Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-84-0585CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and DATE: May 18, 1984 FILE - Members of the City Commission SUBJECT: Lease Agreement for Bay - si de Specialty Center City Commission Meet - FROM: Howard V. GarREFERENCES: ing May 24, 1984 City Manager ENCLOSURES: Resolution, Lease It is recommended that the City Commission authorize the City Manager to execute a Lease Agreement, in substantially the form attached and with the under- standing that a Parkin Garage Management and Con- struction Agreement with the Department of Off -Street Parking and additional exhibits to this Agreement will be brought before the Commission for approval, between the City of 11il=mi and Laysi..de _Limited Partnership on behal.fof Rou;;e ili mi, ine. an affiliate of�Tlic Rouse Con n of Columbia, 11j<aryland for the l)lann rie and de- sl n CUn.'tructioI1 leasing and 111anagellient of a water- front .;pc:ci.al.ty center to lac 1cnown as "Ba side Specialt.;y_Centerll _-llocated on aCity-owned land parcel containing approximately sixteen acres and adjacent to Biscayne Boulevard and hiiamarina and <a portion of Bay - front Park, subject to the condition that the terms of the contract result in a fair return to the City based on t-wo independent appraisals and comps with require- ments for the commercial use and management of the City's waterfront property as set forth in the City Charter. The City Commission by Resolution No.83-1164, dated December 15, 1983, authorized the City Manager to negotiate a Lease Agreement with The Rouse Company for planning and design, construction, leasing and management of a waterfront specialty center to be known as "Bayside Specialty Center." The Rouse Company and I have negotiated in good faith the attached agreement in the record time of five months. No other Rouse specialty center agreement has been negotiated in less than one year. It took the City of New York three years to negotiate its agreement with The Rouse Copany for the Southstreet Seaport Specialty Center. While the Parking Garage Management and Construction Agreement between Rouse and the City's Department of Off -Street Parking remains to be brought before you for approval, the process is well along and, based on everyone's dedicated efforts as demonstrated to date, the agreement should be submitted for approval at the June, 1984 Commission meeting. h i 1 Page (2) l j g Summary of the Lease Agreement Terms and Project Goals The Bayside Specialty Center will be developed by Bayside Limited Partnership, a Maryland Limited Partnership including Rouse Miami, Inc., an affiliate of The Rouse Company and local investors, Armando Codina, Ronald E. Frazier, Raul Masvidal and Garth Reeves. r Bayside will include approximately 200,000 square feet of new f retail space for an estimated 200 merchants in addition to the i existing Miamarina Restaurant facility refurbished as an integral part of the improvements. A minimum 1200 space parking garage will be located on the site of the existing Bayfront; Municipal Auditorium terraced and landscaped to fit the project's park setting. The approximately 16 acre site bounded by Biscayne Boulevard, Port Boulevard and Biscayne Bay surrounds Mliamarina and includes a 2.06 acre port ion of Bayfront; Park. Shopping pavillions and an open market area ;Iurround and facc the marina. Bayfront Park and the B ay�,,alk is extend(ld aJ.ong the pier and pedi,.stri ran acc(?,`;.;, i:, pro\'idedi to tileir proposed amphitheatre and water taxi rotation piers. l riy: itic i. ; do.signed to accommodate and support major downtown suoh as the Miami Grand Prix and Bayfront Park feratival.s. Bayside will provide an estimated 1000 permanent jobs, plu:� the additional employment opportunities created by an 18 month construction period. The Rouse Company has set a minority business goal of 50% of the tenant merchants. Bayside represents an estimated investment of $93,000,000 including $72,000,000 in private capital for the retail facilities, a $1,000,000 cash contribution for Bayfront Park improvement $16,000,000 in parking revenue bonds and a $4,000,000 City contribution for infrastructure improvements. In addition, Bayside Speciality Center will require and be °? dependent upon the completion of the Bayfront Park ' amphitheatre, Baywalk and portions of the park adjacent to the i project site. The Rouse Company and the City will submit an application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for an Urban Development Action Grant for funds sufficient to complete these improvement in order to make the Ma project whole. MoTiOIJ5114 t Page (3) 1 Summary of Terms . A lease period of 45 years plus two 15 year options. . Rental payments to the City include: A minimum guaranteed rent of $325,000 for the first 2 full calendar years; $650,000 for the next 4 full calendar years; $1,000,000 through year 35 or 35% of Net Income Available for Distribution whichever is greater. Net Income Available for Distribution is the total operating income of the project from all sources), less operating expenses, debt service and an amount equal to 10% of the Developer's Equity Investment. The minimum guaranteed rent for year 36 through 45 will be increased to the average rental paid in years 33, 34 and 35 j (should such average rental be ,greater then the minimum guaranteed rent). Rent for the initial partial year 1986 will be a monthly amortization of the $325,000 annual payment. ! The minimum guaranteed rent for the two additional 15 year option periods will be negotiated prior to each option period and will be based upon the average rental paid in each of the three years previous to the renewal date. An additional annual rent of $50,000 will be paid for retail space available at the base of the Noguchi light tower structure to be built in Bayfront Park. An annual payment to the City or to a Minority Foundation to be formed of $100,000 or 10% of net cash available for distribution whichever is greater. A payment to the City of $3,650,000 of which $2,650,00 is to be used to buy out the existing lease agreement between the City and Restaurant Associates for Reflections Restaurant and $1,000,000 is a cash contribution to Bayfront Park. The following development schedule is required by the agreement and is conditioned on the City meeting its — o key schedule requirements: June 30, 1984 Fully negotiated documentation. October 30, 1984 City approval of financing February 28, 1985 City approval of Construction Documents March 10, 1985 Completion of landfill by Corps of Engineers, Demolition of Bayfront Auditorium and Rouse possession of site. May 15, 1985 Commence Construction October 3, 1986 Open for Public and Rent Commencement Date MOV oN s 84- 585 filk Y a r Page (4) The Rouse Company anticipates opening October 31, 1986 and is guaranteeing completion. Rental payments commence on October 31, 1986 unless delay is shown to be caused by the City or to have been beyond control of the Developer. . The Agreement includes a non -compete clause for Dade and Broward County and a non -assignment clause for a period of 71/2 years from opening. The Agreement assumes compliance with all requirements of City Charter.There is specific reference to waterfront public access, view corridor and setback. . Grand Prix is provided for by course route thru site and requirements of Miami Motorsports Agreement. . Requirement for Art in Public Places is of 1/2 of 1% of construction funds. Leased area is to be maintained by Developer in condition comparable to standards of a first class center. The City is to maintain certain park and public areas surrounding; site to comparable standard. City improvements to include: Landfill, baywalk and water -taxi pier adjacent to leased area Infrastructure improvements valued at $4,000,000, and a minimum 1200 space parking garage. City Department of Off -Street Parking will fund, construct and manage the parking garage. Developer will design the garage and fund any deficit in start up years to be recouped from future profits. Profits to be shared equally between Off-street Parking and Developer. Agreement does not include the Developer paying damages to New -World Marinas for business interruption caused by the Port bridge construction. Will require Port/City agreement to be changed whereby City will be responsible for any such payments. May I also draw to your attention that the Lease Agreement will be presented to the Board of Directors of The Rouse Company on Thursday, May 24, 1984 for consideration and approval at the same time as it is being considered by the Miami City Commission. It is recommended that the Lease Agreement be approved, in substantially the form attached, and that I be authorized to execute the agreement upon Commission approval of the garage agreement and exhibits to the Bayside Specialty Center Lease Agreement. movows 84-585 &Lybrand certified public a000untants Mr. David Weaver Chairman Bayside Review Committee c/o Intercap Investments 800 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Dear Mr. Weaver: 1 S. E. 3rd Avenue (AmeriFirst 13uftng) Suite M Miami, Florida 33131 telephone (305) 35"363 May 23, 1984 In principal erects of the world In response to your request, we have reviewed the methodology contained in the April 30, 1984 "Proposed Language For Annual Rental Payments To The City; Bayside Specialty Agreement With Rouse Coiiipany. 11 It that the new formula provides the City with returns greater than those offered in the original Rouse 'Plan B I i,chile retaining the low risk features of the original Rouse 'Plan A'. Our analysis was constrained in four ways: - The model constructed for review of the original proposals was used as the basis for this analysis. Rental Income in the original proposals was estimated to increase at a stable rate of 7% per annum beginning in the fourth full year of operation. - The review of the returns was restricted to revenues generated by the Specialty Center without Parking Revenues and without considering returns to the Foundation. - Estimates of sales, expenses and revenues contained in the original Rouse proposal were used in order to compare the original proposals (A and B) to the current proposal. 4 j p avow p�� a=urrW is 1 S. E. 3rd Avenue in principgl areas d the world Coo&L p�'t'Sd w Suite 29 B n9) y sine 2soo Miami, Florida 33131 telephone (305) 35B-M May 23, 1984 Mr. David Weaver Chairman Bayside Review Committee c/o Intercap Investments 800 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Dear Mr. Weaver: In response to your request, we have reviewed the methodology contained in the April 30, 1984 "Proposed Language For Annual Rental To The City; Bayside Specialty Agreement With Rouse Company." It appears tl)at the ncnq forriula provides the City with returns greater than those Offered in the original Rouse 'Plan B I while retaining the loan risl: features of the original Rouse 'Plan A'. Our analysis was constrained in four ways: The model constructed for review of the original proposals was used as the basis for this analysis. Rental Income in the original proposals was estimated to increase at a stable rate of 7% per annum beginning in the fourth full year of operation. - The review of the returns was restricted to revenues generated by the Specialty Center without Parking Revenues and without considering returns to the Foundation. - Estimates of sales, expenses and revenues contained in the original Rouse proposal were used in order to compare the original proposals (A and B) to the current proposal. MOT I ON 84-5 84585 . i Mr. David Weaver Chairman Bayside Review Committee Page Two Only the first fifteen years of the project were analyzed under the various alternatives. This period for analysis was considered adequate as all cost and revenue variables are assumed to have stabilized during this period and this period is sufficient for illustrating the magnitude of the differences between the proposals. The current proposal stipulates that guaranteed base rent will be $325, 000 in years 1 & 2; 4650,000 in years 3 through 6; and $1, 000, 000 in years 7 through 35 (and during subsequent option years, if opti.onS are exerci.sed ). In addition, the proposal provides for the City to receive a 357, ;share of the net cash flow available for distribution (less guaranteed base rent). In return for this higher guaranteed base and greater share in net cash flow, the Rouse Company has proposed a formula allowing them to recover capital required to meet the guaranteed base rent in years when this guarantee exceeds 35% of the net cash flow available for distribution. Under this proposal, an interest earning, cumulative account would be created. This account would have the following features: - A positive balance would occur when 35% of net cash flow minus the guaranteed base rent is negative; that is, when the guaranteed base rent exceeds a 35� share of net cash flow. Positive balances in this account would earn interest at 11% per annum. ©T ® pj84-584 84- 85 0 Mr. David Weaver Chairman Bayside Review Committee Page Three - In years when a 35% share of net cash flow exceeds the guaranteed base rent, the cumulative account would be reduced. - When the cumulative account reaches zero, the City would then receive the difference between the guaranteed base rent and a 35� share of net cash flow. During the fifteen year study period, our -analysis indicates the following reoults (expres,,ed i.n terms of net present values assuming a 1.07 di.:.,count factor and expr°essed in 1000's ): - Proposal 'A' -L.s estimated to result in returns to the City valued at $5, 396• Of this amount, $4, 944 would be in the form of guaranteed base rent, $452 would depend on distri- butions from net cash flow. - Proposal 'B' is estimated to result in returns to the City valued at $7, 370. Of this amount, $1,902 would be in the form of guaranteed base rent, $5,468 would depend on distributions from net cash flow. - The April 30, 1984 Proposal is estimated to result in returns to the City valued at $7,626. Of this amount, $5, 518 would be in the form of guaranteed base rent, $2,108 would depend on distributions from net cash flow. MOT 1 o pp84-584 84 585 WWI Mr. David Weaver Chairman Bayside Review Committee Page Four It should be noted that the returns from the new proposal would become increasingly more favorable after the first fifteen years as the percent of net cash flow becomes increasingly more important under all three proposals. Also, it should be noted that this analysis is neutral (within a wide range of values) in regards to the discount rate that is used in calculating net present values . The new proposal presents the City with an option that appears significantly better than either of the tiro original proposals both in terms of maximizing overall returns and in ziiinimizing risk (that is, maximizing the guaranteed return component). We trust that this information serves your purposes. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Sharon C. Brown, Partner in our Miami Office. Very truly yours, Ode 100"Oftd.0 84-�584 moTiopjs 8- 585 Mr. David Weaver Chairman Bayside Review Committee Page Four It should be noted that the returns from the new proposal would become increasingly more favorable after the first fifteen years as the percent of net cash flow becomes increasingly more important under all three proposals. Also, it should be noted that this analysis is neutral (within a wide range of values) in regards to the discount rate that is used in calculating net present values . The new proposal presents the City with an option that appears significantly better than either of the tiro original proposals both in terms of maximizing overall returns and in ziiinimizing risk (that is, maximizing the guaranteed return component). We trust that this information serves your purposes. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Sharon C. Brown, Partner in our Miami Office. Very truly yours, Ode 100"Oftd.0 84-�584 moTiopjs 8- 585 Comparison °fRouse Returnspto Proposals For Calculati (5000's) Year Base Plan 'A' Cash Flow Tota Rent Return Return 1 650 0 650 2 650 0 650 3 650 0 650 4 650 0 650 5 650 0 650 6 650 0 650 7 650 0 650 8 650 0 650 9 650 0 650 10 650 0 650 11 650 94 744 12 650 205 855 13 650 325 975 14 650 452 11,102 15 650 589 1,239 NPV(1) 4 t994 452 5,396 Flan °B' 'Base Rent as taw Return ota Return 250 0 250 250 0 250 250 0 250 250 191 441 250 341 591 250 516 766 250 703 953 250 903 1,153 250 1,117 19367 250 1,346 11,596 250 1,590 1,840 250 1,851 2,101 250 2,130 2,380 250 2,427 2,677 250 2,_ 2,995 1,902 5,468 7,370 (i)NPV - Net present value based on a 10% discount factor 4-30-84 Plan -Base Rent as °�' Return Return 325 0 325 325 0 325 650 0 650 650 0 650 650 0 650 650 0 650 1,000 0 19000 1,000 0 19000 1,000 0 1,OOo 1, 000 0 1,000 1,000 83 1,083 1,000 19183 29183 1,000 1,480 2,480 1,000 1,798 21,798 1 {�00 2,138 3,138 59518 2,108 71,626 D CITY OF M 4ff -- BAYSBE PM= B:BAY 11-B �. F7NACIAL Pf =CW OF ANNUAL RENTAL 70 RE CM AS OF MAY 22, 1W, 4 (000's C=) PRQJFI✓'TED ANNUAL NCT CTTY'S 70TAL CTIY'S REM PER CAS AVAIIAIIE PAMCIPATION ANNUAL DLL M ACRE (2 ) RENTAL IN(1 m CITY' S Em IN NET 1NOM CITY YEAR YEAR # (1) MR RENT TILSIR=CN U%U MSE RENTAL pm E AMOUNT pum 1986 0 3,233 163 379 0 163 $41 4% 1967 1 14,797 325 124 0 325 81 99 1988 2 16,398 325 556 0 325 81 7% 1989 3 17,797 650 970 0 650 163 13% 1990 4 19,083 650 1,440 0 650 163 1.2% 1991 5 20,467 650 1,942 30 650 163 11% 1992 6 21,956 650 2,479 218 650 163 1C17. 1993 7 23,560 1,000 2,789 0 1,000 250 157. :?A 8 25,288 1,000 3,401 190 1,000 250 14% 1995 9 271148 1,000 4,055 419 1,000 250 13% 1996 10 29,151 1,000 4,753 663 1,000 250 1z% 1997 11 31,483 1,000 5,664 982 1,266 317 14% 1998 12 34,002 1,000 6,647 1,327 2,327 582 237. 1999 13 36,722 1,000 7,710 1,698 2,698 675 2-V. 2000 14 39,650 1,000 8,857 2,100 3,100 775 267 2001 15 42,3�2 1,000 10,096 2,534 3,534 8B'+ 29. 2002 16 46,259 1,000 11,435 3,002 4,002 1,001 297 2003 17 49, 9?-.,0 1,000 12,880 3,503 4, 503 1,127 3017. 2004 18 53,9:j 1,000 14,441 4,054 5,OS'4 l,Zc/4 39. ,�-r)5 19 53,273 1,000 16,127 4,6'/45 5,645 1,411 33% 6 20 62,935 1,000 17,948 5,282 6,2r32 1,571 340 21 67,970 1,000 19,914 5,970 6,970 1,743 35% 2J0g 22 73,407 1,000 22,038 6,713 7,713 1,928 357 2009 23 79,280 1,000 24,332 7,516 8,516 2,L29 357. 2010 24 85,622 1,090 26,809 8,383 9,333 2,346 37% 2011 25 92,472 1,000 29,485 9,320 10,320 2,590 387 2012 26 99,870 1,000 32,374 10,331 11,331 2,833 387. 2013 27 107,859 1,000 35,494 11,423 12,423 3,105 397. 2014 28 116,488 1,000 38,865 12,603 13,603 3,401 39% 2015 29 125,807 1,000 42,504 13,877 14,877 3,719 4CP. 2016 30 135,872 1,000 46,435 15,252 16,252 4,063 4Cf. 2017 31 146,741 1,000 50,681 16,738 17,738 4,435 41% 2018 32 L58,481 1,000 55,266 18,343 19,343 4,836 41% 2019 33 171,159 1,000 60,218 20,076 21,076 5,269 42% 2020 34 184,852 1,000 65,566 21,948 22,948 5,737 42% 2021 35 199,640 1,000 71,342 23,970 24,970 6,243 427. 2022 Xi 215,611 1,000 61,061 26,153 27,153 6,788 437 2023 37 232,860 1,000 67,819 28,511 29,511 7,378 437. 2024 38 251,489 1,000 75,095 31,058 32,058 8,015 43% 2025 39 271,60B 1,000 82,953 33,250 34,806 8,702 437. 2026 40 293,337 1,000 91,439 36,079 37,778 9,445 43% 2027 41 316,803 1,000 100,605 39,135 40,986 10,247 W. 2028 42 342,148 1,000 110,504 42,434 44,451 11,113 44% 2029 43 369,520 1,000 121,195 45,998 48,193 12,048 447. 2030 44 399,051 1,000 132,741 49,846 52,234 13,059 447 2031 45 431,008 1,000 145,211 54,003 56,598 14,150 44% ADMMATE VALUE CiF CTIY'S ANNUAL IN03C - $:667,062 PIZMT VALUE OF CM'S AMTIIA. INME @ l(K = $31,501 (1) Based on Rouse Proposal throgh 19%, and 9% ire derrsfter. (2) Developrant will occur on four (4) acres of Bayfront Park, valued at $1,000,000. per acre. MOT i ()pj.584-584 84-580. " ;L1 asesasaasasaaasaa.a.staaaaa asassaa.ass.sscRs.casaa.et:.et.ecRica.:sctistcRa.sarQResaQsaotRcansasa..s CITY OF MIAMI - BAYSIDE PROJECT B%BAY-11-A FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS OF ANNUAL RENTAL TO THE CITY AS OF MAY 22, 1984 (000's OMITTED) a■ f i a R R .. a R R. R. R a ... a R R .. a R Q a a R R a R R R R Q li R a R. E i a Q i a a R LR i. Q a t Q a a E t Q R Q R R Q lI Q. t t. R E t1� Q a R R t. O• i lQ@ S fF a Q R i i R R PROJECTED ANNUAL NET CITY'S TOTAL CITY'S RETURN PER GROSS CITY'S AVAILABLE PARTICIPATION ANNUAL DEVELOPED ACRE 13) RENTAL INCOME BASE RENT FOR IN NET INCOME CITY - ' YEAR YEAR 4 (1) (2) DISTRIBUTION OVER BASE RENTAL INCOME -------- AMOUNT PERCENT ---------------- ---- 1986 ------ 0 ----------------- 3,233 163 ----------------------------- -379 0 163 641 41 1987 1 14,797 325 124 0 325 81 81 2 16,398 325 556 0 325 81 81 1t: 3 17,797 656 970 0 650 163 13% 135J 4 19,083 650 1,440 0 650 163 12% 1591 5 20,467 650 1,942 30 650 163 lit 1992 6 21,956 650 2,479 218 650 163 101 .1993 7 23,560 1,000 2,789 0 1,000 250 15% -1994 8 25,288 1,000 3,401 190 1,000 250 141 1995 9 27,148 1,000 4,055 419 1;000 250 131 1996 10 29,151 1,000 4,753 663 1,000 250 121 1997 11 31,463 1,000 5,664 982 1,266 317 14% 1998 12 34,002 1,000 6,647 1,327 2,327 5C2 231 1999 13 36,122 1,000 7,710 1,698 2,69C 675 251 2000 14 3e,660 1,000 8,857 2,100 3,100 775 26% 2001 15 42,G32 1.,000 10,096 2,534 3,534 C64 28% 2002 16 46,75" 3.,000 11,435 3,002 4,002 1,003. 29% "3 17 49,960 l'000 12,880 3,508 4,500 1,127 30% 18 53,956 3,000 14,441 4,054 5,054 1,264 32% 19 5S,273 1,000 16,127 4,645 5,645 3,41). 33% :,,U6 20 62,935 1,000 17,948 5,262 6,282 1,57) 34% 2007 21 67,970 1,000 19,914 5,970 6,970 1,743 35% 2008 22 73,407 1,000 22,038 6,713 7,713 1,926 35% 2009 23 79,260 1,000 24,332 7,516 8,516 2,129 36% 2010 24 85,622 1,000 26,809 8,383 9,383 2,346 37% 2011 25 92,472 1,000 29,485 9,320 10,320 2,560 38% 2012 26 99,870 1,000 32,374 10,331 11,331 2,633 38% 2013 27 107,859 1,000 35,494 11,423 12,423 3,106 39% 2014 28 116,488 1,000 38,865 12,603 13,603 3,01 391 2015 29 125,807 1,000 42,504 13,677 14,877 3,719 40% 2016 30 135,872 1,000 46,435 15,252 16,252 4,063 40% 2017 31 146,741 1,000 50,681 16,738 17,738 4,435 411 '^18 32 158,481 1,000 55,266 t8,343 19,343 4,836 41% _9 33 171,159 1,000 60,218 20,076 21,076 5,269 42% -.o 34 184,852 1,000 65,566 21,948 22,948 5,737 42% 2021 35 199,640 1,000 71,342 23,970 24,970 ------- 6,243 ------- 42% ------- -------- AGGREGATE --------------- VALUE OF CITY'S ANNUAL • -------- INCOME a $263,292 aaasasat PRESENT VALUE OF CITY'S ANNUAL INCOME 9 10% a $23,971 ataaaaa (1) Based on Rouse Proposal through 1996, and 81 increase thereafter. (2) Base Rental is increased in Year 436 to the Average of the previous three years. (3) Development will occur on four (4) acres of Bayfront Park, valued at $1,000,000. per acre. FMANa& MY GF MLAMi - MYSIDE PFD= B:BAY11-$ PRO== OF AMUAL RINTAL TO THE CTIY AS OF MY 22, M (O00's Cl2 M) r PRQII1vIED ANNUAL NET MY'S TOTAL CITY'S RERTNt PEP, CRCGS AVADAU PARTIC1 TATION ANNUAL, DFV- Cn-,-D A (2) RENTAL 1NME (MIS FUZ IN NET BMIE Cm YEAR YEAR # (1) BASS FM DISDdBMCN OU BASE MNiAL INMdE .A41NT MEW 1%6 0 3,233 163 379 0 163 $41 4% 4% 1987 1 14,797 325 124 0 325 81 87 9 198E 2 16,398 325 5% 0 325 81 7% E% 1989 3 17,797 650 970 0 650 163 m 19 1990 4 19,OS3 650 1,440 0 650 163 12% 16% 1991 5 20,467 650 1,942 30 650 163 11% 16% 1992 6 21,956 650 2,479 218 650 163 10% 167. 1993 7 23,560 1,000 2,789 0 1,000 250 15% 259 1994 8 25,288 1,000 3,401 190 1,000 250 NT. 25% 1995 9 27,148 1,000 4,055 419 1,000 250 m 25% i996 10 29,151 1,000 4,753 663 1,000 250 12z 25% 3997 11 31,483 1,000 5,664 982 1,266 317 14% 32% 1998 12 34,002 1,000 6,647 1,327 2,327 582 2r/ 58% 1999 13 35,722 1,000 7,710 1,698 2,698 675 25✓. 67% 2000 14 39,650 1,000 8,857 2,100 3,100 775 267 78% "1 15 42.,832 1,000 10,0% 2,534 3,5-T4 SC-114 291: 85.1 2002 1.6 46,259 1,000 11,435 3,002 4,002 I'm 2� IOTI. 20M 17 49, 9�n- 1,000 12,880 3,503 4, _ 3 1,327 4-i-1, IL5 o 2M4 1.8 53,95u 1,Ox 14,441 4,OY4 5,0-v4 I, 3:;'.%: 126% 2005 19 58,273 3,000 16,127 4,645 5, 614.3 ),1411 3' >* 1417. 2006 20 62, 935 1,000 17, %B 5,282 G,' l? 1, 5 71 34c 157% 007 21 67,970 1,000 19,914 5,970 G,97o 1,7b3 3_iI 174% ;AM 22 73,407 1,000 22,038 6,713 7,733 3,9713 3`T, 193% 2009 23 79,28) 1,000 24,332 7,516 8,536 2, 12? 3(ii� 2M 2010 24 a5,622 1,000 26,809 8,383 9,K3 2,346 37- a1z 2011 25 92,472 1,000 29,485 9,320 10,320 2,590 35✓ 25a% 2012 26 99,870 1,000 32,374 10,331 11,331 2,833 3Ea 283� 2013 27 107,859 1,000 35,494 11,423 12,423 3,106 39ro 311% 2014 28 116,488 1,000 38,865 12,603 13,603 3,401 39% 34C. 2015 29 125,807 1,000 42,504 13,877 14,877 30719 4C2 372% 2016 30 135,872 1,000 46,435 15,252 16,252 4,053 4C1f. 406% 2017 31 146,741 1,000 50,681 16,738 17,738 4,435 41% 443% 2018 32 158,481 1,000 55,256 18,343 19,343 4,635 417. 484% 2a19 33 171,159 1,000 60,218 20,076 21,076 5,269 42% 527% 2020 34 184,852 1,000 65,%6 21,948 22,948 5,737 4V 574% 2C121 35 199,640 1,000 71,342 23,970 24,970 6,243 42.% 6247. 2022 35 215,611 1,000 61,081 26,153 77,153 6,788 43% 679% 2023 37 232,860 1,000 67,819 28,511 29,511 7,378 432 738% 2024 38 251,489 1,000 75,095 31.058 32,058 8,015 4�E 801.% 2025 39 271,608 1,000 82,953 33,250 34,E 8,7M 432 87C1. 2026 40 293,337 1,000 91,439 35,079 37,778 9,445 4� 9= 2027 41 316,803 1,000 100,605 39,135 40,9% 10,247 44 1,02 2028 42 342,148 1,000 110,504 42,434 44,451 11,113 4,V, 1,111.% 2029 43 359,520 1,000 121,195 45,998 48,193 12,C148 44a 1,M5% 2030 44 399,081 1,000 D2, 741 49, 846 52,234 13, M9 447 1,309. 2031 45 431,00B 1,000 145,211 54,003 56,5% 14,150 44% 1,4= A+MMAM VAUE (r C;M"S hN'.1J'iIAL ,Oa-2) FREW VAUIE, a' MY'S Mgli AL 13UTE, @ 1CK L $31,501 (1) Based on Rouse Propel tluuugh 1996, and 8% uicrease tYier-eaftff. (2) Develop mt will occur on four (4) acres of Beyfront hark, valued at $1,000,000. per acre. 3 0 O cc M t fr+rrraf afaaaaa taaaatatmafaam afl�=rt\!tltmmtatstamammam m-' -mmmattmataaaamaafa ranYasaaaaaaaalsaafasaaaffa CITY OF MIAMI - BAYS. OJ£CT B:BAY-11-A FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS OF ANNUAL :r. TO THE CITY AS OF MAY 22, 1984 (000's OMITTED) sfaafaafaaatasa a aatatamtamattlftlttmtasas saasaaasamaasa:alsatma aaa=naaa l:aaasafa PROJECTED ANNUAL NET CIT?'S TOTAL CITY'S RETURN PER GROSS CITY'S AVAILABLE PARTICIPrATIO'l ANNUAL DEVELOPED ACRE (3) RENTAL INCOME BASE RENT FOR IN DIET INCOME CITY ------------------- YEAR YEAR 4 DISTRIBUTION OVER BASE RENTAL INCOME AMOUNT PERCENT ---- 1986 ------ 0 ---(1)-- 3,233 ---(2)--- 163 -379 0 163 $41 - 41 41 1987 1 14,797 325 124 0 325 81 8% 81 1988 2 16,398 325 556 0 325 81 81 81 1989 3 17,797 650 970 0 650 163 13% 16% 1990 4 19,083 650 1,440 0 650 163 12% 161 1991 5 20,467 650 1,942 30 650 163 111 16% 1992 6 21,956 650 2,479 218 650 163 101 161 1993 7 23,560 1,000 2,789 0 1,000 250 15% 251 1994 8 25,288 1,000 3,401 190 1,000 250 14% 251 1995 9 27,148 1,000 4,055 419 1,000 250 131 25% 1996 10 29,151 1,000 4,753 663 1,000 250 121 251 1997 11 31,483 1,000 5,664 982 1,266 317 14% 32% 1998 12 34,002 1,000 6,647 1,327 2,327 582 231 581 1999 13 36,722 1,000 7,710 1,698 2,698 675 25% 67% 2000 14 39,660 1,000 8,857 2,100 3,100 775 26% 78% 2001 15 42,832 1,000 10,096 2,534 3,534 884 281 881 2002 16 46,259 1,000 11,435 3,002 4,002 1,001 29% 1001 2003 17 49,960 1,000 12,880 3,508 4,508 1,127 30% 1131 2004 18 53,956 1,000 14,441 4,054 5,054 1,264 32% 126% 2005 19 58,273 1,000 16,127 4,645 5,645 1,411 33% 141% 2006 20 62,935 1,000 17,948 5,282 6,282 1,571 341 157% 2007 21 67,970 1,000 19,914 5,970 6,970 1,743 351 174% 2008 22 73,407 1,000 22,038 6,713 7,713 1,928 35% 1931 2009 23 79,280 1,000 24,332 7,516 8,516 2,129 36% 213% 2010 24 85,622 1,000 26,809 8,383 9,383 2,346 371 2351 2011 25 92,472 1,000 29,485 9,320 10,320 2,580 384 2581 2012 26 99,870 1,000 32,374 10,331 11,331 2,933 381 2831 2013 27 107,859 1,000 35,494 11,423 12,423 3,106 39% 3111 2014 28 116,488 1,000 38,865 12,603 13,603 3,401 39% 3401 2015 29 125,807 1,000 42,504 13,877 14,877 3,719 40% 3721 2016 30 135,872 1,000 46,435 15,252 16,252 4,063 40% 4061 2017 31 146,741 1,000 50,681 16,738 17,738 4,435 41% 4431 2018 32 158,481 1,000 55,266 18,343 19,343 4,836 411 4841 2019 33 171,159 1,000 60,218 20,076 21,076 5,269 421 5271 2020 34 184,852 1,000 65,566 21,948 22,948 5,737 42% 5741 2021 35 199,640 1,000 71,342 23,970 24,970 6,243 421 6241 ------- --------------- AGGREGATE VALUE -------- OF CITY'S ANNUAL -------- INCOME a ------- $263,292 ------- PRESENT VALUE OF CITY'S ANNUAL INCOKZ @ 101 t a amamta! $23,971 aaaa::! (1) Based on Rouse Proposal through 1996, and 81 increase thereafter. (2) Base Rental is increased in Year #36 to the Average of the previous three years. (3) Development will occur on four (4) acres of Bayfront Park, valued at $1,000,000. per acre. •.em. ,r f% CfR/CT/G.f 201 AFFIDAVIT UNDER FICTITIOUS NAME �l A ll-}7E T` �A l ST11\ 1 C)i FI.C)IllW �s: fn1 1 r:c)11NTY OF 0AUI. The undersigned, under oath, says; It is the intention of the undersigned to engage in a business V` enterprise under-BAYSIDE fictitious name of BAYSIDE SPECIALTY CENTER hwaled at _MIAMARINA or 5th Street and Biscayne Boti]_evard in the city of __ Miami , Dade County, Florida. Those interested in said enterprise, and the extent of the interest of each, is as follows: Print or type name q Interest CITY OF MIAMI By 100% Signature -- Howard Gar Address City Manag APPROVED AS TO FORM & CORRECTNESS: Signature se arcia-Pedrosa it Attorney_ _ r Sworn t10 and subscribed to before, me, at day of _. ) e , 19 8,f f MIAMI REVIEW AND DAILY RECORD Published Daily except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays Miami, Dade County, Florida. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DADE: Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Dianna Stuver, who on oath says that she Is the Assistant to the Publisher of the Miami Review and Daily Record, a daily (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) newspaper, published at Miami in Dade County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Legal Advertisement of Notice In the matter of Fictitious Name BAYSIDE SPECIALTY =ZTER In the ......... X. - X . ....................... Cour% was published In said newspaper In the Issues of Aug 5,12,19,26, 1983 Affiant further says that the said tAlaml Review and Daily Record Is a newspaper publistfad at Miami In said Dade County, Florida, end that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Dacia County, Florida, each day (except Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays) and has been entered as second ciabs mull matter at the post office in Miami in said Dada County. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first pubilcsaon at Ihs attached copy of advertisement; and affianl further says that she has neither paid rwr promised arty porbort, ftmt or corporsban arty discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adverisemant for publication in the said newapbpsr. �.i .V(.. �....... ..�. .A. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 26thAuto day of .r. ...... ....... .A.D. 19.3.3 .,... Tema Franco Notary Public, State of Florida at Large (SEAL) My Commission expires Dec. 21, 1985. MR 130 Address . Signature Address Miami this 'Z V yq, _— jV6iary Public, State of Florida at Large 1116W M Commission Ex tre�,Y_Lv+.LR? �TATp Op yo%D—Ar Y n '-", �V 22 1986 @Gl'*L;: 1tinU GEi [��L lty+U jdsCE UiJ(�� NOTICE UNDER FICTITIOUS NAME LAW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned, desiring to I engage in business under the fic- titious name of BAYSIDE SPECIALTY CENTER at number 51h Street & Biscayne Boulevard, in the City of Miami, Florida, intends to reg+t,tef the maid name with the Clerk of the GirGuit Court of Dade County, Fionda Dated at Miami, Florida, this 4th day of August. 1983. CITY OF MIAMI by: Howard G ury, City ManagLr Jose Garcia -Pedrosa Attorney for AI)PhCant i CITY OF MIAMI ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 169 East Flagler Street Suite 1101 Miami, Florida 33131 579.6700 B15-12-19.26 M83-080531 -RLORUIL Ih I)Mr.11t R[MROa aON Of LAC. Lu; %If• f:uA:�A. JUCWNC 1fWRLO lio,�latel�AVIYiV'�' VIViiVi�Cdi�hEyiIIV'��Iiii�oli�d�V8Ji�lGililld�W���kl�r��SI p •� F r...rr...rwr...w...r....................... ..awn. .nnm.el ..... r .... o..r....r. ... r... r....r..a.r........ a......+............r CITY OF 711A11 - PATI 3'1D^ PROJECT 3:3AY-12TX MI9CELLAN':'0U3 R;,',=!3_ P?OJ^CTIO3 AS OT lAY 23, 1984 .r.................... rrw.rr.or..ro.....w..wawww......nvvw..wv...s..........s....wrrw.w............................... a..a..s orrr TYPES OF REVENUE --- ---------------------------- 1986 ----- 1987 ------ 1988 ----- 1989 ----- 1990 ----- 1991 ----- 1992 ----- 1993 ----- 1994 ----- 1995 ----- A. REVENUE TO THE CITY OF NIANI ---------------------------- AD VALOREM TAXES 200 801 841 883 927 974 1,022 1,073 1,127 1,183 PARKING 0 too 300 330 363 399 439 483 531 585 AREA A-5 - BASS RENTAL 13 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 AREA A-5 ADDITIONAL RENTAL 0 0 0 too 106 117 126 136 147 159 MERCHANTS LICENSES 8 30 33 36 40 44 48 53 58 64 UTILITY PEE A UTILITY TAX - POWER 25 328 361 397 436 480 528 581 639 703 UTILITY tEE/UTILITY TAX - TILEPHONI 5 46 53 58 64 70 77 85 94 103 COLLECTION PEE ON SALES TAR ------------------------------------ 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 40,634 652,041 .r.w... r.r. w.. ------------- 250 1,357 .....w ..rrr. ------ ------ 1,638 ..... 1,855 ... w. ------ 1,989 w.... ------ 2,135 ...or ------ 2,292 .r..r ------ 2,463 ----- ------ 2,548 ------ 2,848 P.V. svx oosro ----- P. RSVNNUI ------------------------------ TO DADS COUNTY A STATI COxSIIID COUNTY TAXIS 279 1,116 1,171 1,230 1,291 1,356 1,424 1,495 1,570 1,648 SALES TAX - CITY RENTAL S ------ 16 16 33 33 33 33 50 50 50 19,611 ....... 211,788 ....... 287 ------ 1,132 ------ 1,188 ------ t,262 •----- 1,324 ------ 1,388 --•--- 1,456 -•---- 1,545 ------ 1,620 ------ 1,698 ».1t. aox ...... y w..ww...wwroor.wnwrwwwwo ...................s.rsrrrorrrr rrworww.owwrrsrwwwwwowo.ww..ww.wwwwrwoors.rss.ro.srrosssossrrsrsroosrr. 1996 ----- 1997 ----- 1998 ----- 1999 ----- 2000 ----- 2001 ----- 2002 ----- 2003 ----- 2004 ----- 2005 ----- 2006 ----- 2007 ----- 2008 ----- 2009 ----- ' 1,242 1,305 1,370 1,438 1,510 1,586 1,665 1,748 1,836 1,927 2,024 2,125 2,231 2,343 ' 643 707 778 856 942 1,036 1,139 1.253 1,378 1,516 1,668 11835 2,Ot8 2,220 0 171 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 185 200 216 233 252 2722 294 3177 343 370 400 432 466 71 773 78 850 86 935 94 1,029 104 1,132 114 1,245 125 1,370 138 1,507 152 1,657 t67 1,823 183 2,005 202 2,206 222 2,426 244 2,669 113 124 137 151 166 1132 201 221 243 267 294 323 355 391 cn-T 2 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 12 13 L� ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ -7,150 3,065 ..... 3,302 ..... 3,559 ..... 3,838 .w.r. 4,141 ..... .. A,.;70 n.. .. .., 4,828 ..... 5,217 ..... 5,640 ..... 6,102 ..... 6,604 ....s ar•.sn 7,7.16 aar.s 8,396 ass.s li II lilii�illiiiVIIiIIIIhiVlliI�de�%I�Illiiilli�itl'� 1.731- 1,817 1,908 2.003 2,104 2,209 2,319 50 63 116 135 155 177 200 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 1,781 1,880 2,024 2,138 2,259 2,385 2,519 2,435 2,557 2,685 2,819 2,96u j,IUO 225 253 ------ 282 ------ 314 349 386 426 ------ 2,661 2.810 2,967 ------ 3,133 ------ 3,308 ------ 31.1911 ------ 3,689 ..................................... ... ......................... r r .. r r/ ... r r. w .... w r ..Samoa.. .......a..a........... ....................... r w■ ........ 0.0 .... 0 .............................................. w .............. r r. a w w .. i. r r. w ..... 1. w. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20t6 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 2,460 2,583 2,712 2,848 2,990 3,140 3.297 2,442 2.686 2,955 3,250 3,575 3.933 4,326 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 503 544 587 634 685 740 799 269 295 325 358 393 433 476 2,936 3,229 3,552 3,908 4,298 4.728 5,201 430 473 520 572 629 692 761 14 15 17 19 20 22 24 ------ 9,104 w.... ------ 9,876 .---- ------ 10,719 --------- ------ 11,638 ------ 12,642 ----. ------ 13,738 ..... ------ 14,935 ..... 3,462 3,635 3,816 4,007 4,207 4,418 4,639 4,759 5,235 5,758 6,334 6,968 7,664 9,431 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 863 932 1,006 1,087 1,174 1,268 1,369 523 576 633 697 756 343 927 5,721 6,293 6,923 7,615 8,375 9,214 10,135 638 921 1,013 1,115 1,226 1,349 1,•484 27 29 32 34 37 41 44 ------ 16,242 ..... ------ 17,671 Samoa ------ 19,232 w w . w . ------ 20,939 .... . ------ 22,805 ..... ------ 24,846 ..... ------ 27,079 --- . . 3,426 3,598 3,778 3,967 4.165 4,373 4,592 4,821 5,062 5,316 5,581 5,860 6,153 6,461 469 ------ 516 ------ 567 621 680 744 813 887 967 1.054 1,147 1,249 1,338 1,476 3,896 4,114 ------ 4,344 ------ 4,588 ------ 4,845 ------ 5,117 ------ 5,404 ------ 5,708 ------ 6,030 ------ 6,369 ------ 6,729 ------ 7,109 ------ 7,511 ------ 7,937 ............................................................. wwwwawwww.. w....w......... a. ....... a..........................................w.... 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- 4,871 5,114 5,370 5,638 5,920 6,216 6,527 6,854 9,274 10,201 11,221 12,343 13,578 14,936 16,429 18,072 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 1,479 1,597 1,725 1,863 2,012 2,172 2,346 2,534 1,020 1,122 1,234 1,358 1,494 1,643 1,807 1,988 11,149 12,264 13,490 14,839 16,323 17,955 19,751 21,726 1,632 1,795 1,975 2,172 2,390 2,629 2,832 3,181 48 52 57 61 67 72 78 85 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ 29,522 32,196 35,122 38,325 41,833 15,671 49,831 54,489 owl", iVI�III�IIIIIiVIiI III 6,784 7,123 7,480 7,854 8,246 8,659 9,092 9,546 1,603 1,740 1,889 2,049 2,223 2,410 ------ 2,612 ------ 2,830 ------ ------ 8,387 ------ 8,864 ------ 9,369 ------ 91903 ------ 10,469 11,068 11,703 12,376 n :LFILDS BUSINESS COUNSELING, INC. STRATEGIC PLANNING AND R9ARKETING 1110 Brick i �'6'V " . Miami, Florida 33131 ��133667 May 22, 1984 Mr. David Weaver, Chairman Intercap Investments, Inc. 800 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Dear David: 198411AY 24 All 11: 26 P,AL"ti G. 0?4K L' CITY CLERK CITY OF MIAMI. FLA. I have reviewed and evaluated the Lease Agreement for the Bayside Specialty Center which is to be submitted for the City Commission approval and have the following evaluation comments: I. Economics A. The Minimum Base Rental negotiated produces $75,- 000 more in each of the first two years than pro- vided for in the developer's proposal for Alter- nate B. In each of the next four years there is the same higher Minimum Base Rental of $650,000 annually provided for in the developer's proposal for Alternate A, both as originally submitted by Rouse. For the balance of the first 35 year term, or 29 years, the 14inimum Base Rental is $1,000,000 annually, or $350,000 greater per year than pro- vided for in the developer's Alternate A proposal. Extrapolating from this and considering the Minim- um Base Rental indicated for years 7 through 35, the combined 11inimum Base Rental available to the City for the entirety of the 35 year term is $10,- 000,3000 greater than provided for in the develop- er's Alternate A plan originally submitted. B, The Percentage of Net Income Available, negotiated at the 35% rate is drawn from the developer's or- iginally submitted Alternate B, which was tied to the lower $250,000 Minimum Base Rental. The combined increased Minimum Base Rental and Per- centage of Net Income Available offer the best of the two originally submitted Alternatives. More i_prportant, the 35% of Net Income Available should safeguard more effectively the Minimum Base Rental and reduce the potential for "credit" contributions to the "Cumulative Credit Balance Account" in the early years. II. General 84-585 84-584 ' LEEDS BUSINESS COUNSELING, INC. May 22, 1984 Mr. David leaver Bayside Evaluation Page Two It should be said that the clarity of the text of the Agreement and its terms and conditions is superior to - that of any similar agreement I have previously obser- ved. It is a model for future agreements. The protections for the City included in the terms and conditions affecting tenant quality, proof of develop- er's income sources, etc. are realistic and assuring. Assumptions of economic factors measuring the income are based upon the developer's submitted projections of tenant rental income and the City's derivatives of that income, not inclusive of any Contribution for the Park Pr any income from the Parking Garage facility. The intensive negotiating efforts over recent months have produced a Lease Agreement which fairly considers the land value of the project's property, the appropriate income to the City and a fair return for the developer's equity and participation. This now completed process is rewarding as the successor ac- tion to the earlier decision of the Bayside Review Committee on which I was privileged to serve; and my participation as the Consultant member of the Negotiating Committee is like- wise gratifying. It is my judgment that the City Commission, in its review, and in its wisdom should support the Lease Agreement now sub- mitted. "nc y, Herbert Alan Leeds HAL:ms 84-585 84-584