Dips in the
{ public right of way.
The following facts and considerations should be evaluated prior
to approving or rejecting the proposal.
1. rha Law Department should render an opinion as to wthethom
or not it would be necessary to obtain parmission from a
property owner before obstructing the visual area in front
of his proporty with a privately owned advertising sign.
Would this open the door for other stores to request
signs to project over and into the public right of may?
' The advertising to be displayed miist b. ;..,
be acceptable to the .' ,
' me.chants it% the area and approved by the City of :fiatni.
3. The physical size of the sisn presents a severe Vocation
problem. It is almoot b feet wide and 6 feet high mounted.
almost 9 feet abovo Srotmd with the top extending to 17
.� ♦ ,rfeet above the 8tr8rsL i{ .{• •.YSr ..w#..
.. A sign placed on downtown Hagler Street would have the
following effect. All obstructions: must be sot two feat
x from the curb Line unless they are 14 fact above the
curb line. This %vuld place the Pais wear the cantor of
an 11' -944 sidatralk. In many 1}ocations, the distance from
curb to property line is 4naufficient to allow the instal-
Lation of the sign.
ras banefit of time r"di a to a public, mast of whom
wear watches, would be minizaL and the advertisiur, of
d tcoperatus:e during the summer when it is in tho 90is or '
above could have 4n adverse affect, therefore# the major
benefit to be considered will be the advertising or
information provided.
. +; ,+.l:.>y,I. •�•!' ;!. :•?�'• y • 6�, , �•�, ' �• .es' ' .y�l : •f . .'i *J .• _'!. # • • i s *iI. �!J!.•. ' 4
Ob
• Mr. 11oward Gary
city HarAter
August 85, 1982
3. The douintown stracts have street signs as part of the
• traffic siatalization Byptam. To include street signage,
a3:",%pl7 duplicates tha axiAtLn.g signs and would require
a minimum of two units par intersection to indicate both
street and avenue namea.'..
6.
An ordinance must be prepared and passed by the City
Commission to permit the sale, lease or use of public
land or right Of V&7 for private purposes aftar which
allpartiesshould be invited to subfnLt proposals for •
consideration.
NOTE
•
Approval should not be given without specific locations
havin.; been previously approved the
thusprotecting
City rom, liability because the desired location for
the sign: installation cannot be used.
.7.
There are various other changes that will be required in
Article X' UV of the zoning ordinance to allow theme
a^*
sign* in the public right of way.
8.
The sign iristallation.will require permits from the Fire.
Rescue and Inspection -Service Department and the Public
Works Department which will entail considerably core work
by these departments than the normal -
on private
..permit
a) An alectriLcal permit will reatu iieik administrative
educe changes to provide proc Co Patent inspection to
private structures in the publicright,of.siay.
b) The fire ratin.-.40 all components west most Fire,
•
Rescue and Inspoction Services Department and N.F.P.A.
a) A Metro -Dade County product control cumber and
certification by a Florida Registered Professional
lberuiredtshowVloridlaeSuildir4g
�cture
complier with Otis South
m
Mr. Howard Cary
city-Haftanar
August 230 1982
Page 3
d) Tho Public Works permit will require a caratul under -
around records saarch for each location in order to
avoid existing facilities and a site Lns action or
survap to prevent int*rference with overgead facili-
ties. 1. *O*a. A. -.0 Nft I W'.
9. Overhead electrical connections will not be permLtteds
Thin will necasaftate, tranchLna 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 raquiraments.
Because of the physical and statutory limitations on thaaa signs,
approval should be granted for specific locations where thm
successful entrepren*ur has demonstrated a solution of the prob-
lems encountered.
OA4,
Ah
tag
cei Clark Merrill
be; Structure
Highway
Sewers
Central
a
MITI CR MIAMI, VUONICIA
1NTt"41PPICE MCMQAAIVDUM '
fs. Howard V, Cary
City manager
FROM 0.0�esgzo 0 iguea, Director
lanning Department'
entt: May 9 , 1003 PlUt
:usrtet: Time/Temperature
C1oek,Advertising
Rtrtnthett. Personal Appearance %tarn
City Commission Meeting
twesnsWaM May 13 , 1983
The Planning Department opposes'the installation of time/temperature
clocks with commercial advertising in public ri hts-of-way (side-
walks) through a concession/lease arrangement with a private vendor
for the following reasonst
1. This Department strongly opposes the ubs off -site advertising
throughout the City as visually disruptive, aesthetically
blighting and an unneccessary physical intrusion, aspecially
within neighborhood commercial and residential areas.
2. This would be a step backwards from the progress thesity 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 years ago when no one wore wristwatcheaf
Oki
most people wear watches today making this proposal a minor
convenience, at best.
S.
attaching advertising to various pieces of street furniture i
'
a common scheme and by approving the "clobk" rz osal Ve
would open the door to a proliferation of si;m lar requests
(bicycle :racks, waste receptacles, institutional signage etc
7.
The "clock" proposal is entirely different from the bus bent
shelter concession the City maintains. People do not carry
chairs with them (unlike wristwatchss)i bus stops are of
necessity throughout the City thereby dictatin rise placement
of benches; waiting periods of 20 to 4 mfflu es fora burs
are common which necessitates & •bench, the sub -tropical clim
makes shelter moreas"-""" c siv+ani+sacs; post of placement and
maLntminence is considerable making advertising an economLe,,
'
means to a necessary and. ; •
21
. GRANCUM
Howard V, Gary E. A t C: M 10, 1983
city Hauser a Time and Temperature S igi
In Public Right of Way
Assistant Director
Department of Public Works
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 sips in the public right of way.
On August 23, 1982 (copy of memo enclosed) we went on record
opposing these installations and a we reiterate those same objections,
Lb 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.
Z. The size of these signs, six feet wide and eight feet high mounted
nine feat above the pavement, could obscure the names or
advertising on adjacent stores.'
3 The advertising an 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.
S. 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.
61 The downtown streets have street name signs as a part of the
traffic signal system. Duplicating these signs would serve no
public purpose.
L 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
those signs should not be granted.
GVC3slf
GG$ Jams R. Said, Assistant City Manager
Sergio Rodri Uezv Director of Planning Dept,
CUM Merril, Assistant to City Manager
Reliatirme, Ima.
June 190 1985
Mr. Sergio PprAira
City Manager
City of Miami City Hall
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
Dear Mr. Pereira:
As reprpsAntativO of Reliatimo, Inc. which has submitted a
proposal for the erection and maintenance of streetclock displays,
as per City of Miami Commission Resolution 84r-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.
I. "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 tWRnty square feet
maximum is preferred, (RFP pg. 7).
Advertising displays in excess or the preferred 20 aq,f t. overall
area shall be penalized up to fifteea points on the evaluation
matrix. (RFP pg. 12).
OV 04W00-10V*AD Sift 8"s194V6446Wlt•+tiD�����ll��i6
l
• • Y
Mr. Sergio 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 Reliattne 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 RFP standards for
ns, distance from
spacing between si
g 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 to compliance.
N
3
9
.
Mr. Sprsio Pereira
June 19, 1985
Page No. 3
Jack Luft
acknowledged tr.hat.
the Department had not
conducted a
survey to
determine if in
fact some locations
were net in
compliance.
At no tithe 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 care to ensure compliance with the Request
for Proposals.
If, for any reason the City of Miami disapproved of a location,
Reliati'me 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 s survey, it is determined that same 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 c+ampliance with the RFA, Reliattme has
prepared a list of suitable alternatives.
t
s
I
Mr. Sordid Pereira
June 15f IM
Page No. 4
3. "Alternative display Incations ro pronood in tho proposal
presentation are not identified and therefore cannot be evaluated
as to compliance with RFP standards."
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 Reltatime for failing to
provide additional information on a subject not raquasted or even
contemplated in the RFP.
4. "The team financial capability shows a total corporate
capitalization of $100,000, which is considered insufficient for
this venture,"
in sec. VI, 2(c) of our proposal, Finance apd Accountip.1,
s
+ w.r�w.�r��
Reliatime estimated the total investment cost for the installation
hi
V. of 100 streetclocks to be $1,026,550.00,
W4 state in that section of the proposal that "Reliattee intends
to finance $500,000.00 at 12% interest with a Vivo year
amortization. The remaining $526.550.00 will be additional
4 1 sw 1. ell. lNWIPPO 60
cagital disbursements IL sharohglders". (underlining added),
m
r
Mr. Sergio Poratra
Juno 19, 1985
Page No. 5
In sec. V. Uwngr hip of Ali 11MI. 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 9e1iatime. the company's
shareholders will adequately capitalize it when the cost of the
proj4ot desired by the City of Miami becomes clear.
Therefore, we have in fact guaranteed adequate funding of
Reliatime as a condition of a contract with the City of Miami.
5. "Funding Commitments for the total cost of equipment and
Installation are not guaranteed."
This is answered in our reply to the previous assertion.
b. "No commitment for permanent financing or a financing strategy
is provided."
� r
s z
Mr. Sergio Pereira
.tune 190 1085
E
Page Ne. 6
Please see cur rep ly to assert ion 4. As the
size and
cost of the
{
project becordes clear, we will or course.
supply
a detailed
financing strategy as well as lending Commitments.
7. "Proposed financial return to the City
of
of pre-tax
profits is unacceptable. Prefer percentage
of gross
sales with
minimum lease guarantee."
�1
In sec. VII, 3, of our proposal, Financial
�IYf►YMY.IYfriYil.�
Return to the Cit'y
{ �'. yfi
.1►Y1bi`ii �iY
Y�rYi iYVY►IY.
Reliatime offered the following:
r
I
(a) 10% of all clocks. The maintenance of the clocks would be at
no charge at all. The value of the investment of ten percent or
streetelocks erected is $102,000 Plus the p pro- rate sharp of the
expenses incurred annually by Reliatime, which in the first year
would amount to approximately $46, 680.00
If the City choases to lease the +clocks for additional revenue, it
should receive $66,000 profit in the first year alcone.
(b) In addition to the streetalocks given to the City* Aelistime
offered to make the following payments, guaranteed;
.ti
y.
Mr. Jergin Pereira
June 190 1985
Page No, i
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
$50,000
guaranteed
payment plus inorease in CPI
(c) For years 6-20 Rpliatime proposed to pay the City of Miami a
percentage of gross sales with a minimum lease payment every year.
In conclusion, Reliatime does not propose a financial return to
the City of 30% of pre-tax profits. It doesoffer valuable
revenue -producing assets free of maintenance charges, plus
guaranteed cash payments the first five years, plus guaranteed
cash payments and a percentage Of sales from year 6-20.
What was found unacceptable by Mr. Rodriguez was never proposed.
What he desires as the City's formula of financial return has been
inoluded as part or the total compensation package, offered by
Roliatimo.
4
OIN
t
"n�
u
�ry
z
ai
Mr. Sergio pereira
„
Jufip 19, 196.5
Pa$e N6. 8
(8) "Thq three months earnings report included in
suppnrt of t11e
r
financial Capability of the applicant shows a deficit
for the
°>
majority shareholder in the ownership dompany."
The majority shareholder, Sign Craft, Inc. is well
capitalized and
financially sound, wa provide a great deal
of financial
information on Sign Craft in our proposal, which
substantiates
this statement. For example:
T tl) Sign Craft has a net worth of $2,451,209.00, well in excess
}`
� � w of the deficit reported.
4
(2) Although Sign Craft's financial statements shag a deficit of
$148,791.00 for the three months ending September 30, 1984, at the
some time they reveal a positive cast; flow of $660448.00 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 $1$8.444.00.
J�
t .
i
it
- ��r. Sergio Pereira
Jump 19. 1995
Page No. 9
(3) We Provide rqtqrqnc#s from the company's maJ6r 14nd4r And
auditor. each of which attests to tho rinancial strength mr Sign
craft. We urge you to contact them it you need any further
corroboration.
As stated in our reply to No.prepared to guarantee
Reliatime is pro
4,
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. Parejon
LFP/Sdeg
M