Loading...
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