Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-85-0393J-85-289 4/12/85 RESOLUTION NO. 85-3.93 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE SELECTION OF DEVELOPERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PHASE I GENERALLY BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY NORTHWEST LOTH STREET; WEST BY NORTHWEST 2ND AVENUE AND NORTHWEST 3RD AVENUE; SOUTH BY NORTHWEST 6TH STREET AND NORTHWEST 7TH STREET; AND EAST BY NORTH MIAMI AVENUE AND NORTHEAST 1ST AVENUE; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO NEGOTIATE CONTRACTS WITH THE PROPOSERS; AND FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT THE NEGOTIATED CONTRACTS TO THE CITY COMMISSION AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY COMMISSION PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION THEREOF. WHEREAS, the City Commission by Resolution No. 82-755, approved in principle, the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 84-893 the City Commission authorized the City Manager to issue a Request for Unified Development Project Proposals for the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Project Phase I; and WHEREAS, the City Commission selected Touche Ross & Co. as the certified public accounting firm and appointed members of a review committee; and WHEREAS, the request for proposals for the unified develop- ment project contained specific evaluation criteria to be used by the certified public accounting firm and the review committee; and WHEREAS, 20 proposals were received by the City in response to the request for proposals on December 14, 1984 the published date for receipt of proposals; and WHEREAS, the certified public accounting firm developed a model to evaluate the viability of the development teams and their ability to maintain prices at proposed levels, the viability of the proposed financing strategies, the viability of the proposed projects, and the short and long-range fiscal return to the City and rendered its written r CITY COWAUS3I011 or>I►4"'I>4?E APR 1111S1985 IRESOLUhUn Jw. 85-3.i3 { ykµ :. City Manager; and WHEREAS, the review committee received the presentations of the proposers and, after extensive analysis and discussion of the proposals, rendered a written report to the City Manager con- taining an evaluation of each proposal based on the specific evaluation criteria included in the request for proposals; and WHEREAS, the review committee adjudged the following development teams to be superior with respect to their proposals for the development of their designated parcels of land in the project area: Recommended Developer Parcel No. Cruz Development Company 24 Cruz Development Company 25 Cruz Development Company 36 Can -American Realty Corporation or Cruz Development Company 37 Decoma Venture (Sports Arena) or Circa/Barness/Sawyer (Housing) 44 Circa/Barness/Sawyer 45 Indian River Investments II, Ltd. 46 Circa/Barness/Sawyer 55 Circa/Barness/Sawyer 56; and WHEREAS, the following development teams were ranked first according to the certified public accounting firm: Recommended Developer Cruz Development Company Cruz Development Company Cruz Development Company Can -American Realty Corporation and Cruz Development Company Circa/Barness/Sawyer Circa/Barness/Sawyer Indian River Investments II, Ltd. Circa/Barness/Sawyer Circa/Barness/Sawyer Parcel No. 24 25 36 37 44 45 46 55 56; and -2 55-393. WHEREAS, the City Manager, taking into consideration the findings of the certified public accounting firm and the evalua- tions of the review committee, recommends the acceptance of the proposals from the following development teams for the Southeast O vertown/Park West Redevelopment Project Phase I: Recommended Developer Parcel Wo. Cruz Development Company 24 Cruz Development Company 25 Cruz Development Company 36 Can -American Realty Corporation 37 Circa/Barness/Sawyer 45 Indian River Investments II, Ltd. 46 Circa/Barness/Sawyer 55 Circa/Barness/Sawyer 56; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recommendation of the City Manager is accepted and the following development teams are selected to develop the designated parcels of land in the Southeast Over- town/Park West project area generally bounded on the north by Northwest loth Street; west by Northwest 2nd Avenue and Northwest 3rd Avenue; south by Northwest 6th Street and Northwest 7th Street; and east by North Miami Avenue and Northeast 1st Avenue: Recommended Developer Parcel No. Cruz Development Company 24 Cruz Development Company 25 Cruz Development Company 36 Circa/Barness/Sawyer 45 Indian River Investments II, Ltd. 46 Circa/Barness/Sawyer 55 Circa/Barness/Sawyer 56 -3- 85-393. - - i i Alt it Section 2. The City Manager and the City Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to negotiate a contract with the aforementioned development teams. Section 3. The City Manager is further directed to present the negotiated contracts to the City Commission as soon as practicable for consideration and approval by the City Commission prior to execution thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this llth day of April- - - 1985. T: MAURICE A. FERRE MAURICE A. FERRE, Mayor ;LPH G. ONGIE ty Clerk PREP D AND APPROVED BY: /v ROBERT N. SECHEN Assistant City Attorney w,. APP VED AS TO FORM AN CORRECTNESS: LUCIA A. DOUGHERTY City Attorney 2 RNS/wpc/ab/pb/194 Q -4-85-393: CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA iNTER rFICE MEMORANDUM ro. The Honorable Mayor and DATE: April 3, 1985 rrLt Members of the City Commission SUIlECT S.E. Overtown/Park West Developer Selection City Commission Agenda �[. April 11, 1985 PROM. Itandolpit' B. Rosencrantz REFERENCES: City Manager /' ENCLOSURES: ( 4 ) It is recommended that the City Commission approve the attached resolution selecting Phase I developers for the Southeast over- town/Park West Project pursuant to proce- dures established for Unified Development Projects (UDPs) and to authorize the City Manager to initiate the preparation of dis- position agreements with said developers. The recommended development firms are: Parcel 24: Cruz Development Company Parcel 25: Cruz Development Company Parcel 36: Cruz Development Company Parcel 37: Can -American Realty Corp. Parcel 44: Recommendation Pending* Parcel 46: Indian River Investment II, Ltd. Parcel 55: Circa, Barness, Sawyer Parcel 56: Circa, Barness, Sawyer On July 31, 1984, the Miami City Commission approved Resolution No. 84-893 authorizing the issuance of a request for proposals for a Unified Development Project (UDP) for the Southeast Over- town/Park West Phase I Redevelopment Area, establishing a Selec- tion Review Committee, and appointing Touche Ross and Company to analyze the financial feasibility of the proposals. On December 14, 1984, the City of Miami received 20 proposals from nine developers for Phase I development. The Selection Review Committee met on January 2, 8, 22, 31, and February 13, 1985, to review the proposals. On February 13th the committee report was submitted to the Manager for review. Touche Ross & Co. completed their financial evaluation of competing redevel- opment proposals and submitted their report on January 30, 1985. *Developer selection for Parcel 44 should be held in abeyance until futher review of the Decoma Venture proposal. 55-393 A 2 Mayor and Commission =2- The selection of developers for Phase I redevelopment is the cul- mination of over two years of work by the City with the assis- tance of Dade County. The proposals recommended for approval meet the objectives of the redevelopment program, which is to create a residential community within the downtown area geared for moderate -income families with some provision for low-income residency, and to provide the impetus for the revitalization of the Overtown community. In planning for and seeking development proposals for Phase I of this project, the City has been concerned that true and substan- tial involvement of minorities be achieved. We are especially pleased with the level of minority participation in the proposals recommended. All of the recommended developers have committed to adhere to the participation goals established for the project, and this has'been impressively exceeded by most. Almost all the development teams, including the general partners and support professionals, have minorities among the lead individuals. Of special note is the circa/ Barness/Sawyer group, which includes representation of a former project area property owner from Over - town and minority individuals as equity participants. The Cruz Development Company is a minority -owned firm. I. Project Background Phase I of this project is focused on public investment adjacent to the Overtown Metrorail Station and along the 9th Street Mall. A nine -block Transit Station Impact Area has been designated as the location where public investment will be concentrated. This has been approved by the Miami City Commission (Resolution No. 83-972) and the Dade County Commission (Resolution No. R-1006-84). This area was selected due to its strategic location adjacent to the Overtown Metrorail Station and the Downtown Gov- ernment Center. Redevelopment within this area will maximize benefits to both the Park West and Overtown portions of the pro- ject area and leverage previous capital improvement expenditures plus committed public funds (Urban Initiatives Project). There are feasible development opportunities along the nine blocks surrounding the proposed 9th Street Mall and the Overtown Metrorail Station. Market forecasts indicate that this nine - block area is capable of supporting the development of approxi- mately 2,000 residential units and 250,000 sq.ft. of commercial space, to be phased in over a five-year period. The development program will be geared for moderate -income housing for families with an income range of $15,000 to $50,000. The development mix Mayor and Commission =3- is predicated upon the identified market potential for the area (Hammer, Siler, George Associates analysis). II. Solicitation of Developers A concerted effort has been made to promote and market the South- east Overtown/Park West project area since the establislunent of a project office in September 1982. A significant effort was made to attract developers locally, nationally, and internationally. Major marketing activities have included: -- Distribution of 900 marketing folders nationwide to potential developers, investors, etc. -- Distribution of 300 copies of the Phase I Request For Proposals nationwide. -- Publication of two editions of Progress, the Southeast Overtown/Park West newsletter, distribution of 1,500 and 3,000 respectively. -- Preparation of numerous articles and press releases con- cerning the project. Information concerning the project has been printed in local and national publications. -- Hiring of a marketing consultant to assist in preparing a market strategy for -the project. t --Sponsoring a developers conference on April 30, 1984, at the James L. Knight International Conference Center, attended by more than 200 people; and a presubmission conference held on August 30, 1984, with 60 persons in attendance. -- Appearances on local television, radio broadcasts, and :;:.. before civic and business groups to promote the project. -- Distribution of over 1,000 flyers nationally promoting the project and development opportunities. Placed advertise- ments in the Wall Street Journal, the National Real Estate Investor Magazine and the local newspapers. Hosting a conference/workshop for minority contractors on August 9, 1984, at the City Administration Building. fj S5-392 Mayor and Commission -4- III. Response to the Request for Proposals Written proposals were submitted by the following nine development teams: Affordable Housing Corporation 666 llth Street N.W., Suite 1103 Washington, D.C. 20005-4542 Can -American Realty Corporation 1117 Marquette Avenue, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55403-2457 Circa/Barness/Sawyer 628 W. Rittenhouse Street Philadelphia, PA 19144 Cruz Development Company 10 Fairway Street Mattapan, MA 02126 The Decoma Venture Suite 700 1110 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Indian River Investments II, Ltd. 1023 N.W. Third Avenue Miami, FL 33136 New Washington Heights Community Development Conference, Inc. Culmer/Overtown Neighborhood Service Center 1600 N.W. 3rd Avenue Miami, FL 33136 Stocks Construction Florida 299 Alhambra Circle, Suite 512 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Walter Sweeting & Associates, Inc. 5825 Sunset Drive, Suite 210 Miami, FL 33143 S ;-393. Mayor and Commission M5— SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS FOR PNASE I OEVELOPNENT Parcel Residential Commercial Number Proposer's Name Units Sq.Ft. 24 (a) Cruz Development 386 R 30,000 (b) Stocks Construction 350 R 15,000 (c) Can -American Realty Corp. 350 R 30.000 25 (a) Cruz Development 199 R 15,875 36 (a) Cruz Development 221 C 25,000 (b) Affordable Housing Corp. 174 C 20,000 37 (a) Cruz Development 386 R 30,000 (b) Can -American Realty Corp. 350 R 30,000 44 (a) Affordable Housing Corp. 304 C 20,000 (b) Walter Sweeting 3 Assoc. Inc./ 248 C -- Angles, Esteban (joint venture) (c) Circa/Barness/Sawyer 426 C -- (d) Oecoma Venture -- Centrum Arena -- 45 (a) Affordable Housing Corp. 46 C -- (b) Circa/Barness/Sawyer 225 C 33,800 46 (a) Indian River Investments II Ltd. 152 C -- (b) Affordable Housing Corp. 484*C 20,000* 55 (a) Affordable Housing Corp. 484*C 20,000* (b) Circa/Barness/Sawyer 150 R 142 C 292 41,800 56 (a) Circa/Barness/Sawyer 91 R 60 C 151 63,200 (b) New Washington Heights -- 200 Room Community Development Conference Hotel 1/30/85 *Combination of parcels 55 and 46 R = Rental C ■ Condominium $5"393 Mayor and Commission -6- IV. Report of the Selection Review Committee On February 13, 1985, the Phase I Selection Review Committee sub- mitted their report to the City (note attachment). The Selection Review Committee held interviews with each of the development teams for each of their submissions (20 interviews) and exten- sively reviewed each of the proposals. The Selection Review Committee recommended the following devel- opers for Phase I development: Parcel No. 24 Developer: Cruz Development Company Uses Proposed: 386 Rental Units 30,000 Sq.Ft. Commercial Space 425 Parking Spaces Parcel No. 25 Developer: Cruz Development Company Uses Proposed: 199 Rental Units 15,876 Sq.Ft. Commercial Space 220 Parking Spaces Parcel No. 36 Developer: Cruz Development Company Uses Proposed: 221 Condominium Units 25,000 Sq.Ft. Commercial Space 248 Parking Spaces Parcel No. 37: A tie, with two developers equally ranked. Developers Can -American Realty Corporation Cruz Development Company Uses Proposed: Can -Am: 350 Rental Units 30,000 Sq.Ft. Commercial space 395 Parking Spaces Cruz: 386 Rental Units 30,000 Sq.Ft. Commercial Space 425 Parking spaces Parcel No. 44: Housing Use Developer: Circa/Barness/Sawyer Uses Proposed: 426 Condominium Units 430 Parking Spaces Sports Arena Use Developer: Decoma Venture Uses Proposed: Sports Arena (See Decoma Proposal) 85-393. VI W. t- Mayor and Commission -7- Parcel No. 45 Developer: Circa/Barness/Sawyer Uses Proposed: 225 Condominium Units 33,800 Sq.Ft. Commercial 275 Parking Spaces Parcel No. 46 Developer: Indian River Investments I1, Ltd. Uses Proposed: 152 Condominium Units 152 Parking Spaces Parcel No. 55 Developer: Circa/Barness/Sawyer Uses Proposed: 150 Rental Units 142 Condominium Units 41,800 Sq.Ft. Commercial 425 Parking Spaces Parcel No. 56 Housing Use Developer: Circa/Barness/Sawyer Uses Proposed: 91 Rental Units 60 Condominium Units 63,200 Sq.Ft. Commercial Space 215 Parking Spaces Parcel No. 56 Hotel Use Developer: No recommended developer. Mayor and Commission -8= The committee evaluated developers in terms of their abilities to develop individual parcels for which they submitted proposals, based only upon the evaluation criteria established by the City Commission and included in the RFP. However, since the results of the evaluations and rankings include recommendations for two developers for multiple parcels, it was recommended that the City Manager further evaluate the developers' capabilities for doing these multiple parcels before making final recommendations to the City Commission. Touche Ross & Co. has prepared this analysis and has concluded that these firms have the financial capability to undertake multi -parcel development (note attachment). The committee has attached to its recommendations some important considerations that they believe are crucial to a successful pro- ject implementations 1. The financing data submitted with the recommended Phase I development proposals show that most of the projects are not feasible without additional public subsidies and special financing programs. It is, therefore, important that the City move quickly to conclude the selection process and help the developers secure this assistance. Federal budget deci- sions and 1985 tax legislation may reduce or eliminate some of these subsidies in the very near future. R-` Even though federal funding for Urban Development Action -. Grant (UDAG) projects is in place until the end of the cur- rent year rent federal (and g y appears to stand a reasonable :. chance of being continued in the next year), UDAG assistance =�s is not assured. Miami does not rank high under the current UDAG eligibility criteria relating to distress and impaction, which favors older northeastern industrial cities. Congress is now considering changes in the eligibility formulas that might help Miami's standing, and those changes could be in t effect by the time our project application is reviewed. 2. The committee sees a need for the City to act as a master `. coordinator for the timing, phasing, and marketing of devel- ~'" opment on individual parcels. p This is important for the ~, creation of an initial critical mass to give the area market �Y+ appeal to the first prospective renters and homebuyers. Mas- ter coordination can also insure that initial construction ,. will not be concentrated in a single location in the Phase I }}. area but will occur on a more balanced basis on several par-cels. Adjustments in the stated construction timetables for +Tr.` the individual parcels may need to be made. 3. The City must also assume an active role in insuring design compatibility, particularly among those adjacent parcels undertaken by different developers. 0 85-393, Mayor and Commission M.M V. Financial Analysis Touche Ross & Co. prepared an independent financial analysis of each of the 20 development proposals, pursuant to the procedures established for Unified Development Projects, which was utilized by the Selection Review Committee in their review. The Touche Ross & Co. analysis consisted of an evaluation of the developers' financial strength as well as the project proposals. The ele- ments reviewed include: -- the viability of the development teams and their ability to secure financing and maintain prices at proposed levels; -- the viability of the proposed financing strategies; -- the viability of the proposed projects; and -- the short- and long-range economic return to the City. Based on this analysis, the following parcel ranking was estab- lished. (It should be noted that a total score of less than 70 on a particular parcel indicated the lack of project viability.) TOUCHE ROSS 6 CO. RANKING BY PARCEL PARCEL FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH =,} #24 Cruz Can -Am Stocks (96) (88) (82) #25 Cruz (97) 136 Cruz Affordable (97) (57) #37 Cruz Can -AN (94) (94) #44 C/B/S Decoma Affordable W.Sweetinq (95) (55) (55) (46) ;F =` #45 C/B/S Affordable (90) (55) 046 I.River Affordable ..;. (73) (58) :. #55 C/B/S Affordable (94) (55) ��••• C/B/S New Wash. (97) (45) 65-393. i `Nt 4 M.. ; ikL.�'��'yti 9' i Mayor and Commission V. Financial Analysis -9= Touche Ross & Co. prepared an independent financial analysis of each of the 20 development proposals, pursuant to the procedures established for Unified Development Projects, which was utilized by the Selection Review Committee in their review. The Touche Ross & Co. analysis consisted of an evaluation of the developers' financial strength as well as the project proposals. The ele- ments reviewed include: -- the viability of the development teams and their ability to secure financing and maintain prices at proposed levels; -- the viability of the proposed financing strategies; -- the viability of the proposed projects; and the short- and long-range economic return to the City. Based on this analysis, the following parcel ranking was estab- lished. ( It should be noted that a total score of less than 70 on a particular parcel indicated the lack of project viability.) TOUCHE ROSS S CO. RANKING BY PARCEL PARCEL FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH #24 Cruz Can -Am Stocks (96) (88) (82) #25 Cruz (97) #36 Cruz Affordable (97) (57) #37 Cruz Can -AN (94) (94) 044 C/B/S Decome (95) (55) 045 C/B/S Affordable (90) (55) #46 I.River Affordable (73) (58) 055 C/B/S Affordable (94) (55) #56 C/B/S New Wash. (97) (45) Affordable W.Sweeting (55) (46) 85 -393. i Mayor and Commission VI. Developer Recommendations -10- Taking into consideration the recommendations of Touche Ross & Co., a certified public accounting firm, and the Phase I Selec- tion Review Committee, the following developers are recommended for Phase I redevelopment, pursuant to the procedures for Uni- fied Development Projects, as set forth in the City of Miami Charter Section 53(c) (ranked by preference per parcel): Parcel No. 24: Parcel No. 25: Parcel No. 36: Parcel No. 37: Parcel No. 44: Parcel No. 45: Parcel No. 46: Parcel No. 55: Parcel No. 56: (1) Cruz Development Company (2) Can -American Realty Corporation (3) Stocks Construction (1) Cruz Development Company (1) Cruz Development Company (1) Can -American Realty Corporation (2) Cruz Development Company For Residential: (1) Circa/Barness/Sawyer (2) Walter Sweeting & Assoc., Inc. -- Angels & Esteban For a Sports & Exhibition Complex: (1) Decoma Venture (1) Circa/Barness/Sawyer (1) Indian River Investments II, Ltd. (1) Circa/Barness/Sawyer (1) Circa/Barness/Sawyer The first -ranked ranked developer is the preferred choice and the other listed developers should be considered only if the City is unable to negotiate a disposition agreement with a first -ranked developer. These recommendations are consistent with the Touche Ross & Co. financial evaluation and the Selection Review Commit- tee report. These reports are attached for your review. 85-39s. Mayor and Commission -11- The following is additional information pertaining to the formu- lation of recommendations for certain parcels. - Parcel No. 37: Both Touche Ross & Co. and the Selection Review Committee ranked Can -American Realty Corporation and Cruz Devel- opment as equally qualified. We are recommending Can -American for the development of this parcel based on the overall benefit to the project of having multiple developers which will lessen the impact on the project if a developer defaults. The Can -Am project design, amenities, interior -block parking arrangement and security plan were all given high marks. To achieve the lowest possible rents, Can-Am's financial plan requires a very large front-end public subsidy. Should this be impossible, Can -Am also listed financing schemes that could substitute for HoDAG or UDAG subsidies to keep rental rates to marketable levels. The Can -Am organization has a substantial net worth and has recent success- ful experiences in the development of similar, UDAG-supported, projects in Minneapolis and Baltimore, and it is already heavily involved in real estate development in Florida. Can -American Realty Corporation, in its response to the RFP, did not provide detailed information on minority participation but stated that it would meet the stated project goals. More detailed information on minority participation will be rovided at the public hearin TEE developer selection. Parcel No. 44: The proposals for this block were for two dif- ferent types of development activity, residential and a sports arena. For the housing submission the Selection Review Committee ranked Circa/ Barnes s/Sawyer first and ranked Decoma Venture as a qualified developer pursuant to the decision of the Sports and Exhibition Authority and the desire of the City Commission to have an arena at this location. The disposition of this parcel should be held in abeyance until a final decision is made by the City Commission on the location for a'. a sports and exhibition complex. :.: Parcel No. 56: We concur with the recommendations of the Selec- :: tion Review Committee that the Affordable Housing Corporation and the New Washington Heights Community Development Conference not be considered for Phase I development. In general, the Afford- able Housing Corporation's proposal is unresponsive to the RFP < (note the Selection Review Committee report). The City has provided the New Washington Heights Community Devel- opment Conference $75,000 to prepare a response for Parcel No. 56 of the RFP (Resolution No. 84-40). Their proposal was found to 85-393. OPN ' 'N Mayor and Commission -12- lack viability and responsiveness to the RFP. The financial strategy and equity syndication plans seemed unrealistic. The market information presented with the proposal was inconsistent with market research compiled by the City (Hammer, Siler, George Associates November 1983 report). Hammer, Siler, George Associ- ates judged the market demand for new hotels in the project area to be insufficient over the next five to ten years to make the construction of additional hotel facilities feasible. Both the Selection Review Committee and Touche Ross & Co. indicated that this proposal was not viable from a market and financial stand- point. It would be extremely detrimental to Phase I redevelop- ment to select a development project that is not feasible and which could not be initiated in the foreseeable future. The suc- cess of Phase I redevelopment is highly dependent on the ability of developers to achieve a critical mass of development during the early stages of this project. This can only be achieved by multiple developments being initiated between 1985 and 1987. The proposed hotel site (Parcel No. 56) is strategically located across from the Overtown Metrorail Station at the entryway to the project area. The redevelopment of this parcel is crucial to the success of the redevelopment program. Attachments: -_ 1. Touche Ross & Co. Financial Evaluation of Competing Redevelopment Proposals, January 30, 1985. Lf 2. Report of the Selection Review Committee on Development Proposals, Phase I Redevelopment Area, February 1985. 3. Touche Ross memo on multi -development capacity. 4. Resolution. 85-393. t if OON loud ' Poss & G9. Cr R ffD R*JC ACCOUNTANTS March 23, 1985 Mr. Herbert J. Bailey Assistant City Manager City of Miami 100 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 Dear Mr. Bailey: The accompanying financial evaluation of consolidated parcel proposals for the Southeast Overtown/Park west Redevelopment Project was prepared 4o assist the City of Miami in evaluating the potential impact of a three or four parcel award to each of two developers. The original financial evaluation was completed in accordance with the Request for Proposal and evaluated each parcel separately. The separate parcel evaluations were included in our report of the City dated January 30, 1985 titled "Financial Evlauation of Competing Redevelopment Proposals." The consolidated parcel evaluation presented herein is for the following developers and parcel proposals: Circa Ltd./The Barness Organization/William and Berniece sawyer Parcels 45, 55 and 36, with 44 optional Cruz Development Company Parcels 24, 25 and 36, with 37 optional Our objectives in completing this analysis were to: • Evaluate the feasibility of the financing strategy, given the total required capital for either three or four parcels • Evaluate the impact of a three or four parcel development commitment on the developer's viability . Evaluate the financing strategies proposed, with specific emphasis on: 11DAG/HODAG alternatives Syndication feasibility • Determine if a three parcel award to either developer (excluding parcels 37 and 44) would impact the phasing of their plans. MIAMI CENTER - SEVENTH FLOOR -100 CHCPIN PLAZA - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131- (305) 377.4000 55-393, Mr. Herbert J. Bailey March 259 1985 Page two of three. The approach we used to complete this analysis included the following activities: Consolidated the three and four parcel financial data from the proposals for each parcel submitted by the developers Contacted the developers and obtained information in the following areas: Updated financial statements Total project development commitments (in process or planned) Alternative financing for the planned UDAG/HOOAG capital Developed evaluation criteria Evaluated consolidated parcel proposals. our financial evaluation of consolidated parcel proposals is attached. we have evaluated each proposer against a set of four basic criteria, as follows: 1. Developer viability 2. Financing Strategy 3. Potential Syndication Feasibility 4. Project viability. } Based on our evaluation of the original proposals and the updated �., developer financial statements, we have concluded the following: Both developers appear to' have the financial viability to undertake either a three or four parcel award and remain viable Cruz Development Co. has not conducted a project of this magnitude and therefore has a risk associated with inexperience '. Both developers are still relying on the availability of uDAG/HODAG funds. Neither has a firm financing alternative. The risk of not finding an alternative is minimized by the following ' two factors: UDAG/HODAG funding is a relatively small percentages of the total capital required. It is 3.3% for Circa/Barness/Sawyer and 5.1% for Cruz Development Co. fi The internal rate of return for both developments indicates a potentially attractive investment for other equity ^.: participants. 85-393. l Mr. Herbert J. Bailey Mara+ 259 1985 Page Three of Three. The viability and anticipated financial return of parcel 37 may be adversely affected if parcel 44 were developed as a sports arena. We have not audited the historical, financial and statistical data used by the development teams to construct the assumptions and rationale provided in their proposals. Accordingly, we cannot, and do not, express an opinion on such data. In addition, we have no responsibility to update this report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report. If you have any flirther questions or comments concerning this report, please contact W. Stephen E. Cohen or Ms. Cynthia R. Cohen (305) 377-4000. Very truly yours, -�` �K 2 4 e4� Certified Public Accountants SS-393. Evaluation Criteria 1. Developer viability . Net Worth Outstanding Commitments For Other Projects Large Project Experience CITY OF MIAMI SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REOEVELoPMMT PROJECT EVAUjATION OF CONSOLIOATEO PARCEL PROPOSALS Circa/Barness/Sawyer Original Net Worth point score does not change* Previous first place ranking is not affected . Approximately $46 million Consideration of other commitment in the Net Worth calculation does not alter previous rankings (A * Reference Financial Evaluation report dated January 30, 1985. W w Cruz oevelopment Co. Original point score for Net Worth would decrease from 6 points to 4 points* Net Worth/Consolidated Project Cost 4 parcels 6.2% .. 3 parcels 9.2% Previous first place ranking on 3 parcels is not affected . Approximately $5 million Consideration of these commitments In the Net Worth calculation does not alter the previous rankings Largest single contract in the last two years has been $13.5 million J I 'q nl•"II"�+"q�Y4'P"II', -, ir^r�� irf�f'...��'w�,�,i.a.:p�•rrr•e•ne^7oh•n^erg,.-EP^'L^•vi•^v,•,��'*!dl^p�9r�nCr3i1':+^won ro h'�i}:n?;�14i,pn,�.sT.�'?Y.�i,ra'^'::�.rr,c.�+c.t..:w-. q.7•::•. . .. .,, � - Evaluation Criteria 2. Financing Strategy • Dependence an PLblic Grants W CITY OF MIAMI SOUTHEAST OVERTOWWPARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT EVALUATION OF CONSOLIDATED PARCEL PROPOSALS Circa/Barness/Sawyer • Proposed WAG funds represent 3.3% of the total project cost . Substitution of Affordable Rental Housing Development funds for UDX funds lowers the I.R.R. .8 4 Parcel: 16.19 .• 3 Parcel: 8.8% Consolidation does not change the original Financing Strategy point scare* - However,, A.R.H.D. funds yield lower project return than WAG Cruz Development Co. Proposed IJDAG funds represent SJX of the total project cost • If UOAG Is unavailable, Proposer places burden on the City/County to enlarge bond to compensate an alternative . An alternative may be an opportunity to, Increase the equity contribution throuo syndication, • Consolidation does not alter the original Financing Strategy point score* - However, exclusion of WAG funds would reduce score due to dependence on City -7- ty%F Evaluation Criteria 3. Potential Syndication re—asibillty Internal Rate of Return Availability of Developer Equity m CJ1 i W c� G� 11, CITY OF MIAMI SOUTHEAST OVMTOUWPARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT EVAWATION OF CONSOLIDATED PARCEL PROPOSALS Circa/Barness/Sawyer Consolidated proposed internal rate of return is over 20% - Developer will require $4.5 MM In equity - Syndication appears feasible Unaudited developer assets appear illiquid - Reported Net Worth $17.1 MM - Real Estate/Other Assets at Market Value $17.4 MM Cruz Developmmt. Co. Consolidated proposed internal rate of return is over 20% - Developer will require $18.2 MM (4 parcel) or $12.3 MM (3 parcel) in equity - Syndication appears feasible $4.6 MM of developer equity appears available given their combined net worth J „� .,.�;.' ,,t �. .;w�ia�,il �qc wl n 'pop. l,�•i�i I'll Y�rid�y17i 9�,i.,,„.� �.. {1, r. �r,i d�., ��ia .I � ��?I I ll,r II $ ' � � IK, w'. ,.. � ii}.i n . F ti 4= . .. lirt ;pl,is�'aRw �w;j � i��,•�Ir �r iN;if �i �117 �1�M �•,?�„�P��i�?�� � Fn,.�d..rr•.�ws•. •, »,. b... •Vr-n. r'.. •,, ... -. -,.: "'•' �= .. ... .. Evaluation Criteria 4. Project Viability . Phasing Potential Impact of Sports Arena go CA W ca CITY OF HIPAI SQjTHEAST OVERTGWWPARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT EVALUATION OF CONSOLIDATED PARCEL PROPOSALS Circa/Barness/Sawyer Cruz Development Co. Phasing may change if patrol Phasing and pricing scores do not #44 Is not awarded change - Evaluation Is not currently possible If awarded parcel #37., and'a sports arena Is built an 0449, the viability of parcel #37 may be affected - Parcel #37 has hlipest rent structure of all Cruz PCOPDS81s cw(gofimm SOVPHEAST OVE OWN/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT REPORT OF THE SELECTION REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS PHASE I REDEVELOPMENT AREA FEBRUARY 1985 -85-393.. REPORT OF THE SELECTION REVIEW COMMITTEE PROPOSALS FOR PHASE I REDEVELOPMENT SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FEBRUARY 1985 85-394'.. 777 7777 IN g� 0 REPORT OF THE SELECTION REVIEW COMMITTEE PROPOSALS FOR PHASE I REDEVELOPMENT SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN%PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONTENTS LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE TO THE CITY MANAGER PART I. ROLE OF THE SELECTION REVIEW COMMITTEE 01 PART II. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 03 PARCEL 24 03 PARCEL 25 08 PARCEL 36 11 PARCEL 37 14 PARCEL 44 1s PARCEL 45 25 PARCEL 46 28 PARCEL 55 31 PARCEL 56 34 APPENDICES A: MEMBERS OF THE SELECTION REVIEW COMMITTEE B: EVALUATION CRITERIA C.. SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS D: SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS SUBMITTED E: DEVELOPERS SUBMITTING PROPOSALS F: PHASE I REDEVELOPMENT PARCEL LOCATOR MAP SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/ PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT - PROJECT METROPOLITAN LADE COUNTY February 13, 1985 Randolph B. Rosencrantz City Manager City of Miami P.O. Box 330708 Miami, FL 33133-0708 Dear Mr. Rosencrantz: The Phase I Development Selection Review Committee for the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Project has completed its work in accordance with the prescribed procedures and guidelines set forth in the City's Unified Development Project guidelines and the Phase I Request For Proposals. We are now pleased to submit our final report on the recommended development groups for each of the nine parcels within Phase I. Should these recommended projects be developed, the Phase I Redevelopment will include 1,176 to 1,212 rental units, 800 to 1,226 condominium units, 239,675 square feet of i commercial space and, under one alternative, a sports arena. The task given the committee was not an easy one. Nine developers submitted proposals for one or more of the nine parcels offered. The number of individual proposals to be evaluated totaled twenty. The committee's recommendations are as follows: ------------------------- ;a Parcel No. 24 Cruz Development Company Developer: i Uses Proposed: 386 Rental Units 30,000 Sq. Ft. Commercial Space s 425 Parking Spaces t --------------- Parcel No. 25 Developer: Cruz Development Company Uses Proposed: 199 Rental Units Y}« 15,875 Sq. Ft. Commercial Space 220 Parking Spaces ' zz 85-393. r �� ��r�� � �� �h"�+r+ti''•'" �,�.� �` � ' ' ` 7 iiI.,}�,;�,.5. �'' 'fit.' -wt = rt�f Y _- Randolph B. Rosencrantz, February 13, 1985, page two r---- iw—ir—i-iiir--i----------r..-ii i r--a-i----- --- --4-------- Parcel No.36 ' Developer: Cruz Development Company Uses Proposed: 221 Condominium Units ' 25,000 Sq. Ft. Commercial Space 248 Parking Spaces 1.. rr------rr----r—r----rr--rrr—rrrr.rrrr---rrrrrr—---------------- Parcel No. 37: A tie, with two developers equally ranked. Developers: Can -American Realty Corp. Cruz Development Company Uses Proposed: Can -Am: 350 Rental Units :. 30,000 Sq. Ft. Commercial Space £= 395 Parking Spaces Cruz: 386 Rental Units 30,000 Sq. Ft. Commercial Space a... 425 Parking Spaces `s. ----------------------------------------------- ---------------- k� Parcel No. 44 - Housing Use Developer: Circa/Barness/Sawyer Proposed Use: 426 Condominium Units 430 Parking Spaces Parcel No. 44 - Sports Arena Use Developer: Decoma Venture Tt� Uses Proposed: Sports Arena (See Decoma Proposal) ---------------------- ----------------------------------------- "'v Parcel No. 45 Developer: Circa/Barness/Sawyer Uses Proposed 225 Condominium Units ` 33,800 Sq. Ft. Commercial TIM r; 275 Parking Spaces 85-393. _ TWIM, TAM', , 7. 7 a ��t 'T4 �'f`�M. L J� 1 f .. 7 �S +y�.r aP,� R'1�� ":.+,rRa � Vie; 5.t� , ,.� . w J �..t r• y y,. 1 �r r / t i?•• i ' a& �.jA. S fit�y c 'y4?; �� 1 c 4 a'�.l� 3 � r i 'i )•+�"'� jD �sY � u;».I � i,--'�,f w y.. .i.'' i F�'4 'X-a S i— ♦ t 1"r .,; h '-mhrNi. fr F � � �'^ � .. iif.ii--r-��i---r—r—iiiurii�+��..rrr�5"iiGiir—+wriii—rri.►rri.i i.�.r Randolph B. Rosencrantx, Pebruary 13, 1985, page three -----r-------------------+►- ----r-------r-----r-----i-i---- Parcel No. 46 Developer: Indian River Investments II, Ltd. Uses Proposed: 152 Condominium Units 152 Parking Spaces ------------ r---------------------------------------- ---------- Parcel No. 55 Developer: Circa/Barness/Sawyer Proposed Uses: 150 Rental Units 142 Condominium Units 41,800 Sq. Ft. Commercial i 425 Parking Spaces Parcel No. 56 - Housing Use a Developer: Circa/Barness/Sawyer Uses Proposed: 91 Rental Units 60 Condominium Units 63,200 Sq. Ft. Commercial Space 215 Parking Spaces Parcel No. 56 - Hotel Use No recommended developer. --------------------------------------------------------------- w- The committee evaluated developers in terms of their abilities to develop individual parcels for which they submitted proposals, based only upon the evaluation criteria. However, since the results of the evaluations and rankings include recommendations for two developers for multiple parcels, it may be prudent for the City Manager to further evaluate capabil- `` ities for doing these multiple parcels in making final recommendations to the City Commission. Also, you may need to take into account other factors when making a final recorn- ; mendation to the City Commission for our tie recommendation for R51"I'l:.,Parcel 37 and for the two land use/developer recommendations ?� for Parcel 44. SS'"393. f, OW <`3 y it^*� 'tL•'�C s ,,,� Yi + �t 4q, ?d�k,'e' ,�• .. r+- �� .. . ' ... yn r'f+y,�, tYs $-' •r_. .J c+Yrr .,T'.'.y tom.,. _ a t • u•xi�t�. �: �.. ..r_...est.'k. .1.t.' ,. , � _ .. . # .... ,..ia�a�',�A�'.:, E • •. iiii i►iDai riri`i--rifirr—r—iN�rr—r--r irri tilt--r--r--rii r--r--r--- ---r— Randolph B. Rosencrantz• February 13. 1985, page three r--rr.-iirrrr-i�—•.rr+r--ra---i.-rrr—r �r rirrr,r---r--i—i-1�rr i�iifirrr rir Parcel No. 46 Developer: Indian River Investments II, Ltd. Uses Proposed: 152 Condominium Units 152 Parking Spaces —rr-----.� �r`r-----ar----------- —-------------------- -------------- Parcel No. 55 Developer: Circa/Barness/Sawyer ' Proposed Uses: 150 Rental Units 142 Condominium Units 41,800 Sq. Ft. Commercial 425 Parking Spaces j--------------------------------------------------------------- Parcel No. 56 - Housing Use ,s - j Developer: Circa/Barness/Sawyer Uses Proposed: 91 Rental Units 60 Condominium Units 63,200 Sq. Ft. Commercial Space 215 Parking Spaces Parcel No. 56 - Hotel Use No recommended developer. --------------------------------------------------------------- The committee evaluated developers in terms of their abilities 5 to develop individual parcels for which they submitted proposals, based only upon the evaluation criteria. However, since the results of the evaluations and rankings include recommendations for two developers for multiple parcels, it may be prudent for the City Manager to further evaluate capabil- ities for doing these multiple parcels in making final t= R recommendations to the City Commission. Also, you may need to J• take into account other factors when making a final recom- mendation to the City Commission for our tie recommendation for Parcel 37 and for the two land use/developer recommendations for Parcel 44. �. � • SS-393. Gi. `fit •tje�;.��.� � .. .. f�,'. .a� fit.�` r- i CvY �+ Yq t i ,.3 7c5 F,ti � tr i{-� a j.l _ '^� �t'5 :�; `w jri * � - .• mot, '' ����� �L ^R`',., t ' y-sLi''rvPf iiv �� .•..1 i I I .. i ': j} a���CK� Y kL i r Z'{t __— ,e. $ � err ..��..�,i'rt.�.. 1�.._. _.. :i t..., _. .. .-.i-,.:.....t.7.�*�'�ik .•fGn:..'.5'S�`'a�f'�*�"._ I Randolph B. Rosencrantz, February 13, 1985, page four The committee attaches to its recommmendations some important considerations that seem crucial to a successful project implementation: 1. The financing data submitted with the recommended Phase I development proposals show that most of the projects are not feasible without additional public subsidies and special i financing programs. It is, therefore, important that the i City move quickly to conclude the selection process and help the developers secure this assistance. Federal budget decisions and 1985 tax legislation may reduce or eliminate some of these subsidies in the very near future. 2. The committee sees a need for the City to act as master coordinator for the timing, phasing and marketing of development on the individual parcels. This is important to create an initial critical mass to give the area market appeal to the first prospective renters and home buyers. Master coordination can also insure that initial construction will not be concentrated in a single location in the Phase I area but will occur on a more balanced basis on several parcels. Adjustments in the stated construction timetables for the individual parcels may need to be made. 3. The City must also assume an active role in insuring design compatibility, particularly among those adjacent parcels undertaken by different developers. Each member of the Selection Review Committee has appreciated the opportunity to be part of one of the most ambitious t redevelopment projects to be implemented in the country. We look forward to a revitalized Overtown and the creation of a new downtown residential community. Sincerely _ - Lee Ruwitch R r' n ai_ erson -� Hank Green ' ' es Huntjg..1-7911�e Prestamo i \ arth Reeves Jo hkbietcher err Adrienne Macbeth ernard McGriff t f ' ly t i f t 6 2Tj�Fr n 1 aux iguez 85-393- M PART I THE ROLE OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE WITHIN THE UDP PROCESS In accordance with the City of Miami Charter Section 53(c) providing for a Unified Development Project (UDP) proposal review and selection process, a review committee was appointed. This committee was made up of City of Miami and Dade County representatives and an equal number, plus one, of members of the public. Committee members were appointed by the City Commission from recommendations by the City Manager. A t listing of the Selection Review Committee is included as Attachment A. i For each development proposal received, the review committee made an evaluation based only upon the evaluation criteria applicable to the review committee contained in the Request for Proposals (RFP). (This evaluation criteria is included as Attachment B.) Following this evaluation the committee is subm tong this report to the City Manager, who is to make a recommendation to the City Commission, which shall make the final selection in accordance with the UDP process. The above selection process was expanded for the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Project to include Dade County's involvement as a co-sponsor, with the City of Miami, of the project. An Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Miami and Dade County provided that the Dade County Board of Commissioners give final approval to the selection made by the Miami City Commissioners. The Review Committee accomplished its review and recommendation charge in a series of meetings. Prior to receipt of proposals, a session was held in November for the orientation of committee members on the UDP process and the RFP, and the committee met in December to establish committee rules and procedures. Following the receipt of proposals two concurrent days of 3 interviews with developers were held in January. Later in ' January the Committee met twice to arrive at its final recommendations. A listing of committee meetings is included as Attachment C. A complete listing of the twenty proposals received, the nine developers submitting the proposals and a map keying the proposals and proposers to each of the nine parcels are included as Attachments D, E and F, respectively. Touche Ross & Company, the accounting firm retained by the City of Miami to provide an independent analysis of financial capabilities of the proposing developers, aided the committee in understanding the financial aspects of the proposals. A preliminary Touche Ross report was made available to the committee to help committee members make judgements on those evaluation criteria related to financial capability, financial strategy and return to the City. Also, Touche Ross participated �rt y Y!;Pt in the interview sessions with the developers and handled the submission of requests to the proposers for clarification of information. Final recommendations were determined by applying the specific evaluation criteria to each proposal through an individual scoring system. Following this, balloting took place wherein each committee member ranked each separate developer proposing for a given parcel. The ranking was converted to points to determine the final committee selections, with the final selections made by an affirmative vote of the entire committee.* f The composite ranking sheets, included in this report following the recommendations for each parcel, show each committee member's ranking of each proposal for each evaluation criterion. For parcels with only one developer making a ! proposal, committee members chose to mark "recommend" or "not recommend", which appears as "R" and "N/R" on the sheet. For parcels with two, three or four proposing developers, committee members entered the numerical order of rank for each developer t for each criterion, with "1" being best. The rankings were converted to points to allow for a proper weighting to detemine final score. Following this, the committee voted for a first and second preference for the top two scoring proposals to determine the final choice. !I a 3 i Circumstances required the committee to determine how to treat voting by any members not present at the meetings where specific parcels were up for final discussion and voting. It was decided that members absent from a meeting where discussion and voting took place on a specific parcel would not be allowed ..`rt to cast an in absentia vote on selections for that parcel. In relation to this policy, it should be noted that one committee F_.;. member was unable to attend the January 22nd meeting, when votes were taken on selections for parcels 24, 25 and 37. -2- 85-393. . 1 Y� PARCEL.. 24 85-393- 11 1] PART II RECOMMENDATIONS PARCEL 24 Recommended Developers Cruz Development Company Proposal: 386 Rental Units# with at least 58 units low moderate income families. affordable to and 30,000 square feet commercial space. Parking for 425 cars. Private Investment: $29,612,005 Financing Plan- This project utilizes tax exempt rate permanent mortgage financing available through the Dade County Affordable Rental Housing Program and syndication -raised equity. The project requires the commitment of $2,539,421 in supplemental public assistance from UDAG, HoDAG, CDBG or other sources to achieve a debt service coverage of 3 through 8 inclusive. This would 1.2:1 for years be repaid from subsequent project cash flows or :t from net proceeds time of sale. Minority Involvement: General partnership proposing development is 100 percent minority -owned. Construction hiring is to be So percent minority, with contracting to be 30 percent minority. Cruz Development Company (Cruz) was selected to be recommended for this parcel. Cruz has an established team that has experience in working together. It has been involved in inner city residential rental development elsewhere. The principals have a substantial combined net worth and will sign personally, pro forma if necessary, to secure financing. Their development realistically provides a set -aside of equity for a lease -up period. Their proposed construction company and local architects have reputations for good work. The development larger than minimum N design shows good building arrangements, T unit sixes and more than the minimum required parking spaces. Building placement allows for good views of the bay to the east of the site and a good relationship with the Ninth Street Mall. Minority involvement is excellent and well-defined. Touche-Ross 85 -3- 7_ pr' gave Cruz the highest rating for financial feasibility when it compared the three proposals for this parcel. Can -American Realty Can -American Realty (Can -Am) is the committee's second choice for parcel 24. The project design, amenities, interior -block parking arrangement and security plan were all given high marks. Can -Am proposed a very substantial public subsidy from UDAG or HoDAG, which would keep rental rates for all units affordable to low and moderate income families. It also listed financing schemes that could substitute for HoDAG or UDAG subsidies to keep rental rates to marketable levels. The Can -Am organization has a strong net worth and has recent successful experiences in the development of similar projects in Minneapolis and Baltimore, which were UDAG-supported, and it is already heavily involved in real estate development in Florida. Can -Am will not commit to initiate construction on this parcel until their proposed development for Parcel 37 is built and ' occupied, while the Cruz and Stocks organizations listed specific construction initiation dates. Can-Am's involvement of minorities in its proposal has not gone beyond goal statements at this point. However, Can -Am did make commitments to adhere I to specific goals. Although the committee clearly prefers Cruz for this parcel, the committee feels that Can -Am would be an acceptable 'a secondary alternative to Cruz. Stocks Construction The Stocks Construction (Stocks) proposal for Parcel 24 was felt to be the number three developer choice. The proposed design treatment for the project calls for Spanish -style structures that seem out of place for the site. Stocks net worth is more limited than the other two proposers, as is their experience with similar projects. Some of the cost estimates seemed to be unrealistically low, leading the committee to suspect estimate errors or construction quality compromises. Lease -up and occupancy timetables seemed to be unrealistically optimistic. one committee member noted that the Stocks organization has South African -based operations. Composite committee rank scoring sheets for this parcel are included on the following pages. k. /f 1 p' -4- 85--333 ' Y q , d f 4 • f� ry Tf.•i,.V iilt S b cc i . _. 2 i tit F, hf TT C � _ '}r•�"�i , �w"r .•; �j r — -- � - �,o a r,:C ,sit � �r�r+• � $ , ' d'(' 9 q ., FINAL VOTING 3E?, CTI0N In the voting below, committee members were asked to rank their top choice as "1" and their second choice as "2% A "1" received 2 paints and a "2" received one point. (For some parcels, the committee voted separately to not recommend the proposal receiving the lower point score.) For parcels or land use categories* where there was only one proposal being evaluated, committee members used "Recommend" or "Not Recommend" instead of "1" or "2% If a majority of the committee voted "Recommend", the developer was recommended, and if the committee majority voted "Net Recommend", the developer was not recommended. PARCEL NO. 2-4 LAND USE CATEGORY: H002%r'4M DEVELOPER G4N . AM DEVELOPER GR.uZ. RUWITCH Z, ! GORDON ! GREEN I HUNT Z PRESTAMO M �, REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX Z.. MACBETH Z I. MCGRIFF Z RODRIGUEZ Z TOTAL # OF "1 s" (1C 2 = r TOTAL # OF "2s" POINT TOTAL jf I TOTAL # OF "RECOMMEND" TOTAL # OF "NOT RECOMMEND" * For Parcels 44 and 56, the committee separated land uses. 8 5 739 - _g_ % a - wi S ��s.,_4?�fx ��� k➢t F .,�,,-fit `T 23 i iA EXPERIENCE f OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY PARTICIPATIO CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS RECORD OF COMMITTEE RANKING ON PARCEL 24 PROPOSALS FOR EACH EVALUATION CRITERIA LISTED IN PART IV DEVELOPER: CRUZ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY RUWITCH GORDON GREEN HUNT PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX MACBETH MCGRIFF RODRIGUEZ r i t r r r r EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY PARTICIPATION CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS DEVELOPER: CAN-AMERICAN REALTY CORPORATION eeceu unur noccrewn VM09 FLETCHER GEREAUX MACBETH MCGRIFF ROD41SUEZ Inman lou�o�o noom� o lung= no=� �oaa��m 2 C EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY PARTICIPATIO CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS DEVELOPER: STOCKS CONSTRUCTION I ereute to ttruto ctontiv MAriICTN MMOIFF RODRIGUEZ RUNT I UM 6UKUUn 01RGGR V 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 z 3 3 i Q-M 85-393 . PARCEL 25 p PARCEL 25 Recommended Developer: Cruz Development Company Proposalt 199 Rental Units, with at least 29 units affordable by low and moderate income households. 15,875 square feet commercial space. Parking for 220 cars. Private Investment: $15,063#155 Financing Plan: Project will be tax exempt financed through the Dade County Affordable Rental Housing Program along with syndication -raised equity. Project requires a commitment of $1,397#389 in supplemental public funds from UDAG, HoDAG, CDBG or other sources to achieve a 1.2:1 debt service coverage for years 3 through 8 inclusive. (This would be repaid from.subsequent project cash flows or from net proceeds at time of sale.) Minority Involvement: The proposing general partnership is 100 percent minority owned. Construction hiring is to be 50 A. percent minority and contracting is to be 30 =j i percent minority. >g Cruz Development Company (Cruz) was selected to be recommended for for this parcel. Cruz has an established team that has experience in working together. It has been involved in inner- city residential rental development elsewhere. The principals have a substantial combined net worth and will sign personally, if necessary, to secure financing. Their development pro forma realistically provides a set -aside of equity for a lease -up period. Their proposed construction company and local architects have reputations for good work. The development design shows good building arrangements, larger than minimum unit sizes and more than the minimum required parking spaces. Minority involvement is excellent and well-defined. Composite committee rank scoring sheet is included on the following page. -8- 85-3s3. . -yy. ..1 ,k . •ah, 1+) i k 7t � cR FINAL VOTI'IG :3ELEC;I.)N In the voting below, committee members were asked to rank their top choice as "1" and their sezond choice as "2". A "1" received 2 points and a "2" received one point. (For some parcels, the committee voted separately to not recommend the proposal receiving the lower point score.) For parcels or land use categories* where there was only one proposal being evaluated, committee members used "Recommend" or "Not Recommend" instead of "i" or "2% If a majority of the committee voted "Recommend", the developer was recommended, and if the committee majority voted "Not Recommend", the developer was not recommended. PARCEL NO. 25 LAND USE CATEGORY - DEVELOPER GtZVZ.. DEVELOPER RVWITCH GORDON GREEN HUNT YZ. PRESTAMO fie; ...r.fi'C. REEVES PLETCHER GEREAU% R MACBETH (2, MCGRIFF ^}` RODRIGUEZ �r TOTAL # OF "ts" TOTAL # OF "2s" POINT TOTAL TOTAL # OF "RECOMMEND" '© TOTAL # OF "NOT RECOMMEND" 0 * For Parcels 44 and 56, the committee separated land uses. _g_ EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY PARTICIPATIO CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS RECORD OF COMMITTEE RANKING ON PARCEL 25 PROPOSALS FOR EACH EVALUATION CRITERIA LISTED IN PART IV DEVELOPER: CRUZ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY huutTeu nnonnu cuatu NUNt PRESTAMO WAS FLETCHER MEAUX MACBETH MCGRIFF RODRIGUEZ, lmmmmm�� eeee� e NJ om� 00000u00000! 85-3:93. . PARCEL.. 36 >si -1 y PARCEL 36 Recommended Developers Crum Development Company Proposal: 221 Condominiums 25,000 square feet commercial space. Parking for 248 cars. Private Investments $17,217,003 (cost of development) $21#690,500 (gross sales proceeds) Financing Plan: Special construction financng program being developed by City, tax exempt rate Mortgage Revenue Bond mortgages for homebuyers, Dade County Homeownership Assistance Loan Program. Minority Involvement: General partnership proposing development is 100 percent minority -owned. Construction hiring is to be 50 percent minority, with contracting to be 30 percent minority. Cruz was selected by the committee as its choice for this parcel. Cruz has an established team that has experience in working together. It has been involved in inner-city residential rental development elsewhere. The principals have a substantial combined net worth and will sign personally, if necessary, to secure financing. Their proposed construction company and local architects have reputations for good work. The development design shows good building arrangements, larger than minimum unit sizes and more than the minimum required parking spaces. Minority involvement is excellent and well- defined. Affordable Housing Corporation (Not recommended) Affordable Housing Corporation (Affordable) was rated behind Cruz in the rank scoring procedure, and the Selection Review Committee does not recommend the Affordable proposal for consideration for Phase I development. The Affordable proposal Pm P P is not responsive to the RFP. It lacks the requested financial :�. information and it does not report any experience with similar types of projects. Furthermore, the committee has insufficient information to be able to endorse the type of construction system proposed for the units. In its independent financial Y P Po P - evaluation Touche Ross gave Affordable lower ratings for this parcel. Composite committee rank scoring sheet is included on the following page. -11- r :.. -�.,, .., +R+,•`T ,t"�'4'=` fie: ' - .. _, + r ty. 9 S tit till 85-393. . 11 FINAL VOTING SELECTION In the voting below, committee members were asked to rank their top choice as "1" and their second choice as "2". A "1" received 2 points and a "2" received one point. (For some parcels, the committee voted separately to not recommend the proposal receiving the loner point score.) For parcels or land use categories' where there Rai only one proposal being evaluated, committee members used "Recommend" or ":11ot Recommend" instead of "1" or "2". If a majority of the committee voted "Recommend", the developer was recommended, and if the committee majority voted "Not Recommend", the developer was not recommended. PARCEL NO. — 8(f LAND USE CATEGORY:Wousf t4ra DEVELOPER 44uz DEVELOPER �►�t�v�ca RUWITCH GORDON IAA 44C) GREEN 2 HUNT 2 PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX 6w r-o-mr•) MAC BETH MCGRIFF Z RODRIGUEZ h1�1C TOTAL # OF "ls" TOTAL # OF "2s" POINT TOTAL ZQ 3 TOTAL # OF "RECOMMEND" TOTAL # OF "NOT RECOMMEND" * For Parcels 44 and 56, the committee separated land uses. 85-393._ -12- Jx AMP tu&M"dNs to Nor oeaouuamP . xt ,4. 4 y _ ell j L � J s. n ~ N E v. FINAL VOTING SELECTION In the voting below, committee members were asked to rank their top choice as "I" and their second choice as "2". A "1" received 2 points and a "2" received one point. (For some parcels, the committee voted separately to not recommend the proposal receiving the lower point score.) For parcels or land use categories.* where there was only one proposal being evaluated, committee members used "Recommend" or "allot Recommend" instead of "1" or "2". If a majority of the committee voted "Recommend", the developer was recommended, and if the committee majority voted "Not Recommmend", the developer was not recommended. PARCEL NO. "0_ LAND USE CATEGORY: "OUS I K49 DEVELOPER 49u7-- DEVELOPER XW"09-vat" RUWITCH j MAC. GORDON (No R�•N4G� GREEN 2 HUNT Z N �� PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX N/K. MACBETHR MCGRIFF 2 RODRIGUEZ N �� TOTAL # OF "1 s" �� C� 2 s ZO / TOTAL # OF "2s" POINT TOTAL 20 3 TOTAL # OF "RECOMMEND" TOTAL # OF "NOT RECOMMEND" * For Parcels 44 and 56, the committee separated land uses. -i 2- �E tuor�.taNs to S5"393. Nor X640" U MND ,s 2 {rid. '1 .�., •. M1iV' •l.' h�� �b ! YY �' •ws.6L . �`+t �rT' � - v. �' 4rV s�"r�"7r �Ls; r ate • a � � 1. � r �.qa�a�'� '�v,? .Fn - - re3�.i'".r�."`���: r:'�E,'�F>•a F... _.., �......,�'.f : _ ...i � . _.. .. _ c , ..9�� '_., . _�... :l• xt:t�?_ �;. �'�bW_ EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY PARTICIPATIO CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS EI RECORD OF COMMITTEE RANKING ON PARCEL 36 PROPOSALS FOR EACH EVALUATION CRITERIA LISTED IN PART IV DEVELOPER: CRUL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OUVITCH GORDON GREEN HUNT PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCNER GEREAUX MACBETH MCGRIFF ROORISUE osoe noaoe �nnnm�nnn MEESE EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY -J. FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY PARTICIPATIO w CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS DEVELOPER: AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION DitUTTrN CORDON GREEN HUNT PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX MACBETH MC6RIFF ROQRIGUE2 eueoe��sou lagoon oee �unooi�oounoi y PARCEL 37 A_.tie between Cah-AmercianRealty _and Cruz Deyel�ment_Company, Y whereby the selection Review Committee is submitting two developers of equal rankinq. Equally Ranked Developert Can -American Realty Corporation i 5 Proposals 350 Rental Units. (Number of units affordable to low and moderate income families varies, depending upon financing plan alternatives.) 30,000 square feet commercial space. Parking for 395 cars. Private Investment: $21#256#625 Financing Plan: This project utilizes graduated payment tax exempt bonds for permanent mortgage financing and syndication -raised equity. The project requires the commitment of $7,000,000 loan of supplemental public assistance from UDAG or HoDAG or other s sources to be invested and utilized, with earnings, as a declining subsidy to achieve the r proposed affordable rents during the first 15 years of the project. (This would make nearly all units affordable to low and moderate income 'families.) Loan is to be repaid from resale proceeds or future cash flows. An alternative to the public -source loan was also proposed, whereby bond holders can convert toequity ositions in P years where project income cannot support full interest payments. Under this plan, rental rates would have to be higher. Minority r� Involvement: Construction hiring and contracting at 50 percent minority. No other involvement identified at this time. ------------------------------------------------------------- Equally Ranked i Developer: Cruz Development Company Proposal: 386 Rental Units, with at least 58 units affordable to low and moderate income families. 30,000 square feet commercial space. -14- 857393 cr * 1 l r f .J' >• w {ti� - � i f i 7 '� • .} ��;��'.T v't!' _ ifs �':s " � t *„t ihX ¢•Cs-.r� < '� s � , - r, ! � J'�'L L � it r�i' ki �r f 2�w � .4G�'i n � iL 1�!ai�e �` u '7��yy•�}�i,^ Y� t,a x '{ � �,h-.. ass a.yyt d Parking for 425 cars. Private Investment: $29►545,144 Financing Plans This project utilizes tax exempt rate permanent mortgage financing available through the Dade County Affordable Rental Housing Program and syndication -raised equity. The project requires the commitment of $911,327 in supplemental public assistance from UDAG, HoDAG, CDBG or other sources to achieve a debt service coverage of 1.2:1 for years 3 through 6 inclusive. This would be repaid from subsequent project cash flows or from net proceeds at time of sale. Minority Involvement: General partnership proposing development is 100 percent minority -owned. Construction hiring is to be 50 percent minority, with contracting to be 30 percent minority. By a tie vote, Cruz Development Company (Cruz) is equally preferred by the committee for Parcel 37. Cruz has an established team that has experience in working together. It has been involved in inner-city residential rental development elsewhere. The principals have a substantial combined net worth and will sign personally, if necessary, to secure financing. Their proposed construction company and local architects have reputations for good work. The development design shows good building arrangements, larger than minimum unit sizes and more than the minimum required parking spaces. Minority involvement is excellent and well-defined. By a tie vote, Can -American Realty (Can -Am) is equally preferred by the committee for Parcel 37. The project design, amenities, interior -block parking arrangement and security plan were all given high marks. To achieve the lowest possible rents, Can-Am's financial plan requires a very large front-end public subsidy. Should this be impossible, Can -Am also listed financing schemes that could substitute for HoDAG or UDAG subsidies to keep rental rates to marketable levels. The Can -Am n= organization has a substantial net worth and has recent successful experiences in the development of similar projects =A in Minneapolis and Baltimore, which were UDAG-supported, and it is already heavily involved in real estate development in Florida. Composite committee rank scoring sheet follows this page. =15- 85-383. _ FINAL VOTING OELECTION In the voting below, committee members were asked to rank their top choice as "1" and their second choice ns "2". A "i" received 2 points and a "2" received one point. (For some parcels, the committee voted separately to not recommend the proposal receiving the lower point score.) For parcels or land use categories* where there was only one proposal being evaluated, committee members used "Recommend" or "Not Recommend" instead of "1" or If a majority of the committee voted "Recommend", the developer was recommended, and if the committee majority voted "Not Recommend", the j developer was not recommended. PARCEL NO. 37 LAND USE CATEGORY: W400SIN CW DEVELOPER CAN - AM DEVELOPER Z- RUWITCH % Z- GORDON 2— GREEN Z. HUNT 'j.. PRESTAMO Z REEVES FLETCHER GEREAU% Z. j Z. MACBETH 2 MCGRIFF ", 1 RODRIGUEZ TOTAL # OF "is" TOTAL # OF "2s" POINT TOTAL TOTAL # OF "RECOMMEND"-� TOTAL # OF "NOT RECOMMEND" For Parcels 44 and 56, the committee separated land uses. _I6— 85-393 EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY PARTICIPATIO CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY PARTICIPATIO CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS RECORD OF COMMITTEE RANKING ON PARCEL 37 PROPOSALS FOR EACH EVALUATION CRITERIA LISTED IN PART IV DEVELOPER: CRU1 DEVELOPMENT COMPANY RUVITCH GURUUN GREEN HURT PRESTAMU REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX MACBETH MCGRIFF RODRIGUEZ 2 l I 1 i DEVELOPER: CAN-AMERICAN REALTY CORPORATION RUYITCH GORDON GREEN HUNT PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX MACBETH MCGRIFF RODRIGUEZ N 11121 / � r i 2 2 2 Z ; 2 fib 2 ^ 2. —17— J a . � 1 Zw� xY) 4 ti ��z g 174 PARCEL.. 4.4 85-393-, v & PARCEL. 44 85r393. 0 PARCEL 44 The committee decided to separately consider proposals for two different land uses for Parcel 44, feeling that it was impossible to judge housing proposals against sports arenas under the established evaluation criteria. The result of the committee's separate treatment allows the separate selection process, now underway, for the sports and exhibition complex to proceed without prejudgement by this review committeee. Though the committee makes no specific recommendation on land use, it discussed the question of compatibility of a sports arena on a block adjacent to the planned housing developments. It was pointed out that the developers proposing housing on nearby and adjacent blocks felt they could live with the arena being built, providing special planning and design attention was given to minimize any conflicts. RECOMMENDATION FOR A SPORTS ARENA Recommended Developer: Decoma Venture Proposal: 18,000-seat sports arena. Private Investment: $6,800,000 Financing Plan: Highly complex public/private structure utilizing UDAG, Adjustable Rate Demand Notes, General a Obligation Bonds, Corporate Contributions. Please :i refer to Decoma proposal. Minority Involvement: Equity participation at 15 percent and plans with goals or commitments for hiring, contracting, training as well as a Minority Development Foundation. . The committee voted to recommend Decoma Venture to develop a sports arena on Parcel 44, should that site be selected by the \' Miami City Commission for this use. (It should be noted that ?. Decoma is only interested in developing Parcel 44 if it is awarded the contract to create the Sports and Exhibition Complex.) r, Committee discussion called attention to the advantages and disadvantages of the complex proposed by Decoma Venture for the Overtown/Park West Project Area. Major Advantages_ 1. The project will contribute to building the tax increment, helping the city reach the point when continuing redevelopment -18- 85-393 . 11 11 efforts can be financed by tax increment revenues. 2. The proposed project will allow more blocks to be redeveloped within the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Area in an initial phase. 3. The proposed project will allow the balance of the redevelopment area to be developed more quickly, since the City can concentrate the next redevelopment phase elsewhere in the project area. 4. The proposed project is strongly supportive of the developing rapid transit system. A Metrorail station and two DCM stations are closely linked to the site. Major Disadvantages 1. Fears were expressed for the impact of high volumes of traffic and parking demand generated by the complex. This could create conflicts with the adjacent residential blocks. 2. The Decoma Proposal calls for the closing of NE First Avenue between Sixth and Eighth Streets. First Avenue is a major artery for north -bound traffic leaving the Central Business District. 3. The proposed mega -structures would block views to the bay from the residential complexes to the north and impede pedestrian traffic through the site. 4. The proposed project will be built on land planned for residential use resulting in displacement of housing development sites. RECOMMENDATION FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT: Recommended Developers circa/Barness/Sawyer Proposal: 426 Condominium Units Parking for 430 cars Private In% -estment: $45.1 million. Financing Plan: Construction financing through program being arranged by City. Second mortgage program for homebuyers from Dade County Program or from UDAG Minority Involvement: Equity investment of 60 percent, hiring at 55 75 percent, contracting at percent _19- 857393 i The committee recommends Circa/Barness/Sawyer (Circa) as the preferred developer for housing on this parcel. The Circa proposal impressed the committee in a number of ways. Circa has a team of highly experienced people and has given a great deal "J of thought to design, phasing, management and marketing. Circa received extra points for proposing to develop additional contiguous parcels and for having significant and identified minority equity participation. Also, Circa received a nearly perfect score in the independent Touche Ross analysis of developer viability and financing strategy. . t Walter Sweeting & Associates, Inc.- Angels & Esteban Walter Sweeting & Associates, Inc.- Angels & Esteban (Sweeting) is recommended as a second choice to undertake housing development on Parcel 44. Sweeting's responses to information requested by the RFP were incomplete in the financial areas. ' Experience in developing similar projects was not as extensive as the Circa team. However, Sweeting has experience in housing development in the Overtown area. The total number of units # proposed is significantly less than the Circa proposal. Sweeting has significant minority involvement goals. The independent Touche Ross analysis gave the Sweeting proposal lower ratings for all areas of financial evaluation, particularly for financial strategy and reasonableness. Affordable Housing Corporation - Not recommended Affordable Housing Corporation (Affordable) was rated behind Circa and Sweeting in the rank scoring procedure, and the Selection Review Committee does not recommend the Affordable proposal for consideration for Phase I development. The Affordable proposal is not responsive to the RFP. It lacks the requested financial information, and it does not report any i experience with similar types of projects. Futhermore, the p; committee has insufficient information to be able to endorse the type of construction system proposed. In its independent financial evaluation Touche Ross gave Affordable the least points among the proposers for this parcel. 1 The composite committee rank scoring sheets are included on the following pages. — 2 0 — a it {t tir,�t�t� SS-393 6r ` FINAL VOTING J ELECTI)N a: "- In the voting below, committee membero were asked to rank their top choice as "t" and their second choice as "2". A "1" received 2 points and a "2" received one point. (For some parcels, the committee voted 3epsrately to not recommend the proposal receiving the lower point score.) For parcels or land use categories* where there was only one proposal being evaluated, committee members used "Recommend" or "Not Recommend" instead of "1" or "2". If a majority of the committee voted "Recommend", the developer was recommended, and if the committee majority voted "Not Recommend", the developer was not recommended. PARCEL NO. + LAND USE CATEGORY - DEVELOPER p�SmMA DEVELOPER RUWITCH k A, GORDON WO 0"1"Y. 41AM revraR ON441 GREEN R HUNT hl fR' PRESTAMO N /R REEVES PLETCHER GEREAUR MACBETH MCGRIFF RODRIGUEZ TOTAL # OF "is" TOTAL # OF "2s" POINT TOTAL TOTAL # OF "RECOMMEND" 7 TOTAL # OF "NOT RECOMMEND" 3 * For Parcels 44 and 56, the committee separuted land uses. -2I- 83-333.- <A rr FINAL VOTING SELECTION In the voting below, committee members were asked to rank their top choice as "I" and their second choice as "2". A "1" received 2 points and a r received one point. (For some parcels, the committee voted separately to not recommend the proposal receiving the lower point score.) For parcels or land use categories' where there was only one proposal being evaluates, committee members used "Recommend" or "Not Recommend" instead of "1" or "2". If a majority of the committee voted "Recommend", the developer was recommended, and if the committee majority voted "Not Recommend", the developer was not recommended. 11 PARCEL NO. ++ LAND USE CATEGORY: WtM1'K Q DEVELOPER GIIZGp. DEVELOPER ram' W�tlh14� RUWITCH Z GORDON Z GREEN HUNT ,Z PRESTAMO ' 2 REEVES Z FLETCHER GEREAUX 2 Z MACBETH Q, MCGRIFF 2 RODRIGUEZ 2 TOTAL # OF "'Is" O �� Z a 20, 1 �yC Z Ar Z TOTAL # OF "2s" POINT TOTAL CX 1 = L Z TOTAL # OF "RECOMMEND" TOTAL # OF "NOT RECOMMEND" * For Parcels 44 and 56, the committee separated land uses. c 857-3:5a,.y . -22- 7-7 .77 a�'t � r r z4o I. a 5 a� EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY PARTICIPATION CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY PARTICIPATIO CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS RECORD OF COMMITTEE RANKING ON PARCEL 44 PROPOSALS FOR EACH EVALUATION CRITERIA LISTED IN PART IV DEVELOPER: OECOMA VENTURE RUWITCH GORDON GREEN HUNT PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX MACBETH MCGRIFF RODRIGUEZ N HE NZ It IE ti It N R- 'e N N R Q rt i R ' N c N e v r t N¢ Q Na N r ¢ v- M� Es�pN T lN�QM �+� N R �e "A N/a Nr �2 a "/A � WA W.A � DEVELOPER: CIRCA/BARNESS/SAWYER RUWITCH GORDON GREEN HUNT PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX MACBETH MCGRIFF ROORIGUEZ) immommommoom lloommommoomm immommoommm lummmmmommm lumm momomm �oesesoesss ---------- ies000sososa 85-393. _ 0 EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY PARTICIPATION CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN LJ MINORITY PARTICIPATIO 3yh5_YjP'aG , DEVELOPER: WALTER SWEETING 6 ASSOCIATES RUWITCH GORDON GREEN HUNT PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX MACRETH MtAOM P RIMOTsuEi DEVELOPER: AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION r N RUWITCH GOROON GREEN HUNT PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCHER GEREAU MACBETH MCGRIFF RODRIGUEl 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 Z 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2•s 3 3� 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 C _A vu v..iu.., vu v..iu.., PARCEL 45 85-393: _V w PARCEL 45 Recommended Developer: Circa/Barness/Sawyer ff` .i Proposal: 225 Condominium Units 33,800 Square Feet Commercial Space Parking for 275 cars Private V_. Investment: $25.5 million. Financing 4 Plan: Construction financing through program being J arranged by City. Second mortgage program for homebuyers through Dade County Program or UDAG. Minority Involvement: Equity investment of 60 percent, hiring at 55 percent, contracting at 75 percent. 41 The committee recommends Circa/Barness/Sawyer (Circa) as the a. developer for this parcel. The Circa proposal impressed the '., committee in a number of ways. It has a team of highly experienced people and has given a great deal of thought to - 4 design, phasing, management and marketing. Circa received extra points for proposing to develop additional contiguous parcels • and for having significant and identified minority equity _•, participation and former owner equity participation. Also, x Circa received a nearly perfect score in the independent Y Touche P Ross analysis of developer viability and financing strategy. Affordable Housing Corporation - Not recommended Affordable Housing Corporation (Affordable) was rated behind Circa in the rank scoring procedure, and the Selection Review Committee does not recommend the Affordable proposal for consideration for Phase I development. The Affordable proposal is not responsive to the RFP. It lacks the requested financial information, and it does not report any experience with similar types of projects. Futhermore, the committee has insufficient information to be able to endorse the type of construction ,. system proposed. In its independent financial evaluation Touche Ross gave Affordable low ratings. Composite committee rank scoring sheet on following page. -25- 857393. 77 i�, zF v. �if �J+��e���i���3 �d�: �i�.��a ittr��S, t_ � .r'.x is r...'�r.���ss{� ..At ;•_."��" �.>x�a �'i^• .. 0 v FINAL VOTING SELECTION In the voting below, committee members were risked to rank their top choice as "1" and their second choice as "2". A "1" received 2 points and a "2" received one point.* (For some parcels, the ':ommittee voted separately to not recommend the proposal receiving the lower point score.) For parcels or land use categories' where there was only one proposal being evaluated, committee members used "Recommend" or "Not Recommend" instead of "1" or "2". If a majority of the committee voted "Recommend", the developer was recommended, and if the committee majority voted "Not Recommend", the developer was not recommended. PARCEL NO. 4jr _ LAND U3E CATEGORY: Wo'JSl"(S DEVELOPER DEVELOPER RUWITCH Z GORDON Z GREEN 2 HUNT / y 2 PRESTAMO r REEVES Z FLETCHER GEREAUX Z Z MACBETH Z MCGRIFF Z RODRIGUEZ Z TOTAL # OF "1 s" 6 Z z ZZ) TOTAL # OF "2s" POINT TOTAL TOTAL # OF "RECOMMEND" TOTAL # OF "NOT RECOMMEND" * For Parcels 44 and 56, the committee separated land uses. —26— 85-393 ... L ! } t 5 14 "�4 My t ��t "':tri[�44ssiS,'75,'Px�l+� f!«.t. .• �.� .. '< . .. - _A'. �. it Y C i S Lf'•t,ILL t jj A d ri.k°, tsN ; EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY PARTICIPATIO! CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY } PARTICIPATIC CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING RECORD OF COMMITTEE RANKING ON PARCEL 45 PROPOSALS FOR EACH EVALUATION CRITERIA LISTED IN PART IV DEVELOPER: CIRCA/BARNESS/SAWYER RUWITCH CORDON GREEN HUNT PRESTAMD REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX MACBETH MCGRIFF RODRISUEZ , I f r t DEVELOPER: AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION o"uTTf u enonnu nneeu uuuT nneeTaue newer r. ---- - ------------------ -•---- ••__••.••� ..��.�� . ��. �..r.. �r..rnvw f1I�VYV 1w Ynarr RVYnaOYGL Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z Z 2 2 2 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z Z 2 2 2 Z 2 2 2 Z Z 2 2 Z 2 2 2 Z 2 2 2 2 N 2 2 2 2 2 Z 2 Z 2 2 2 Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z WA� Z � WA2� 2 CONTIGUOUS PARCELS F _27_ = 85-393. �� +fix ) - -; '',� y, ... - .. r+'!•�'` LL,w w.` _ — — � P d%�,+.ilf�'' { I-} °♦4,}lri'. i - Mom_ - F �»�Y �f �' �+�i•3 br♦ Tr S. .' �'tf� A t .,do-. �y —_ - y}'+' r'I�' + `l•" y t•5; � � . t-A _ _ r ems,_- Ll PARCEL 46 3 E PARCEL 46 Recommended Developer: Proposals Private Investments Financing Plan: Minority Involvement: s • Indian River Investments II, Ltd. 152 Condominium Units Parking for 152 cars $21 million. Construction financing through the City. Dade Assistance Program. program being arranged County Homeownership Indian River Investments is 33-1/3 percent black owned, 25 percent black consultants, 50 percent construction hiring goal. Management and maintenance has a 100 percent black hiring goal. I Indian River was recommended for Parcel 46 for a number of reasons. It has experience in housing development and management in the Overtow. area as well as in other locations. It produced a well -packaged proposal, responding to all areas of requested information. The physical design of its proposal was attractive and well -planned. Indian River received a perfect score for developer viability from the independent 3 Touche Ross financial evaluation. Affordable Housing Corporation - Not recommended Affordable Housing Corporation (Affordable) was rated behind Indian River in the rank scoring procedure, and the Selection Review Committee does not recommend the Affordable proposal for consideration for Phase I development. The Affordable proposal is not responsive to the RFP. It lacks the requested financial information, and it does not report any experience with similar types of projects. Futhermore, the committee has insufficient information to be able to endorse the type of construction system proposed. In its independent financial evaluation Touche Ross gave Affordable low ratings. Composite committee rank scoring sheet is included on the following page. -28- 85-393. . 64i y. ,f i it �µt �i r '. • ... � . lea i. ,' e7 k .. � I u �• � .•Y 1. '. r x �yrwwu •"'.. 1t "Zc b � � 7 ✓ � Y � �i y �aR a. -J¢*� x�} �,Ct •i+j�����t�'n "� ; "` f � r � .= Z 5 a. � H . x R }. � i� 'fc-+ *!, n r '1e. ,•� tr 1 s rr `P s Ai�trk �' s'�� FINAL VOTING 0-ELECTION In the voting below, committee me►abrrs wire asked to rank their top choice as "1" and their second choice as "?". A "1" received 2 points and a "2" received one point. (For some parcels, the committee voted separately to not recommend the proposal receiving the lower point score.) For parcels or land use categories* where there was only one proposal being evaluated, committee members used "Recommend" or "Not Recomnend" instead of "1" or "2". If a majority of the committee voted "Recommend", the developer was recommended, and if the committee majority voted "Not Recormend", the developer Was not recommended. PARCEL NO. 4 & LAND USE CATEGORY: Heusi N Q DEVELOPER ht171 p.N Kt vE1'Z DEVELOPER �• VoFo m 15,L-a RUWITCH I Z GORDON / L. GREEN 2. HUNT J Z PRESTAMO ! Z REEVES Z FLETCHER GEREAUR 2 Z MACBETH uo m%ow-, MCGRIFF y RODRIGUEZ 2- TOTAL # OF "1 s" (X 2 Z Z) TOTAL # OF "2s" O ID X 1= 10 POINT TOTAL Z2 10 TOTAL # OF "RECOMMEND" TOTAL # OF "NOT RECOMMEND" * For Parcels 44 and 56, the committee separated land uses. -29-0 9/R 8577393 tiI , 47�n •,w� cr ► N. hii _ � =k.l dr'$".f•'i.,i� ..i. �.'� pr i i l y �� � PS ty ice: ;'h y��'e' evi aJ:{r Qrn ri a 1 i a f3,4i — a'�ix,.�. 0 0 11 EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY PARTICIPATION CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS PARCELS EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY RECORD OF COMMITTEE RANKING ON PARCEL 46 PROPOSALS FOR EACH EVALUATION CRITERIA LISTED IN PART IV DEVELOPER: INDIAN RIVER INVESTMENTS RUWITCH GORDON GREEN HUNT PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX MACBETH MCCRIFF RODRIGUEZ � i � � r i � i I ► r 0 L&) 4 A. PARTICIPATIO ~: CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING .; CONTIGUOUS PARCELS DEVELOPER: AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION RUWITCH GORDON GREEN HUNT PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX MACBETH MCGRIFF RODRIGUEZ 2 Z 2 2 2 Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z Z 2 2 2 2 2 Z 2 Z 2 Z Z Z 2 2 2 2 Z 2 2 2 2 Z N 2 2 2 `�• i 1 a fir_ �' •y �'fi ' ] l i ^; y` R T , r1s 6 + — �_�%'�i�l.�''}'� ��X•ai- V �,1{4,t =' "''C „+.. { - sY ya YS� �.`•i yv� _ 46 PARCEL. 55 PARCEL 55 Recommended Developert Circa/Barness/Sawyer Wt 6-1 Proposalt 150 Rental Units, with a minimum of 23 units . - affordable by low and moderate income families. K: 142 Condominiums 41,800 Square Feet Commercial Space Parking for 425 cars Private Investment: $21 million. Financing Plan: UDAG, Mortgage Revenues Bonds for Affordable ` Rental Housing. s' Minority Involvement: Equity investment of 60 percent, hiring at 55 - percent, contracting at 75 percent. The committee recommends Circa/Barness/Sawyer (Circa) as the developer for this parcel. The Circa proposal impressed the T; committee in a number of ways. It has a team of highly has a great deal of thought to .i experienced people and given design, phasing, management and marketing. Circa received extra points for proposing to develop additional contiguous parcels identified minority equity ..;. and for having significant and participation and former owner equity participation. Also, Circa received a nearly perfect score in the independent Touche Rosa analysis of developer viability and financing strategy Affordable Housing Corporation Not recommended �. Affordable Housing Corporation (Affordable) was rated behind Selection Review ' Circa in the rank scoring procedure, and the Committee does not recommend the Affordable proposal for consideration for Phase I development. The Affordable proposal lacks the requested financial { is not responsive to the RFP. It information, and it does not report any experience with similar types of projects. Futhermore, the committee has insufficient construction information to be able to endorse the type of In its independent financial evaluation Touche system proposed. Ross gave Affordable low ratings. �- Composite committee rank scoring sheet on following page. -31- 't� rt2i §- ..W t r r V t .fir a7' J,� $ ".i � t ; r�F..i .• Liths'ifi•�1,.�! •.:`ya i'k� � tfi } . +,�' � — _ .. : �!}-i��'.+o �e'iF':.��.',3i ��_ iY fiia_ !t-s iS�•-,`#t�"F�t_." _'''�"i AY�e4'�Jq�...iiK . . -7i Sl-.t..f?�`"�i15cA[:`ic�ct"^a s. a_ .`1�,jr'2�ti5-.. 85-393: kn FINAL VOTING SELECTION In the voting below, committee members were asked to rank their top choice as "1" and their second choice as "2". A "1" received 2 points and a "2" received one point. (For some parcels, the committee voted separately to not recommend the proposal receiving the lower point score.) For parcels or land use categories* where there was orily one proposal being evaluated, committee members used "Recommend" or "Not 3ecommend" instead of "1" or "2". If a majority of the committee voted "Recommend", the developer was recommended, and if the committee majority voted "Not Recommend", the developer was not recommended. PARCEL N0. 05 LAND USE CATEGORY: W" 1 4'* DEVELOPER GI fZGA• DEVELOPER IS��DJ�►lbL� RUWITCH GORDON / Z GREEN l 2 HUNT Z PRESTAMO Z+ REEVES Z FLETCHER GEREAUX Z 2 14ACBETH C&M �uK. roe MCGRIFF Z RODRIGUEZ Z TOTAL # OF "1 s" Cj(2 = 2 2, O TOTAL # OF "2s" Q 10 z lD, POINT TOTAL TOTAL # OF "RECOMMEND" TOTAL # OF "NOT RECOMMEND" J * For Parcels 44 and 56, the committee separated land uses. RS7-3q�-32- cr`f nY[ >rs rtat� 61 Y t jynit f Lr L r ;k1xl L, � �f'ili �'�d�T�tr 5 . ,�. s$ ,. r . r i- 'rt.� rr �'•; �� r .�! tr � ly �':, a rit�jy s ' e � t y �. i .' fr � f } C�(i �,4 aL• n EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT DESIGN MINORITY PARTICIPATION CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS -- PARCELS :'. EXPERIENCE OF TEAM FINANCIAL >t CAPABILITY FINANCIAL RETURN PROJECT r' Sok- DESIGN µi.. E MINORITY PARTICIPATIO CONFORMANCE TO PROGRAM PRIORITY RANKING CONTIGUOUS ::.. PARCELS RECORD OF COMMITTEE RANKING ON PARCEL SS PROPOSALS FOR EACH EVALUATION CRITERIA LISTED IN PART IV DEVELOPER: CIRCA/BARNESS/SAWYER btltlttl`Y anonnm CDGCY YIIYt bbtt't►Yh brevet tl wrtutb QtbtAllif mil oCtY urpbirce bhhbtbtlti DEVELOPER: AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION RUWITCH• GORDON GREEN HUNT PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX MACBETH MCGRIFF ROORIGUEZ iooeoe0000ss i�evoov000voo 'ovosvoeovos �iov000�000si 00000000000! �i000eoe0000s iiov0000svovv PARCEL.. _P 4, PARCEL 56 f:. R The committee decided to separately consider proposals for two different land uses for Parcel 56, feeling that it was impossible to judge housing proposals against hotels under the established evaluation criteria. Therefore, the committee is Taking no preferential judgement on the land use question and is evaluating the hotel proposal and the housing proposal only in terms of their individual viability. RECOMMENDATION FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Recommended Developer: Circa/Barness/Sawyer Proposal: 91 Rental Units, with a minimum of 14 units affordable to low and moderate income families. 60 Condominium Units 63,200 Square Feet Commercial Space Parking for 215 cars Private Investment: $12.6 million. Financing Plan: UDAG, Mortgage Revenues Bonds for Affordable Rental Housing. Minority Involvement: Equity investment of 60 percent, hiring at 55 percent, contracting at 75 percent. The committee reviewed only one proposal for housing development, so no ranking is possible. The committee recommends Circa/Barness/Sawyer (Circa) as the developer for this parcel, should it be developed in a housing land use. The Circa proposal impressed the committee in a number of ways. It has a team of highly experienced people and has given a great deal of thought to design, phasing, management and marketing. Circa received extra points for proposing to develop additional contiguous parcels and for having significant and identified minority equity participation and former owner equity participation. Also, Circa received a nearly perfect score in the independent Touche Ross analysis of developer viability and financing strategy. -34- RECOMMENDATION FOR_HOTEL DEVELOPMENT (Parcel 56 cont'd.) New Washington Heights Community Development Conference = Not Recommended The committee reviewed only one proposal for hotel development, so no ranking is possible. The New Washington Heights Community Development Conference (New Washington) proposal was found to lack viability and responsiveness to the RFP. The financial strategy and equity syndication plans seemed unrealistic. The pro forma presented in the RFP disagreed with the market information given in the oral interviews as to income projections. Also, the market information presented with the proposal was in disagreement with the market research done for the City by Hammer, Siler and George, presented in a Pdovember 1983 report. Hammer, Siler and George judged the market demand for new hotels in the project area to be not sufficient over the next five to ten years to make feasible the construction of additional hotel facilities. Voting records for this parcel follow this page. -35- 6 h FINAL VOTING SELECTION In the voting below, committee members were asked to rink their top choice as 1 and their second choice as "2" A " " " " � � ^� received 2 points and a 2 received one point. (For some parcels, the committee voted separately to not recommend the proposal receiving the lower point score.) For parcels or land use categories* where there was only one proposal being evaluated, committee members used "Recommend" or "Not Recommend" instead of "1" or "2". If a majority of the committee voted "Recommend", the developer was recommended, and if the committee majority voted "Not Recommend", the developer was not recommended. PARCEL NO..G LAND USE CATEGORY: 140VSI N 6 DEVELOPER Gi Seca DEVELOPER RUWITCH GORDON GREEN R HUNT R PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX MACBETH MCGRIFF R RODRIGUEZ TOTAL # OF "ts" TOTAL # OF "2s" POINT TOTAL TOTAL # OF "RECOMMEND" TOTAL # OF "NOT RECOMMEND" D * For Parcels 44 and 56, the committee separated land uses. -36- 9.5--3 a--� t P: t� 1 ' jq 1YY � u .rya FINAL VOTING SELECTION r. In the voting below, committee members were asked to rank their top choice as "1" and their second choice as "2". A "1" received 2 points and a '2 received one point. (For some parcels, the committee voted separately to not recommend the proposal receiving, the lower point score.) For parcels or land use categories' where there was only one proposal being evaluated, committee members used "Recommend" or "Not Recommend" instead of "1" or "2". If a majority of the committee voted "Recommend", the developer was recommended, and if the committee majority votes "Not Recommend", the developer was not recommended. PARCEL NO... _ LAND USE CATEGORY: Wdot L DEVELOPER New wasw NG DEVELOPER RUWITCH GORDON R GREEN HUNT N A K. PRESTAMO N �� REEVES PLETCHER GEREAUR N /R �R MACBETH MCGRIFF RODRIGUEZ TOTAL # OF "ts" TOTAL # OF "2s" POINT TOTAL TOTAL # OF "RECOMMEND" 3 TOTAL # OF "NOT RECOMMEND" ns * For Parcels 44 and 56, the committee separated land uses. y S r — Y�f •� : + r04j y � c ¢y� —37- 85-3 98 $i 4 . s. or e i61 1, `. 1. .«h txr aF A is ,a 1�YY7%.ff .. e.._et...n,F�'.eLt F...y'�a..ek .•...4'Os�Cyf�''+S`F63'.ii�.•• ,1 h RECORD OF COMMITtEE RANKING ON PARCEL 56 PROPOSALS FOR EACH EVALUATION CRITERIA LISTED IN PART IV DEVELOPER: CIRCAISARNESS/SAWYER RUWIfiCH GORDON GREEN HUNT PRESTAMO REEVES FIEtCHER GEREAUX. MACBETH MCGRIFF RObRIGUE EXPERIENCE Q Q OF TEAM FINANCIAL Q tt iG a �' It CAPABILITY _ FINANCIAL Q t RETURN PROJECT Q Q DESIGN MINORITY b y PARTICIPATION CONFORMANCE Q Q TO PROGRAM PRIORITY 01A iL RANKING CONTIGUOUS f(, TL % PARCELS DEVELOPER: NEW WASHINGTON HEIGHTS RUWITCH GORDON GREEN HUNT PRESTAMO REEVES FLETCHER GEREAUX MACBETH MCGRIFF RODRIGUEZ EXPERIENCE I'►e N Q N¢ Q MQ. OF TEAM FINANCIAL R. }�� N¢ Sc N Q N 1Z He CAPABILITY � N� N� N¢ N f�. ► N� iZ N� 1. FINANCIAL i N� NIL Nr RETURN PROJECT IZ iL Ntz 142 Ne it rle N 4H¢ 2 NL DESIGN t +�. 12. t z MINORITY 1L 1L HIEIt It NC Ne PARTICIPATION 'j CONFORMANCE r NR. Na. S N It rl 1 Ne TO PROGRAM 14 it g PRIORITY H NILI RANKING --- - - I ,;. CONTIGUOUS G PARCELS -38-- ,��< , r T >77 Vj 1 P AV— - k f ° ix.j*i /p� � ttA ''` r - - ..3 `7•%`'Fiy M`?^.'�dtrr - Y.gn�i?'3r>xq �TMT."� $+r ..h: �ai! ,t -.. e... ,rs •i,„��pur '�_�; _e 0 s ATTACHMENT A MEMBERS OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE Members of the Public Lee Ruwitch (Chairperson) Member, Park West Association Rose Gordon Chairperson, Documentary Surtax Advisory Board Member, New World Center Action Committee Hank Green of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce James Hunt Chairperson, Overtown Advisory Board Felipe Prestamo Professor, University of Miami School of Architecture Garth Reeves Member, Board of Directors, Downtown Development Authority City/County Officials or Employees Joseph Fletcher Director, Dade County Department of Transportation Administration Jerry Gereaux Assistant Director, City of Miami Community Development Department of Adrienne Macbeth Assistant to the City Manager Bernard McGriff Analyst, Capital Improvements Program Y Manager's Office Division, County Sergio Rodriguez Director of Planning, City of Miami -39- ��� 7 't Y t+- � q;—w- �f.ryrK7tyri Aft rta+tW%-� �l�• Salim 1t 1 ATTACHMENT B REVIEW EVALUATION CRITERIA The following specific criteria matrixt included in the Request For Proposal document, was used by the Selection Review Committee in the evaluation of proposals for each individual parcel: POINTS CRITERION 1. Experience of the development team, including 15 specific experience on similar projects. 2. Financial capability and level of financial 20 commitment.* ' 3. Financial return to the City. 10 4. Overall project design. 20 S. Extent of minority participation. 20 6. Conformance to the recommended development 15 program. 7. Priority ranking of developers ointsA parcels 45, 20 46, 55 and 56, maximum bonusp g. Proposals for contiguous parcels, maximum 15 bonus points. For UMTA parcels 45, 46, 55 and 56, also included in the financial return is consideration of the type of equity participation plan offered to former property owners. M,f4'',A �•� 8Cn -40- KJ 1 - it to �. 1.... �a.•.. } .. RIO.,tA RVrr t a r yf+t� r CVt�.,rt. Na i' ty k r { +. •f �SY� .Yrt YAy'� { �n At�*y'� t t. F r 5a d 4 r ♦.1 ,,,�'r ��,�;P�'Y6�'wt:'riy�NT��k`'� J` a ix���� C �Yr � � `NNt,��' K�,y Y +1f. S `f F i t r rt % 1� ,E+f•.VrS 77 Pry` -!�' an titr �.. rDyF `hrT;1:...... ... aka �.,y. r 3^' t � �it}y"•.'��t jti 1t4��'�"G. — 4,,,r„ a t •�; �.r 4 w r � s . i� "`c --' i S Jr" 4 �y+'a+'k?'Y � i' M. rj �� .3• —_ +r n .: r a aE-ri��'�.' r �e r _ t t . _ � � .` S A r �, �'' ti" +,�- .Yi-ry*� t�'� y • ems_. J — � rFf.�C �� }1_t •r �,, � ; X.{' r "� . ry ,# f. t x�.�rnr �`k .. - �.• �lyy,5at�� .>< w � �; t . Y"•4 ATTACHMENT C SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS REVIEW COMMITTEE November 1, 1984 9:00 AM City Administration Building (Orientation to UDP process and RFP.) December 12, 1984 9:00 AM City Administration Building (Committee procedures reviewed.) i January 7 & 8, 1985 All -day sessions James L. Knight Conference Center (Interviews with proposing development teams.) January 22, 1985 9:00 AM City Administration Building (Post -interview discussions and selection voting initiated.) January 31, 1985 1:30 PM City Administration Building (Selection voting concluded, committee report discussed.) February 13, 1985 9:00 AM City Administration Building (Final committee report reviewed and approved.) i ATTACHMENT D " SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS FOR PHASE 1 OVERTOWN/PARK WEST DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY OF MIAMI SOUTHEAST Resi denti al Commercial Proposer's Name Units Sq.Ft. -- ---- M244 386 R 309000 (a) Cruz Development 350 R 159000 (b) Stocks Construction 350 R 30,000 (c) Can -American Realty Corp. 199 R 15,875 25 (a) Cruz Development 221 C 259000 36 (a) Cruz Development 174 C 20,000 (b) Affordable Housing Corp. 386 R 309000 37(b) (a) Cruz Development 350 R 309000 DCorp. Can -American Realty 44 (a) Affordable Housing Corp. 304 C 20,000 -- (b) WalterSAssoc. Angles,, Esteban(jointventure) 248 C (c) Circa/Barness/Sawyer 426 C -- Centrum Arena -- (d) Decoma Venture `. 45 (a) Affordable Housing Corp. 46 C 225 C -- F33,800 (b) Circa/Barness/Sawyer 46 (a) Indian River Investments II Ltd. 152 C 484*C -- 20,000* (b) Affordable Housing Corp. 55 (a) Affordable Housing Corp. 484*C 20,000* (b) Circa/Barness/Sawyer 150 R 142 C 292 41,800 7 r' F56 (a) Circa/Barness/Sawyer 91 R 60 C 15_ 63,200 __ 200 Room (b) New Washington Heights Hotel Community Development Conference *Combination of parcels 55 and 46 R = Rental C = Condominium ATTACHMENT E The following developers submitted proposals on December 14, 1984 In response to the City of Miami Southeast Overtown/Park West Phase I Request for Proposals: Affordable Housing Corporation 666 11th Street N.W., Suite 1103 Washington, D.C. 20005-4542 (202) 628-3459 Can American Realty Corporation 1117 Marquette Avenue, Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55403-2457 (612) 332-5544 Circa/Barness/Sawyer 628 W. Rittenhouse Street Philadelphia, PA 19144 (215) 843-0999 Cruz Development Company 10 Fairway Street Mattapan, MA 02126 (617) 296-5040 The Decoma Venture Suite 700 1110 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 (305) 374-3322 ...' 12/31/84 • —43— Indian River Investments II, Ltd. 1023 N.W. Third Avenue Miami, FL 33136 (30S) 372-1383 New Washington Heights Community Development Conference, Inc. Culmer/Overtown Neighborhood Service Center 1600 N.W. 3rd Avenue Miami, FL 33136 (305) 573-8217 Stocks Construction Florida 299 Alhambra Circle, suite 512 Coral Gables, FL 33134 (305) 441-0952 Walter Sweeting & Assoc., Inc. Angles, Esteban (joint venture) 5825 Sunset Drive, Suite 210 Miami, FL 33143 (305) 666-0699 S5-3g2l �4 S 7 1 .grr nor i fi t' �'a R 4ti �1ZYas flit _ jJ M7 .,. -} t v'� � r � �• t �. � h ANT' EJI L�rht~ !!�U UU UU QU UA �U L_j g 6111,681 i nn MM 7-1 ATTACHMENT F �--� UU UUU E-11 r_ U [IF] F] • `` TT WOTOTAL SITE AREA PROPOSE.^ MP SPORT1 & EXHIB. CENTER D PARCEL NUMBER PHASE I REDEVELOPMENT AREA RECOMMENDED PHASE I - DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM LEGEND AHC Affordable Housing Corp. IRI Indian River Investments, II CD Cruz Development NWHCDC New Washington Hts. Community CARC Can -American Realty Corp. Development Conference CBS Circa/Barness/Sawyer SCF Stocks Construction Florida DV Decoma Venture WS&A Walter Sweeting & Assoc. -44- 4 .5-- 3 � 1/7&8/85 45- r Tit ' y' � Y � +r ~s •I r _.. M-Z, - 'J 16•T'{1�yq��• " : NTr EG t -'f jhY "" �* UI LLJ LU VU ��`!IJL! r_7 nn rim r_ (� ATTACHMENT F L I • all�'. tr TOTAL SITE AREA PROPOSE^ 10P /1SPORTS & EXHIB. CENTER 56 PARCEL NUMBER ss� PHASE I REDEVELOPMENT AREA RECOMMENDED PHASE I - DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM LEGEND AHC Affordable Housing Corp. IRI Indian River Investments, II CD Cruz Development NWHCDC New Washington Hts. Community CARC Can -American Realty Corp. Development Conference CBS Circa/Barness/Sawyer SCF Stocks Construction Florida DV Decoma Venture WS&A Walter Sweeting & Assoc. - 4 4- L-� 1G •D' 1/7&8/85 ✓-- '3 4u -^'fii* an � r ty r .r �J'�.•i. ]Y t1 • l rl �rQa s ,fti. y Chu mx a,,.5L7vj SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FINANCIAL EVALUATION OF COMPETING REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS January 30, 1985 DO TauclzeRoss 4c-,fCn 4,X r t, AN i F T!.�>._?f ,..5.-.,...... ... r_^t.. ... ;._.. .,.. �.�,:...wwS`•�i�i!a�,`sk.r�u'ti �"T��G:' — .1 Tadw ROSS & Q. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS January 309 1985 Mr. Herbert J. Bailey Assistant City Manager City of Miami Miami, FL Dear Mr. Bailey: The accompanying financial evaluation was prepared to assist the City of Miami in selecting development teams to participate in Phasehis Ian f the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Project. sis incorporates our evaluation of written proposals which were submitted on December 149 1984, our attendance contained presentations at the oral ^thelettersheof ld January 7-89 1985 and the information clarification from the participating proposers. Written proposals were submitted by the following nine development teams: Affordable Housing Corporation Can American Realty Corporation Circa Ltd./The Barness Organization/William and Berniece Sawyer Cruz Development Company The Decoma Venture Indian River Investments II, Ltd. New Washington Heights Community Development Conference, Inc. 4 Stocks Construction Florida, Inc. Walter Sweeting &Associates/Angles & Esteban Associates. • r� Proposals addressed the rential and Overtown/Park west Communitycial ent of a nine Redevelopment block portion of the Southeast Area. The scope of our assistance consisted of the following five major activities which we performed: Developed a model to evaluate: Viability of the development teams and their ability to r maintain prices at proposed levels Viability of proposed financing strategies } Viability of the proposed projects - Short and long range economic and fiscal return to the City MIAMI CENTER - SEVENTH FLOOR -100 CHOPIN PLAZA - MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-(305) 377.4000 �•xs Fto� �;' s 4 Y, • f � � - _ l � r. �q. _ ':.. �.... .... _. . rs._ .�... • ,... ..H�, �'� S , x . it < p'}. �. �' S 4�'i•t' j k�.^ '� tv � ;°i � 6 !' `f rS �r `,�4� f�R�- , 'i�Wa)'�x�ry . .. _ . �>r..i:�«_._ti ... •_ -k.. , ,.. e.....t .J:...� ...... .. _ £4� s::.�'�•• .3W�.C^e'9i�r l:w;r - - 0 Mr. Herbert J. Ba ley January 85 Page -two of two• Lxecuted the model and performed the above evaluations • Attended oral presentation of the prospective developers • Prepared a preliminary financial analysis for the Review Committee formed by the City of Miami redevelopment Prepared a financial evaluation of competing redevelopment proposals for the City Manager• We have not and ited the historical, financial and statistical data used velo t teams to construct the cann�t and do n�otraexpress nale by the de p to Accordingly+ we have no responsibility provided in the s proposals* data.in addition, an opinion on report for events and circumstances occurring after the date update this rep of this report. this report, If you have any further question (305 3t-O,ncerning plese contact Mr. Stephen E. Cohe , ours, very truly y l0 9", 4 . Certified Public Accountants RTI. e , 5F r{�{+ E�,d� _ fi `, - - t r _ c^^'•�"L"+.:.i may,.. _ .I' To"*Aw&ca a 0 THE CITY OF MIAMI SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FINANCIAL EVALUATION OF COMPETING REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS January 30, 1985 17 7 1. NZ WIN, 4 �vwe 7X 2il"V, AV , t az, , '-XYv �N'tT",`A�tii�kD.S r.7 FINANCIALEVALUATION- REPORT TABLE , or- - is a"ARY MISS$ PT-11 I. SLWARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1 11. pURpOSE9 SCOPE, AND APPROACH 4 Ill. PARCEL EVALUATION 7 IV. DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPER ISSUES is APPENDIX A: MODEL FORMAT WIN; . . . . . . . . . . 5 10 am� ...... . . . . . . . Towdtpm&ca I. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS -1- Ai. . . . . . . . . . . ........ 7' 4�. v C;- 01-1 SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN / PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT First -Ranked Development Teams 25 1) CRUZ WMDR4ERr CO. 1) CUM DEVEMMM CO. 2) AFFORDABLE HOUSINGI 1 45 1) CItCA/BAJ1NESS/ SAWYER 2) AFFORDABLE HOUSING 56 1) CIFCA/BARNESS/ SAWYER 2) NEWWRSHINMM T S T A N T S I N T 24 1) CRUZ DEVEMPMENY CO. 2) CAN AMERICM REALTY CORP- 3) STOCKS COMM4=10N 37 TIE SCORE: CRUZ DEVEMPMENF CO. CAN AMERICAN REALTY CORP. 44 1) CIRCA/BARNESS/SAWYER 2) THE DW114A VENTURE 3) AFFORDABLE HOUSING 4) WAMER SWEMNG ��ff• RS _ .ZF ...��aM ' SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN / PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT First -Ranked Development Teams 25 24 ,► CV 55 --) 1) CIRCA/BARNESS/SAWYER 2) M ORDABLE HOUSING 1) CRUZ DEVE D MW CO. 1) CRUZ DEVELORIE NT CO. 2) AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1) CIRCA/BARNESS/ SAWYER 2) AFFORDABLE HOUSING 56 1) CIRCA/BARNESS/ sAwYF� 2) NEW WASHINMM R T N 1 0� T 1) CRUZ DEVEEJORWM CO. 2) CAN AMERICAN REALTY CORP. 3) 51=S CONSTRULVION TIE: SCORE: CRUZ DEVELD MERr CO. CAN AM ERICAN REALTY CORP. 44 1) CIRCA/BARNESS/SAWYER 2) THE DBOOMA VEVrURE 3) AFFORDABLE HOUSING 4) WALTER SWEETING RAWING-SLY.-PARC& #24 CALIZ CAN&AM (96) (88) SITOOCS (82) #25 CRUZ (97) #36 CRUZ AFFORDABLE (97) (57) #37 CRUZ (TIE-) CAN -AM (94) (94) #44 C/B/S DECOMA (55) AFFORDABLE WAITER (55) swEETING (95) (46) #45 C/B/S AFFORDABLE (90) (55) #46 INDIAN AFFORDABLE RIVER (58) (73) #55 C/B/S AFFORDABLE (94) (55) #56 C/B/S NEW WASH. (97) (45) ( ) = Total Points Touc�e�Cn �,, of II. PLPPOSE, SCOPE, AND APPROACH gS- 3 1 -?) TNCh8Pm&G2 P OSE S SCOM,__AW .. APPROACH Purpose -and.- Scope The purpose of this engagement was to assist the City of Miami in selecting real estate development teams to participate in Phase 1 of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment program. The scope of our assistance consisted of the following five major activities: a Develop a model to evaluate: Viability of the development teams and their ability to maintain prices at proposed levels - Viability of proposed financing strategies - Viability of the proposed projects - Short and long-range economic and fiscal return to the City a Execute model and perform the above evaluations • Attend oral presentations of the prospective developers • Prepare and provide a preliminary financial analysis to the review committee assessing the feasibility and achievability of the proposals a Prepare an independent report to be submitted to the City Manager analyzing the data and information submitted by the development teams Approach Our approach consisted of two major components as listed below: y • Summarized and evaluated proposal information Created a model to record proposed project and developer information in standard format (refer to Appendix A) Reviewed proposal information and completed a model for each parcel - - Evaluated proposal information a Compared and rated each proposal for each parcel (Refer to the following table) Defined criteria for the financial evaluation scale Assigned point values for each criteria and subcriteria Reviewed output from each model and assigned points Ranked proposals by parcel Yf • t 4 f a x � t P lip' vg -5- s FINANCIAL EVALUAT1. NSCALE Point Breakdown. Pro sect Viability Total of _ 66__points Sub=Cat_e90 Cat o Tom. 3f A, Project Reasonable 5 •� Occupancy 8 Phasing 9 - Construction 11 - Pricing 12 B. Financing Strategy 3 Interest Rates 1 Level 2 Achievability 9 - Method Developer equity Reasonable: Private financing Public financing Y/N Merc. Syndication 21 C. Developer Viability 7 - History 0 If none = 4 if1to5yrs. = If greater than 7 5 yrs. _ 7 - Net Worth 0 If none = If 0-5% project cost = 1 4 If 5-10% project cost = If greater than 10% 7 project cost 7 - Financial Record 3 No litigation 4 No bankruptcy II. Return to City - Total of 34 points 10 A. Measurable (Y/N) 5 - Land lease 5 - Tax revenue 10 B. Quantitative Return t) - rPV (Scaled Best to Worst) 5 3 - Incremental Tax Revenue 2 - Time Horizon C. Reasonableness (Y/N) 14Total Points = 100 -6- :9E-353 s i7 �'�'7• Y .P F} Y ..tj 1 1 � r a �.S R� 7 h'� � .p i 'v •h 0 �R 9 �4• 4 $� �k nt ti' k a• I N ( 1; t�_ �� t x ; 4yr°o-�;�1 �� -� i � � F �t i t iY t .) 'r fir: ,�"�.� 2 �+• — -' �e+%. �t4 Its,,, •y r ♦ ,^f .. rJ�:i'�d� III. PARCEL EVALUATION 7 t � �� � � �� � \ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � )KI g' TM*P4=&CO Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Financial Evaluation Parcel No. 24 TOTAL CAN POINTS CRUZ AMERICAN STOCKS AVAILABLE DEVELOPMENT REALTY_CORP • CONSTRUCTION I. Project Viability A. Project Reasonable 5 4 5 2 - Occupancy % yr. 1& 2 8 a 4 6 - Phasing/lst year 3 9 8 8 Construction Cost/Sq. Ft. 11 11 11 11 Pricing/Base Year 33 31 28 22 Subtotal B. Financing Strategy Interest rate l l 1 1 Level/type 2 2 1 2 1 Achievability 9 9 9 9 i Method (Y/N) 12 12 l l 12 Subtotal a: h' C. Developer Viability 7 7 7 - History 6 7 3 =: - Net Worth =` - Financial Record 3 3 3 3 4 No litigation 4 n, 4 4 ` No bankruptcy 20 21 17 _; 21 f: Subtotal `.'. II. Return to City A. Measurable (Y/N) 5 5 5 5 - Land lease 5 5 5 5 - Tax revenue 10 10 10 Subtotal 10 B. Quantitative Return 5 5 1 2 J NPV (Scaled Best to Worst) 3 3 - Incremental Tax Rev. 2 0 2 2 7 Y< °= - Time Horizon 10 4 Subtotal 10 14 14 14 14 C. Reasonableness NO GRAND TOTAL = 8CS 3 4 s V r• f 4y • • ... -k i f. * Sri i ' �.r.r �� Aq k �; .: a .. _'. .t to- fit' r,{-51 kf l'�•raj r ,�{'s 3i . 7ro S7' t;. ),.9Z9t•."}.,, a .+I -- ti'- {"' *•i,,•.{! +r Yga �..�}`-�Z.�.rfiQ bedk��fi � �»r$° Yfc , r {.. �` + Y '7'L�•J f ��S }z'r ����. ��� — ��7�a��— r.. k �=`a,+.�Sr.�y�is'Y y+++m ! 5 '.+° y • a .-' + , y ' •?`� ,� � i n`k �r� �"y8� d � �• 1� 4 �{� � 7,. >>,�..•�insf tir.:'4... tti< .: 1.-,,�..�;}.s_sa ,�#_ ..0 , . Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Financial Evaluation Parcel NO, 25 TOTAL POINTS CRU t AVAILABLE DEVELOPMENT I. Project Viability A. Project Reasonable 5 4 - Occupancy % yr• 1 a 2 B B - Phasing/1st year g B - Construction Cost/S4* Ft. 11 11 - Pricing/Base Year 33 31 Subtotal B. Financing Strategy - Interest rate 1 1 - Level/type 2 2 - Achievabllity g 9 - Method (Y/N) 12 12 Subtotal C. Developer Viability 7 7 - History 7 6 - Net Worth - Financial Record 3 3 . No litigation 4 4 . No bankruptcy 21 20 Subtotal II. Return to City A. Measurable (Y/N) 5 5 - Land lease 5 5 - Tax revenue 10 10 Subtotal B. Quantitative Return 5 5 - NPV (Scaled Best to Worst) 3 - Incremental Tax Rev. 3 2 2 - Time Horizon 10 10 Subtotal C. Reasonableness (Y/N) 14 14 GRAND TOTAL 11 14, f^ S - � k � �•1 f'tw� �Fi� f 1s'J �.. V�Y..i� r. x, ,te r � Y_ 'h� - X3` )-l.' fs•�fCy,!3•k',<Y•" i� t�`;.� �. � •! i I ''.� -.1 'r`- i �' 4� t ' f�`1]ay •�� u••Sy� od: m �i�ui '4r "ty9 "- cw ej � 3;'y 4.a ��t rt 1 •��' .t`�-.'i:��Y7�v ,jam �,.��i'.�.tS��xr - .,.."' '�....1�-r�lxf�`C:H:.:�...c'-�"m>'� — Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Financial Evaluation 1. project Viability A. Project Reasonable Occupancy % yr• 1 6 2 Phasing/lst year Construction Cost/Sq. Ft. Pricing/Base Year Subtotal B. Financing Strategy Interest rate level/type Achievability Method (Y/N) Subtotal C. Developer Viability History - Net Worth - Financial Record No litigation . No bankruptcy Subtotal II. Return to City A. Measurable (Y/N) - Land lease - Tax revenue Subtotal B. Quantitative Return NPV (Scaled Best to Worst) Incremental Tax Rev. Time Horizon Subtotal C. Reasonableness (Y/N) GRAND TOTAL Parcel No. 36 TOTAL AFFORDABLE POINTS CRUZ AVAILABLE DEVELOP NT HOUSING 5 B 9 11 5 g g 10 31 0 0 0 9 9 1 2 g 12 1 2 9 12 1 1 9 11 7 7 7 6 7 4 3 4 21 3 4 20 3 4 18 5 5 5 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 3 5 3 5 2 2 10 1 9 2 9 14 14 0 Y TwCheAW&G2 -y` Southeast Overtown/Park west Redevelopeent Financial Evaluation I Pro3ect Viability A. Protect Reasonable �;.. - Occupancy % yr. 1 & 2 - Phasing/lst year Construction Cost/Sq. Ft• Pricing/Base Year Subtotal B. Financing Strategy Interest rate 4 - Level/type Achievability Method (Y/N) Subtotal C. Developer Viability History Net worth Financial Record =, No litigation s` No bankruptcy � Subtotal } II. Return to City '. A. Measurable (Y/N) - Land lease y _ Tax revenue Subtotal B. Quantitative Return NPv (Scaled Best to worst) wx _ Incremental Tax Rev. Time Horizon Subtotal C. Reasonableness (Y/N) GRAND TOTAL TOTAL CAN POINTS CRUZ AMERICAN AVAt E DEVELOPMENT REALTY CORP- 5 3 5 8 6 S 9 8 8 it 11 11 33 28 32 1 1 1 2 2 2 9 9 9 12 12 12 7 7 7 7 6 7 3 3 3 4 4 4 21 20 21 Parcel No, 31 8s- 393 T7 el.t4 F.! t roachepba&ch 0 Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelapaaent Financial Evaluation I. Project Viability A. Project Reasonable Occupancy is yr. 1 6 2 Phasing/lst year Construction Cost/Sq. Ft. • Pricing1base Year Subtotal B. Financing Strategy • Interest rate Level/type Achievability • Method (Y/N) Subtotal C. Developer Viability - History - Net Worth - Financial Record . No litigation . No bankruptcy Subtotal Parcel Nob 44 TOTAL POINTS CIRCA/BARNESS DECOMA AFFORDABLE WALTER SWEETING AVAILABLE i _/SAWYER VENTURE HOUSING CORP. ANGLES. ESTEBAN 5 5 NA* 0 5 8 8 NA* 0 8 9 8 NA* 0 3 11 10 NA* 9 9 33 31 9 25 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 9 9 9 9 0 12 12 11 11 0 7 7 T 7 4 7 6 0 4 0 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 21 4 20 14 18 11 II. Return to City A. Measurable (Y/N) - Land lease - Tax revenue Subtotal S. quantitative Return NPV (Scaled Best to Worst) - Incremental Tax Rev. - Time Horizon Subtotal C. Reasonableness (Y/N) GRAND TOTAL 5 5 10 5 5 10 5 5 10 5 5 10 0 5 5 5 3 ? 10 5 1 � 7 3 3 0 6 3 2 2 2 1 2 5 14 14 14 0 0 -12- au U - --------- l t �r - i A �i�tZ! 6 �7 - .-< IT '�' ��Y{- ..+c-�?Yh �C; Southeast overtown/Park West Redeveloposent Financial Evaluation I. Project Viability A. Project Reasonable - Occupancy % yr. 1 & 2 - Phasing/191; year Construction Cost/Sq. Ft• Pricing/Base Year Subtotal B. Financing Strategy Interest rate Level/type Achievability Method (Y/N) Subtotal C. Developor Viability - History - Net Worth Financial Record No litigation No bankruptcy Subtotal II. Return to City A. Measurable (Y/N) - Land lease - Tax revenue Subtotal S. Quantitative Return - NPV (Scaled Best to Worst) - Incremental Tax Rev. - Time Horizon Subtotal C. Reasonableness (Y/N) GRANO TOTAL I CIRCA/B OTA TO AL ARNESS AFFORDABLE AVA E LSAWYER _ _ HOUSING. CORP,. 5 8 9 11 33 5 4 g 10 27 0 0 0 9 1 2 9 12 l 2 9 12 1 1 9 11 7 7 7 6 7 4 3 4 21 3 4 20 3 4 18 5 5 10 5 5 10 5 5 10 5 3 2 10 3 3 0 6 5 0 2 7 14 14 0 is At JU -13- t' F y ,- iJ` ri, +�Yy,� '�'? Kr L.a 3 L+��+ i .� � - + �t i +r � ti '+� si''f•"r'� cr i,c �< � �; jx .1 t�y�5�"P" ,i'l�'�- t ✓ t} i H R7 t � � '� "4 �^Y #T1•c n 7C, ;�'s�4SP��t�-►.��#!�i.`ti��c_7 u;i�.�i,.�;T.r�s. , ,;'.. , .;ate:: r. a}� t�', �P.. � _. , ���1 �:c_�J�Y t�M��. _?'�'..r _. �'�.s'M a..c _ Parcel No. 45 8,S- - 3 7 -;� Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Financial Evaluation t. project Viability A. Project Reasonable • Occupancy % yr. 1 6 2 - PhU1hg/15t year - Construction Cost/Sq. Ft. Pricing/Base Year Subtotal B. Financing Strategy Interest rate Level/type Achievability Method (Y/N) Subtotal C. Developer Viability History Net North Financial Record No litigation No bankruptcy Subtotal II. Return to City A. Measurable (Y/N) Land lease Tax revenue Subtotal B. Quantitative Return - NPV (Scaled Best to Worst) - Incremental Tax Rev. - Time Horizon Subtotal C. Reasonableness (Y/N) GRAND TOTAL parcel No. 46 TOTAL POINTS INDIAN RIVER AFFORDABLE AVAILABLE DEVELOPMENT HOUSING CORP. 5 5 0 B g 0 9 4 0 11 6 9 33 23 9 1 0 1 2 0 1 g 0 9 12 0 11 7 7 7 7 7 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 21 21 Is 5 5 5 5 10 10 2 5 2 3 1 2 5 10 14 0 8s-� 53 MArp—IMM�I- t2---& U 01 Southeast Overtowh/Park West RedevelOOM"t Finantial Evaluation I. Project Viability A project Reasonable - occupancy % yr. I & 2 ft Phasing/1st Year Construction Cost/Sq. Ft. Pricing/Base Year Subtotal B. Financing Strategy Interest rate Level/type AchievabilitY Method (Y/N) Subtotal C. oeveloper Viability - History - Net Worth Financial Record No litigation No bankruptcy Subtotal Return to City A. measurable (Y/N) fat` Land lease Tax revenue Subtotal Be Quantitative Return NPV (Scaled Best to worst) Incremental Tax Rove Time Horizon Subtotal C. Reasonableness (Y/N) GRAND TOTAL TOTAL POINTS CIRCA/BARNESS AFFORDABLE AVAILABLE R_ -1 HOUSINGS CORP- 5 a 9 11 33 5 6 a 10 29 0 0 0 9 9 1 2 9 9 9 6 7 4 3 4 TI, 3 4 TO' 3 4 rs 5 5 10 2 ro 5 To- 10 5 3 3 2 1 2 9 7 14 0 A Al Parcel Na. SS Southeast OVeptown/Park West Redevelopment Financial Evaluation Parcel N*6 56 TOTAL POINTS CIRWBARNESS NEW WMINGTON AVAILABLE I I ]SAWYER__ HEIGHTS 1. Project Viability A. project Reasonable 3 tf occupancy % yr. I & 2 8 Phasing/lst year Construction Cost/Sq. Ft. 9 8 6 Pricing/Base Year 11 10 5 — — — 3 Subtotal 3 31 21 B. Financing Strategy Interest rate 0 1 Level/type 2 0 AchievabilitY 2 9 9 0 Method (Y/N) — — — Subtotal 12 12 0 C. Developer Viability r. History 7 6 0 Not Worth `` Financial Record 3 3 3 No litigation 4 No bankruptcy 4 4 — 21 20 14 Subtotal 11. Return to City AP, A. measurable (Y/N) 5 5 0 Land lease Tax revenue — — 5 Subtotal 10 10 B. Quantitative Return 5 Best to Worst) NPV (Scaled 3 Incremental Tax Rev. 3 3 2 2 2 Time Horizon TO ro 5 Subtotal C14 14 0 Rees onableness (Y/N) . GRAND TOTAL A 2L �} -16g �- q 3 - V 4 Pill .2 y ,�- 4itr % ........... UITT M I IV. DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPER ISSUES - -17- DISCUSSION OF DEVELOPER-ISSL E5 Y` The Request for proposal specifically required that evaluations be done on a parcel by parcel basis. therefore an issue we could not consider was the potential impact of multiple parcel awards to a single developer. As a result, we would like to bring to your attention the following considerations which we believe must be evaluated in the fins award and negotiation process! The potential risk to developer/project viability could increase upon the award and subsequent development of multiple parcels. Conversely, economies of scale exist with the development of multiple parcels. Any individual "rent -up" or "selling period" could be materially affected by such multiple awards, and/or the impact of other development, either within or outside the "Plan." The analysis of parcel #44 required an evaluation of two non -comparable land use concepts: a sports arena (Decoma Venture) and 3 proposals for a mixed use housing development. Because the Decoma proposal was prepared predominantly ddre s thithe s RFP.Sports Therefore,h the followion ing shouldt bedid noted specifically a with respect to Decoma: Subjective considerations, such as potential direct expenditures of arena visitors and the resultant "multiplier effect," were not included in this analysis. The arena is one part of a larger development "package." Inclusion of these considerations in the analysis would potentially yield different results. Except for parcels #249 #25 and #37, all first ranked developers proposed owner -occupied residential housing (condominium ownership). However, no consideration was given to the cost of common charges (maintenance, insurance, replacements, hposed housing toor the effect of low/moderate-incomeese rfamiles iessn. the affordability P Virtually all of the development teams proposed the formation of new corporations and/or joint ventures specifically- for Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Project. In evaluating the net worth and financial viability the who provided�financ al wstatementse inke net their worth of the principals proposals. A total point score of less than 70 on a particular parcel, in our opinion, would indicate the lack of demonstrated project viability and financing strategy. -18- , 1. dfS { £a Yr +r } A APPENDIX A: MODEL FORMAT T=!rRw&Gi 0% I 0 IJ.FtlI 4.'b$ � S•r4•VLL'yY �7Y �Fu..s�, a'4l � ♦ .JS4��1 - F�.m;. . F ` a�k�, VY�f� ._ 1, � J• .f'� tX . � � �i� � t�. A 4 � ��.. .. SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: 1. Developer Viability 1.1 Form of Organization? - Sole proprietorship - Partnership - Corporation - Joint Venture 1.2 Number of years development organization has been in oper ation? _ Years 1.3 If the development team was formed specifically for this project, how many years have the principal participants been involved in Real Estate Development? Participant Years Experience -1- I WT 0q W sWWAST OVERTOWWPARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: ::., AP 1. Developer Viability (Continued) 1.4 Representative previous residential/commercial developments Value Completed Type Location Size -2- 0q W sWWAST OVERTOWWPARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: ::., AP 1. Developer Viability (Continued) 1.4 Representative previous residential/commercial developments Value Completed Type Location Size -2- 00 SOUTHEAST OVERTOWWPARK WEST REDEVELOPlENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER' — 1. Developer Viability (Continued) 1.5 Currently owned or managed commercial real estate? Type Name Location V..ue % Ownership x Management Involvement 1.16 Financial institutions documenting proposer's ability to obtain financing for the proposed development? Type of Financing Institution Specifics P] I —3— :f. swTHMT OVERTOWNlPARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PRMECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: 1. Developer viability (Continued) 1.7 Financial structure of: Reporting Period Audited Net Profit on Sales Sales to Net Worth Profit to Net Worth Profit on Working Capital Sales to Working Capital Profit on Working Capital Current Assets to Current Liabilities Fixed Assets to Net Worth Current Debt to Net Worth Funded Debt to Working Capital I Total Debt to Net Worth W Development team Principals (if applicable) AN -4- �5y' �-i41011'. 't'�," ' iy,�i*k%�4'„" •kt s.` n J�+v. ,;s. CK. a -; =Kit �a�y.:. ,. a.��r,+1'il :ii1?;;?ei�S?! + .t• C L SOUTtEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: 1. Developer Viability (Continued) 1.7 Financial structure of: Reporting Period Audited Net Profit on Sales Sales to Net Worth Profit to Net Worth Profit on Working Capital Sales to Working Capital Profit on Working Capital Current Assets to Current Liabilities Fixed Assets to Net Worth Current Debt to Net Worth Funded Debt to Working Capital Total Debt to Net Worth Development team Principals (if applicable) I -4- 'I X ITar RA SOUTHEAST OVERTOWWPARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: 1. Developer Viability (Continued) 1.8 Pending litigation? No: Yee-* 00 Type: Reason: Amount: 1.9 Previous refusal of surety bond? No: Yes: Surety/Bonding Co: Date: Amount of Bond; Circumstances: 1.10 Previous bankruptcy? No: Yes: Date: Court Jurisdiction: Amount of Liabilities: Amount of Assets: t -5- -a SWTWAST ONERTDWNIPARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: 1. Developer Viability (Continued) 1.11 Conclusions as to the apparent viability of the development team: 4 10 NZ Xv AIP IM, Ic YA SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: PARCEL 2 proposed FinancinQ Strategy 2.1 Total capital required for project? z. Construction Capitalized Interest Soft costs Carrying Costs A Provided By -Public PrIva te Equ y Total Financing Financing Contribution -------------- — RA. A Total If public financing assistance is proposed, which programs have been chosen? 2.2 Amount Program Kra V'F. or 10A Finds, has an alternative financIng-strategy 2.2.1 If the developer proposes use of HO DAG II i�16 also been Presented? I I -7- ��99�Il..J ..:d r. y »,V'��0":R+�fi��'�k'.•�,' t � �_:�� �'�:r.. f,�,. ag y I rs t�olll+IfL�@�a Oi�r�l�L��i��� [e. t- souTtEAST ovERTOwWPARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: PARCEL 2. Proposed Financing strategy (Continued) 2.3 If public support is provided, does the financing strategy satisfy the criteria of the chosen program? 2.3.1 Affordable rental housing development program: If public financing support is sought for land acquisition of parcels 24 or 370 were they developed under this program, as required? - if public financing support is sought for project development of parcels 249 25, or 37, has this been the chosen program? Does the proposed rent structure satisfy the "low income" tenant/"moderate income" tenant occupancy requirement? - Is the term of the loan within the 40-year limit? - Is the proposed interest rate greater than the proposed bond yield and no greater than 1-1/2% above the bond yield? If credit enhancements are proposed ("loan to lender" prticipation and collateral commitment? lender Psa -8- No: Yes: Criteria Criteria Not NO Satisfied satisfied Information I . ,. y a,A ' a•• :.,1 U'4 '".I,H..1, i9. Y'�,w,:. �,7�,,+'»,,-. .;.._: 9•,,-.k .,_... -xi _• .:Nkr. y4 .f :cY '?R.kN ,fi'9y 1' 'icy s r_lY`Jwf`,�SM+Ji., �. �, %.�1$Sr0. Ji 1ir,'�'A""�.,�Idr"t�:i flhl ! i.�h ���;jF, I 11. I i • I. II�Ij�I � i .p7"',:,; �� � •T"+'%T�J I� i `. a `' ." , -'�''yi� ,�'; ae'�•'n�4`. . ,�,ti, "�'"'fr.. _ -:+ ` .. _ :. +1�',`;, a,,,� � p a1„ . t i ";,'�A.44�riV�+n- a •�i ,� j,l P I��;'i �II�' rdyppd��.gt �a} r'f c p, z' �', � �S � � t� i I T e.. I , 4' "t+ sUgHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REOEVEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: } PARCEL 2. Proposed Financing Strategy (Continued) 2.3 If public support is provided, does the financing strategy satisfy the criteria of the chosen piogsam? Yes: Criteria Criteria Not No, y Satisfied Satisfied,Information ._: 2.3.1 Affordable rental housing development program: - Does the strategy include no prepayment of the 4 _ project loan within the first seven years? M t If prepayment of the project loan is proposed after the first seven years, has a prepayment premium been included? Are the above terms proposed to be in effect until the g 4u'� latter part of: r�r which 50% of the units .(. y, .. Ten years after the date on I a•.r �%3•A., { are first occupied Date which is midpoint of the date which any units are first occupied and the maturity date of the 7 U t t obligation - ;f The date on which any Section a assistance - ��` terminates? I committed to pay: developer • Has the pe I i L/ 69 �� -- le loan origination fees? ---- III II I I� Reasonable Pro rata portion of bond discount and issuance cost? I i I I rnct of rrpdi t PMnnr-ment? i ,. L"'&i i P {.,{L1R} Y SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REDEVELCPV09 PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER' PARCEL 2. Proposed Financing Strategy (Continued) 2.3.2 Tax exempt financing for rental housing: _ Does the proposed rent structure satisfy the "low income" tenant/"moderate income" tenant occupancy requirement? - Is the term of the loan within the 40-year limit? - is the proposed interest rate greater than the proposed bond yield and no greater than 1-1/2% above the bond yield? - If credit enhancements are proposed ("loan to lender" programs), is there evidence of intended lender participation and collateral commitment? - Does the proposed financing apply only to the portion of the development used for rental housing? - Is the cost of property which benefits both residential d0 and commercial portions of the development properly C^ allocated between those uses? - Is the financing strategy structured so that the City assumes no risk? to administrative - Was a 1/2% fee to the City cover costs included? -10- No: Yes: Criteria r► Criteria Not No Satisfied Satisfied information IN SMWAST MERTOMI MAw WEST REMWLQVM PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: PARCEL 2. Proposed Financing Strateny (Continued) No: Yes: Criteria Criteria Not No Satisfied, Satisfied Information 2.3.3 Dade County Homeownership Assistance Loan Program: - Does the proposed sale price structure satisfy th "low income"/"moderate income" occupancy requirement? - Is the proposed sale price of all units beneath the $82,000 limit (adjusted for 5% annual inflation)? - Is the proposed second mortgage amount within the limit for specified house size? ------ 2.3.4 Urban Development Action Grant: - Is the proposed ratio of private fund to UDAG funds at least 2.5:1? —"— - .. Proposed ratio - Does the proposal limit this assistance to $15,000 per OQ residential unit? v - Does the proposed Grant Assistance equal 50% or less �J✓ of the total cost of development, including land ram' W acquisition?------- -11- sOuTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST REDEVELOPMENTPR03ECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: PARCEL 2. Proposed Financing Stratecri (Continued) No: I Yes: criteria Criteria Not No Satisfied, Satisfied Information, 2.3.5 Construction financing for homeownership housing: - Is the issuance of three-year revenue notes proposed? Does the developer propose to use this assistance to finance construction of a home ownership development? 2.3.6 Public Parking facilities: Does the developer propose to enter into a capital lease with the Department of Off -Street Parking which ensures an annual rental payment from the developer equal to the facility's debt service and operating costs less its operating revenues? 2.4 Conclusions as to the viability of the proposed financing strategy: bi -12- t #Ji m# SOUTHEAST OVERTOWWPARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PR03ECT , PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA r DEVELOPER. PARCEL c t _ 3. Project viability to demonstrate project viability appear reasonable? 3.1 Do the assumptions used Criteria ,., Satisfied? {. 3.1.1 Is the proposed rent schedule within the required limits to satisfy .. a low/moderate income occupancy goal? Proposed first year of occupancy Proposed Calculated Maximum Monthly Rent Monthly Rent Low Income Moderato Income 2 — t Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom x z 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom�.�.— Y, # '. 3.1.2 Oa the utility costs used to determine the monthly rent appear reasonable? Proposed Calculated Studio 1 Bedroom — •t. .f �7 Y �iy ..sL �.l 2 Bedroom __.---- 3 Bedroom k 4 Bedroom 3.1.3 Does the proposed commercial rental rate appear reasonable? r CA/ Proposed $/sq. ft. Historical cal $/sa, ft. -13- I "ilk '1 `T 43 1& j 4 I'l F, V11 "MI FT J SOUTHEAST OVERTnWWPAM WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: PARCEL 3. Project Viability (Continued) 3.1.4 How does the proposed rent escalation rate compare the historical rate for Dade Co.? Proposed escalation rate Dade County historical Inflation rate Expected Dade County future Inflation rate 3.1.5 How does the proposed occupancy rate compare to the historical rate for Dade Co.? Proposed Dade County Occupancy Historical Rate Occupancy Rate Year 1 Year 2 Thereafter 3.1.6 Does the proposed sale prices of the owner -occupied units appear reasonable? - Proposed first year of occupancy -Calculated Maximum Proposed Moderate Sale Price Low Income Income - Studio I Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom -14- Criteria, Satisfied? I NIP, � ems" ti VIM, r Lit ,P � J t.`� t iJ y ry{l�•�" SOUTHEAST OVERTOWWPARK NEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: PARCEL 3. Protect Viability (Continued) 3.1.7 Does the proposed sell out period appear reasonable? Period Sales per month * 3.1.8 Has a project management plan been developed? * 3.1.9 Does the proposed project implementation schedule appear attainable? 3.1.10 Does the proposed project expense include a contingency for cost overruns? 3.1.11 Has a provision for offstreet parking been included in this proposal? "� >O V ' -15►- Criteria Satisfied? ,¢ SOUTHEAST OVERTOWNlPARK NEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: zry ' PARCEL xf K 3. Project ViabllitY (Continued) r Criteria µ Satisfied? x+ Do the and results of the development pro Parma 3.1.12 assumptions Project appear reasonable? r y PTO Forma: Ct -16- E i t l i i ill l �I lI� Sapp allh ApI�'JI +�, a IIIt91�i'1 � SOUTHEAST OVERTOWWPARK WEST REOEVELOPMOT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: PARCEL 3. Project Viability (Continued) Criteria satisfied? 3.1.13 Do the assumptions and results of the project operating pro forma appear reasonable? Pro Forma: ti .-. � �r •:,.,.�4r.. wgn'x'ki^.'��.Y,y. ,...-� ...;I"-T.�', '�,�."!�m•en: r�,...eay, . ., 4 y J k„Kq XP + i PRELIMINARY EVALUATION VK.L Iu«r% pEVELQPER: PAfM 3, pro ect Viabilit (Continued) sed project: 3.2 CmclusionS as to the viability of the pTOp° 1 uu S) LV -le- x Y Y. �t4= � t = 4 CV tv SOUTHEAST OVERTOWNJPARK WEST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION CRITERIA DEVELOPER: PARCEL. 4. Project Return to LC it Present value of land lease payments 4.2 Anticipated incremental tax revenue (first full year of operation) * Please refer to computer printout on following page for documentation. 4.3 Does this project propose any adfdiittional please to the City which are not provided by competing proposals? 4.4 Conclusions as to project return to City. -19- i y Southeast avwtmw park unt ladevelopmed Propel Financial Evaludlon Impt Form KVBBUI PARIELs Lad Mt.-& ke"I Find paymmaku Year 1. Vow L Vow I Vow 4. Vow S. Land Law Variable S of Irm 11aln Or. 101 Lard Last Variable 5 of Grom hake W. We Laid Lam Variable s of (irons Sala (W. Pit Iaw Informations smidn"d Available Im Year First Available Same Tear first NwAd Sves Unit Omvpmy Sales wm OMUPM, Type UMIS bdfib" Vow 11hits SAW Price Vow Studio I kdrow bldrum Available Camcial squm fall Ardwal ft. Wear III RVPVAd Am"I bdal ftmid SAW s Available Commercial Commercial Price OWAOMY price units Ut Mee ampaicy Vw Emlation Wo Ewllaalom Sold EKalmlion FAIR ass 1916 Iw Yew s Year 60 Ninim Lad Lem Primentst Vow I Vow a Year 3 har 4 0 Escalations yr. 6# City of Nimi - Cost of Capitals Md" 0 Ol 1' ... L fwIWM OwtMl M am h*PA —INpd bta. b im clip D�w a-- M11Mb —_ YMw Yayrld a,. bKt bitMMld f-- ---1 SAW L� a*Irb blliil tlwl 111861111 uIlt ft" IN brld 14 Mal IN W MI ftPwft I N Y M art N N N N am N N N r tut N M N N art N N M N aMt N N N N art N w y y art N M N N am N y N N am y N M r to N M N N art N M M N art N N M N am M N y N am N N N N art N N N N art N N N N art N N N N to N N N N am N M N M art N M N M am N N N N am M N N N art N N N N am N M N N am N N N N am N r y N to N M M N art N N N N art N N N M am y y M N art N w N N am N M N r art N M M M N am N M N art r M M N am M N r N am N N N M art N N N N art N M N N art N N M N to N y y N art N M N N art N y N N to N y N N art N N N N tut N N M N am N N M N art w N N N art N larnmld to WI y tararal.l Ir lr + N YMtrd bbrblld MMpd 11" In/ ISM ft l" nod tar IN! hiss" wo-A b11Y1 {darts Ir It1-1 Tdo blrl m bM M NIrN 111 Iga+b FI YMPId +a all WW N ar w N w N alMflr N tit w M N N /rtlli r ar M N r N a1lILY N apt N N N N Mat N as N N N r afrlll N to N N M N &am N aN N N M r as" N to M N N N SOON M to N N M N &am N tr N N N r amu r ar w N N N &ANC M ait N N N r 971Nm N to N M N w aNiW N to N N N N aani N to N N N w tOtlm N to N w M N &dial N as N N N M att:Nt M tr N N N N al"M N ar N N N r &ILIW N to N M N N • ow, r to N N N r tlmli N ar N N N N aww N ON N N r N all" N ar M N N N 6110Oi! N tr N N N N &MMS N ar N N N M sum N as N N M N tOOfl w ar N r r N allow r to N N r N arum N to N N N N aunt to 416011111 N ♦r r N N N ILNIM! N ar w N N N &N16 M N r tOtir M as N N w aGMN N as N M N w UU341 M to N N N N air N aN N w w N &NNN N ar N- N M w arut► N ar N r N N &UMN N as N N M N artlr N r N N N N &UND y r N N N w aMir N to N N M w tNmY N w &Milo M ar r N N w to" N all, N r w M &mum N to N r w r &NON r as N r N N aNala N to N N N N awm is N 1.0 N N y N &am Ki Nutllt �i f 1M 1� /MtNN Ph=* Idt d Ieti lrrt 1Yla+t� YlNtldAMaa �.;.. .r A"^C -'•'rut r dlQh� 5 .�;�.. ! �i f I l°riZ'.+"f7^=�,y �+�t i II y'Iy��JII�r_�f�4 �^Y� 1 � 1;�1(t�i+>N„tM�f'+'r•5i�s'i°y `'_ �ItYa:. 4'r''S�S��y��:'1�'I�:'!Y'r�'�Y�i4ft��lt �ali�l/��lert t4 5 fj I� r sr Fw .� k sf t •i� 1V�,��1(�1}J{t41i� a.�+I!.;��� rd�♦�,!,dl,l-i �..,i„ I�il 1 Uj APPENDIX 1 - AFFORDABLE RENTAL MOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM CONSTRAINTS Family Size --e--- 1 2 3 a 5 6 7 8 Implied Impli Number of S-1 1-2 2-3 2-3 3-4 3-4 4 4 Low Income Families Implied 198 Rent 1983 (Maximum$ Maximum Including Annual Income Utilities) $149332 $358.30 $169371 $409.28 $18,4ll $460.28 $209450 $511.25 $21 J19 $542.98 $22,986 $574.65 $24,309 $607.73 $259578 $639.45 Moderate Income Families implied 1983 Rent (Maximum, Maximum Including. Annual Income Utilities) $269872 $671.80 $309695 $767.38 $34,520 $863.00' $38,343 $958.58 $40, 723 $11,01-8.08 $43,098 $19077.45 $451,579 $19139.48 $47,958 $1,198.95 Implied Maximum Rental Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 1983 Low Income Inc ud ng Excluding Utilities utilities* $358.30 $283.30 $409.28 $334.28 $511.25 $436.25 $574.65 $489.65 $639.45 $554.45 1983 Moderate Income Inc g Excluding utilities Utilities $671.80 $596.80 $767.38 $692.38 $958.58 $883.58 $19077.45 $992.45 $19198.55 $19113.55 *Based on $75 per month studio and 2 bedroom, $85 per month, 3-4 bedrooM. (Reference: City of Miami Economist, Florida Power & Light.) -20- 11) w. ;;;,. ��• liln+asi �aY��r'uxix+1'�j'ir Frs'r`"I"t 's fig' li'j`lP�laPiiF+zu,tkr�rR:,(iilr�r�. a.ard';3t : 's t !^' ,.7v r ' ---*a; ^+!%e �i"tle*.=>i'�J'�TSifi" ki'�,'K'{•' APPENDIX 2: IMPLIED MAXIMM RENTAL - 1983-1992 Low Income Studio $283.30 $297.50 $312.50 $328.00 $344.25 $361.50 $ 379.75 $398.75 $418.50 $439.50� 1 Br 334.28 351.00 368.50 387.00 406.25 426.75 448.00 470.50 493.25 518.50' 436.25 458.00 481.00 505.00 530.25 556.75 584.50 613.75 664.50 676.75 2 Br 489.65 514.25 539.75 566.75 595.25 625.00 656.25 689.00 723.50 759.50 3 Br 582.25 611.25 641.75 674.00 707.75 743.00 780.25 819.25 860.25 4 Br 554.45 Moderate Income $596.80 $626.75 $658.00 $690.75 $725.50 $761.75 $799.75 $839.75 $881.75 $925.75 Studio 692.38 727.00 763.25 801.50 .841.50 883.75 927.75 974.25 1,023.00 4074.00 1 Br 883.58 927.75 974.25 19022.75 1,074.00 19127.75 1,184.00 1,243.25 1005.% 1,370.75 2 Br 992.45 19042.00 19094.25 11148.75 19206.25 19266.75 1,330.00 1,396.50 1,466.25 19,539.50 3 Br 4 Br 10113.55 19169.25 19227.75 19289.00 19353.50 11421.25 1,492.25 1,566.75 10645.25 1,727.50 *1984 to 1992 figures are calculated based on 5% annual inflation. Op Data source: City of Miami Economist, average 1978-83 inflation rate of 5.2%. r� �.J" V -21- .,• y.v.. .ly;i �kLn,f7'+pil'uF;rk ° �''pq�yr' '.iak'`>+' .fir•.'�`I'�•� iwrA�'3'�r i'. .• APPENDIX 3 - IMPLIED MAXIMUM PURCHASE PRICE FOR OWNER OCCUPIED tNVITS r Low Income Moderate Income Maximum (1) Reqrd. 2 First Implied Avail. 5% Max. Max. Max. First Mortg. Implied First 3 Avail. Second 5% Down Max. Purchb House No. of Size People Maximum Income Mortg. First Payment Mor_ t9. Second Mortq. Down pymnt. Purch. Price Income Payment Mort -- MOTP2, PVmnt. Prica 1 Bdrm. 2 $16,371 $272.85 $26,525 $179500 $2,315 $469340 $30,695 $511.58 $49,735 $14,000 $3,355 $67,090 2 Bdrm. 4 209450 340.83 339135 25,000 3,060 61,195 38,343 639.05 62,125 20,000 4,325 86 l';i 3 Bdrm. 6 229986 383.10 37,245 300000 3,535 709080 439098 718.30 69,830 241,000 4,940 98,770 4 Bdrm. 8+ 25,578 426.30 41,445 35,000 41025 809470 47,958 799.30 77,705 28',000 5065 I11,271D Implied Maximum Average Project Purchase Price: 1 Bedroom $560715 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 731,822 84,775 ($82,000) 4 Bedroom 959870 ($829000) Note: Above analysis based on second mortgage availability criteria. - Loan limit = $200000Jfemily - Monthly payments on first mortgage must equal 20% of gross income - Total property indebtedness limited to 95% of purchase price - No less than 50% of available finds must benefit plow income" owners - Maximum purchase price of $82#000 (1) Refer to Page D-21 (2) Based on a 30-year, 12% fixed interest loan (3) Based on average of maximum mortgage amounts available to the following income ranges: c 81% - loot of median j 101% - 120% of median 121% - 140% of median "? (4) Average of low and modarate income maximum purchase prices W -22- of ' APPENDIX 4: IMPLIED MAXIM M PURCMASE PRICE - 1983-1992 Low Income . "_".."" . ---- 87 1� 1 1_. 1992 ._ 1 Or 46,300 48,700 519100 53,600 56,300 599100 629100 629200 68,500, 71,900' 2 8r 619195 649255 679470 709840 74,380 789100 829000 86,100 909,400 94,900 3 8r 70,800 739600 779300 819100 859200 89,400 93,900 98,600 103,500 108,700 J 4 Or 809470 849500 88,700 939200 9798W 10297W 107,800 113,200 118,900 124,800 Moderate Income 1 8r 679090 709400 74,000 771,700 819500 850600 899900 94,400 99'1,100 10471w ' 2 Or 86,450 9098W 959300 1009100 1059100 110,300 115,90or 1211,600 127,700 1341pI00 3 Or 989770 103,700 1089900 1149300 1209100 126,100 132,400 1391,000 145,9tXI 153,225 4 8r 1119270 1169800 1229700 1289800 1359300 1429000 1499100 156,600 164,400 172,600E -23- r r: Y a :'arii;t�'"°3q�rt�i'�il'11