Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-84-0029J-84-58 RESOLUTION NO. tJ1" KZf:' A RESOLUTION APPROVING IN PRINCIPLE THE APPLICATIONS OF THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPERS FOR PROJECTS FOR SUBMISSION BY THE CITY OF MIAMI TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANTS: HERITAGE PLACE LIMITED, FOR RENOVATION AND RESTORATION OF THE OLD GESU SCHOOL BUILDING INTO A FIVE -STORY PROFES- SIONAL OFFICE BUILDING; AIRPORT 5040, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NINE -STORY COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE BUILDING; AND MIAMI INTERDESIGN PARTNERSHIP, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-STORY BUILDING CONTAINING SHOWROOM SPACE AND A PARKING GARAGE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The applications of the following developers for projects for submission by the City of Miami to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for Urban Development Action Grants: Heritage Place Limited, for renovation and restoration of the old Gesu school building into a five -story professional office building; Airport 5040, Limited Partnership, for construction of a nine -story commercial and office building; and Miami Interdesign Partnership, for the construction of a three-story building containing showroom space and a parking garage are hereby approved in principle. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of January , 1984• ATTEST: PH G. ONGIE, City Cle PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: 64IRIAM MAER Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: ;If IF OF /O4SE R. GARCIA-PEDROSA, City Attorney Maurice A. Ferre MAURICE A. FERRE, Mayor CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF JAB! 19 1984 IREGOLUho.. REMARKS.__, N As Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission r Howard V. Gary ,f City Manager ` January 13, 1984 Urban Development Action Grant Applications It is recommended that the City Commission approve attached re- solutions authorizing the City Manager to submit Urban Develop- ment Action Grant (UDAG) appli- cations to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the following projects: Heritage Place, Airport Seven Office Building, and Miami Interior Design Center It is not recommended that the City Commission authorize submittal of the application for the Port of Miami - South Passenger Terminal and Office Building. The federally funded Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) program, authorized by Congress in 1976, has provided cities across the nation with an instrument with which to stimulate economic development, create new employment opportunities, and increase the tax base needed to fund essential services. Through the UDAG program, cities are able to participate with private sector developers in financing projects ranging from industrial parks to luxury hotels which, without the program, would have a slim chance of being implemented. Generally, UDAG funds which are loaned to project developers have been used in combination with conventional loans at terms structured to enable the developers to realize a reasonable return on investment. The proposed projects must result in new employment opportunities and leverage new private sector capital investment of at least 2.5 to 1 (private funding to UDAG funding). 34-25_^ , A City Commission Members Page 2 While UDAG funds are provided in the form of loans to project developers, they are awarded to cities on a grant basis. Funds generated through loans to developers can be used to support staff or consultants working on the UDAG program, as well as to fund eligible Community Development projects in low and moderate income target areas. Besides providing additional funds for eligible Community Development activities, UDAG's aid in increasing the tax base, cause infusion of private investment into the economy, and create temporary construction jobs and new permanent employment opportunities. The Department of Community Development was given the respon- sibility of soliciting and processing UDAG applications for the City approximately four months ago. Since then, numerous meetings have been held with real estate investors and developers in order to familiarize them with the benefits of the UDAG program. To date, staff efforts have resulted in the preliminary processing of four (4) UDAG applications which are deemed to meet or exceed the Department of Housing & Urban Development's basic evaluation criteria: 1. Port of Miami - South Passenger Terminal and Office Building. 2. Heritage Place 3. Airport Seven Office Building 4. Miami Interior Design.Center The attachments to this memorandum describe the projects and provide a synopsis of the benefits which will accrue to the City as a result of HUD's approval of the UDAG assistance proposed. In brief, these projects, which have a combined value of $69,780,885, will not only increase the City's tax base and provide needed temporary and permanent employment opportunities, but will result in new income to the City which will be used to fund UDAG staff and eligible Community Development activities. This income is derived from application processing fees, UDAG loan repayments and sharing by the City in profits generated by the projects. Additionally, increased ad valorem revenue should be realized upon the projects' completion. Application processing fees will be used to fund costs associated with the 84-29 R ^e:I+RS�^Fag q._NRR�AlM City Commission Members Page 3 processing of UDAG applications, while UDAG repayments of principal and interest and income generated by shared profits will be used to fund Community Development activities in the City's Community Development Target Area neighborhoods. (Please see Attachment "A".) As has been indicated above in this memorandum, and as indicated on the attached data sheets for each proposed project, it is my opinion based on the financial factors that each application, if funded by U.S. HUD, would afford significant benefits to the City. However, it is also my opinion that the City's assistance in developing a major office facility on the Port of Miami would not be in the overall best interest of the City of Miami. One quite important issue of public policy is whether the City wants to assist and encourage the development of major, highrise office structures on the Port; this assumes great importance relative to the height of structures east of Biscayne Boulevard in the Downtown area and use of the publicly owned Port for private purposes not previously envisioned. An additional factor in formulating this recommendation is the probability that the City of Miami has no authority to exercise its municipal powers on the Port. At great expense the City acquired the Florida East Coast property to link Bayfront and Bicentennial Parks. The guiding philosophy is this effort was the provision and preservation of a continuous open, green area along the bayfront in Downtown, a vista devoid of view obstructing high rises. Development of an approximately 200' high structures (17 stories atop an approximately three-story high terminal) would obviously detract from this view. It is noted that the tallest permanent structure on the Port presently is a passenger terminal and administration building fifty to sixty feet in height. The Port of Miami was transferred to Dade County by the City of Miami to be used for a public purpose, i.e., a publicly developed, owned and operated seaport. Though the Port would gain, at a minimal cost, a new passenger terminal capable of handling two cruise ships, it appears that the primary purpose of the project is development of its office/retail portion. For instance, the entire project would comprise 350,132 gross square feet. Of the total gross square footage, the privately controlled office/retail areas comprise 304,532 square feet (87%) 94-29 140, City Commission Members Page 4 while the customs/passenger lounge areas are 45,600 square (13%). (The attached analysis by the Planning Department discusses the potential impact of this project on existing and planned office development in the Downtown area.) Further, it is important to note that in our discussions with Dade County on the bridge - tunnel issue, the use of seaport land for private development purposes was never a stated factor. The present high volume of vehicular traffic, coupled with the restrictive capacity of the existing two-lane bascule bridge, cause a prohibiting influence mitigating against near future growth of the Port was stated to be the primary reason for opting for a bridge instead of the costlier, longer to finance and build tunnel. It appears that, coincidentally, both the five -lane bridge's and this project's completion would coincide. An additional factor to consider here is that a portion of the City -owned FEC Tract is needed to construct a new bridge. Though at this time a formal legal opinion has not been rendered by the City Attorney, it is my understanding that the City of Miami is precluded by Florida Statute from exercising its muni- cipal authority on the Port. If this understanding is correct, present zoning of the Port (Waterfront Industrial) cannot be en- forced, nor would the City be allowed to control the building permit process; at this time Miami, no longer issues occupational licenses to Port -based operations. In short for all practical purposes this project becomes synonymous to a project located in Homestead as regards Miami's authority. Thepublic policy question here is whether this particular application would be a proper exercise of the City's ability to seek UDAG financing. Though UDAG's hold considerable potential for financial gain to the City, in this particular instance, it is my opinion that other issues are of greater importance, causing this recommen- dation to not approve submitting the Port of Miami - South Passenger Terminal and Office Building UDAG application. It is important to point out that HUD's approval of the three remaining applications will in no way impede the City's ability to secure UDAG assistance for other projects, including developments proposed by the private sector in the City's Community Development target areas, as there is no cap on the level of UDAG assistance Miami is eligible to receive. Two public hearings have been scheduled to provide an opportunity for public comment on these UDAG applications. The first hearing will be held on January 16, 1984, at the City Administration S4_2,, City Commission Members Page 5 Building, and the second will be before the City Commission on January 26, 19814, at which time the Commission will be requested to authorize submission of the applications to the U.S. Depart- ment of HUD. The applications must be submitted to HUD no later than January 31, 1984. 84-29 Ook (Attachment "A") Eligible Community Development Activities Eligible Community Development activities are those that either benefit low -and -moderate income persons or prevent or eliminate slum and blight and otherwise meet specfic eligibility guidelines. Activities eligible to receive Community Development funding are the following: - Acquisition - Disposition - Public facilities and improvements - Clearance activities Interim assistance - Relocation - Removal of architectural barriers - Rehabilitation and preservation activities Residential rehabilitation Commercial rehabilitation Code enforcement Historic preservation - Economic development activities - Planning and Administrative costs 84-29 0 r�1 CD CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PROGRAM FIRST ROUND APPLICATIONS - FY '84 1. Combined Development Cost 2. Total Private Financing Required 3. Total UDAG Financing Required 4. Total Return to City on UDAG's (Loan Principal/Interest, Profit Participation, Fees) 5. New Real Estate Taxes Generated (City)* 6. Total Number of Jobs Generated: Temporary (Construction) 895 Permanent (New) 1,471 $ 69,780,885 56, 055,885 13,725,000 50 ,795 ,450 8,271,000 *Amount based on 1983 millage rate during the term of the given loan. I ,A& Lom CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRPNT PROGRAM WDAG) 1. Name: Heritage Place (Listed on the National Register as an historic building). 2. Developer: Heritage Place Limited, a Florida limited partner- ship composed of the following principals: John P. Fullerton, Julio S. Diaz, John C. Harrison, Jr., Osmond C. Howe and Stephen H. Smith. 3. Type of The project consists of the renovation and restora- Project: tion of the old Gesu School building into a five (5)-story professional office building with a gross area of 72,000 sq. ft. Control of land: Twenty-five (25) year lease with an option to extend to ninety-nine (99) years if developer proceeds with Phase II and is approved by the Archdiocese. 4. Location: The site is located at 170 N.E. Second Street. 5. Zoning: HC-1 (Historic Conservation). 6. Total Development Cost $ 4',500,000 7. Project Financing: UDAG $ 900,000 Private Debt Financing 2,600,000 Equity 1,000,000 8. Number of Jobs Created: Construction 70-80 Permanent 35 - 9. Terms of UDAG Assistance/Return to City a) 1% loan amount at closing $ 9,000 b) 15-year loan @ 6% interest 810,000 c) 25% of net available cash flow 291,200 d) At the end of loan term: - Principal Repayment 900,000 - 25% of net sale proceeds 1,076,000 Subtotal $3,086,200 Real Estate Taxes Generated* 524,000 Total Benefit to City $3,612,000 *First year estimated tax increase, $28,207. Assumed appreciation, 3% compounded yearly. O 84-29 Heritage Place (cont'd) 10. Leverage Factor Private Investment/UDAG = 4:1. 84-29 /`• CITY OF MIAIMI DEPARTMENT OF CONIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PROGRAM (UDAG) 1. Name: Airport Seven Office Building 2. Developer: Airport 3040, Inc., a Florida corporation composed of the following principals: Cipicorp Construction, Inc., De Karon Corporation, David Perez, Fidel Saldivar, Leslie A. Shere and John McCloskey. 3. Type of project: The project consists of a nine (9)-story building that will contain a total Cross area of 90,680 sq. ft. of commercial and office space. Control of land: Land is owned by the developer. 4. Location: The site is located on the south side of N.W. 7t:l Street, approximately 370 feet east of N.W. 51st Avenue, Miami. 5. Zoning: The site is zoned RG-3/6 and RG-1/3 (General Residential). There is a petition to change zoning for the entire parcel to CR-2/7 (Commer- cial -Residential). Zoning change for the entire parcel was recommended by the Zoning Board and was approved unanimously by the City Commission at the First Reading on December 15, 1983. A Second Reading is scheduled for January 26, 1984. 6. Total Devel- opment cost: $9,200,000 7. Project Financing: UDAG $1,825,000 Private Debt Financing 5,475,000 Equity 1,900,000 8. Number of Jobs Created: Construction 75-100 Permanent 400 9. Term of UDAG Assistance/Return to City: a) to of UDAG loan amount at closing $ 18,250 b) 15-year UDAG loan amount at closing 1,665,000 c) 250 of net available cash flow 431,000 d) At the end of loan term - Principal repayment 1,825,000 - 25% of net sale proceeds 2,200,000 Sub Total $6,139,250 Real Estate taxes generated* 1,120,000 Total benefit to City $7,259,250 *First year estimated tax increase, $60,247. Assumed appreciation 3% compounded yearly. 84-29 Airport Seven office Building (cont'd) 10. Leverage Factor Private Investment/UDAG = 4:1 84-29 0 CITY OF MI711I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PROGRAM (UDAG) 1. Name: Miami Interior Design Center 2. Developer: MID Partnership, a Florida partnership composed of the following principals: Max Fine, Charles Lallouz and Irving Moskowitz. 3. Type of The project consists of a three (3)-story building Project: and parking garage that will contain a total gross area of 182,000 sq. ft. of showroom space and 160,000 sq. ft. of a parking garage area. Control of land: Option to purchase land. 4. Location: The site is located at 4141 N.E. Second Avenue. 5. Zoning: The site is zoned CG-2/7 (General Commercial) and SPI-8 (Special Public Interest District). 6. 'Total Development Cost: $ 23,500,000 7. Project Financing: UDAG Private Debt Financing Equity 8. Number of Jobs Created Construction 350 Permanent 150 9. Terms of UDAG Assistance/Return to City: $ 5,000,000 14,500,000 4,000,000 a) 1% of UDAG amount at closing $ 50,000 b) 15-year loan @ 7% interest 5,250,000 c) 25% of net available cash flow 1,893,000 d) At the end of loan term: - Principal Repayment 5,000,000 - 25% of Net Sale Proceeds 4,081,000 Subtotal $16,274,000 Real Estate Taxes Generated* 2,935,000 Total Benefit to City $19,209,000 *First year estimated tax increase, $157,838. Assumed appreciation, 3% compounded yearly. 84-29 1� c Miami Interior Design Center (cont'd) 10. Leverage Factor Private Investment/UDAG = 3.7:1 84-29 c CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF COL"•1MUNITY DEVELOPMENT URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACTION GRANT PROGRAI.1 (UDAAG) 1. Name: Port of Miami - South Passenger Terminal and Office Building 2. Developer: Miami Seaport Partners, J.V., a Florida joint venture comprised of Worsham Port, Inc., and Techni Port, Inc., both Florida corporations and wholly owned subsidiaries of Worsham Brothers Co., a Tennessee corporation, and Techni Development Corporation, a Florida corporation, respectively. 3. Type of The project consists of a seventeen (17)-story Project: structure with a total gross area of 350,132 sq. ft. which will create the maritime infra- structure to berth two 700-foot passenger cruise ships (3,000 persons per week), terminal facilities, ancillary facilities and office space. Control of Land: Fifty-five (55) years' lease with an option to extend for an additional forty-four (44) years. Gross sq. ft. Net sq. ft. Customs 31,900 28,000 Passenger lounge 13,700 10,000 Retail 14,832 16,128 Office 286,100 245,407 4. Location: The site is a tract of land with an area of approxi- mately 13.8 acres and located on the southwestern tip of Dodge Island at the Port of Miami. 5. Zoning: V-F-1/7 (Waterfront Industrial). Attached is Planning Department memo raising several issues concerning this project. 6. Total Develop- - $32,580,885 ment Cost: 7. Project Financing: UDAG $ 6,000,000 Private Debt Financing 24,580,885 Equity 2,000,000 8. Number of Jobs Created: Construction 400 Permanent 886 84-29 Port of Miami - South Passenger Terminal and Office Buildinq (cont'd) 9. Terms of UDAG Assistance/Return to City: a) 10, of UDAG at closing $ 60,000 b) 15-year loan @ 6' interest 5,400,000 c) 25' of net available cash flow 3,597,000 d) At the end of loan term: - Principal repayment 6,000,000 - 25�-, of net sale proceeds 10,239,000 Sub total 25,296,000 Real estate taxes generated* 3,692,000 Total benefit to City $28,988,000 *First year estimated tax increase, $198,508. Assumed appreciation, 3° compounded yearly. 10. Leverage Factor Private Investment/UDAG = 4.4:1 A* Howard V. Gary City '•1anager Walter L. Pierce Assistant City Manager (Acting) l 1 } January 12, 1984 UDAG Application for Seaport Office Building As per your request the attached memorandum from Sergio Rodriguez, Planning Department Director, analyzes the proposed 17 story office development at the Port of Miami. The issues as raised in the :memorandum are, in my opinion, accurate and on point except as discussed below. However, in an effort to clarify what jurisdiction the City of Miami holds over the Port of Miami I spoke this morning with City Attorney Jose Garcia -Pedrosa. I am informally advised that in accordance with State statutes the City of Mia;ni presently has no jurisdiction on the Port of Miami except as established through an interlocal agreement between the City and Dade County. That is, we cannot control zoning, that we cannot issue any permits and that we will receive no tax revenues from any private development on Dodge Island. Therefore, Paragraph 2, page 2 of the attached ;memorandum states a doubtful conclusion regarding a probable $160,000 annual tax revenue. Also, on page 5 of the attached memorandum, all of the listed "Opportunities to Express City Policies" are in error. This then leads to the question of whether or not the City should be applying for a UDAG on the Port since for all practical purposes the Port of Miami .should perhaps be considered as unincorporated Dade County and not within the corporate limits of the City of Miami. I have advised the City Attorney that this item is scheduled for discussion on the January 19, 1984 City Commission agenda; Mr. Garcia -Pedrosa will research this ;natter in much more depth and be prepared to advise the City Commission and you at that time. cc: Jose R. Garcia -Pedrosa City Attorney 84-25