The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSubmittal-Miguel De Grandy-Information BinderSubmitted into the public record f9r ite i(s) on ' /jj City Clerk CITY OF MIAMI In Re: RFP NO. 16-17-011 FOR LEASE OF CITY -OWNED WATERFRONT PROPERTY FOR MARINAS/RESTAURANT/SHIP'S STORE USES, ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE "VIRGINIA KEY MARINA RFP" Documents evidencing criminal convictions, adverse judgements, defaults on public agency contracts and other issues which demonstrate that Virginia Key LLC's main contractors for the water basin (Shoreline Foundation Inc) and the dry stack storage systems (Technomarine Group), consisting of over half of the development, are not responsible contractors 5515- S\- lJ Ci�4w1�-\\IA10NAGA-t0+i D141,?( H Holland & Knight 701 BrickeII Avenue, Suite 3300 I Miatr , FL 3313i I T 305.374,8500 I F 305.789_7799 Holland & Knight LLP www.hktaw.com February 20, 2019 The Honorable Members of the City of Miami Commission 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 Submitted into the public record foj ite (s) on City Clerk Re: Documents evidencing that recommended Proposer Virginia Key, LLC is not a responsible proposer in regard to RFP No. 16-17-011 for Development of Virginia Key Marina. Dear Commissioners: By the this correspondence we want to bring to your attention some very serious issues regarding both unethical and criminal conduct of the two main contractors on Virginia Key, LLC's (VK) team, which include defaults of public contracts, adverse judgements, insolvencies issues,. intentional damage to environmentally sensitive coral reefs and a criminal conviction just entered at the beginning of this year for defrauding a federal agency. This information, as documented in our attached exhibits, demonstrates that the VK team is not a responsible proposer. Background The above -referenced RFP seeks responsive proposals from qualified responsible proposers willing to construct, lease, manage and operate a mixed -use waterfront facility, including a marina, boat yard, dock master's office, ship store, dry storage, wet slip stocks and at least one restaurant (the Project). VK submitted a proposal - which according to its own narrative — will require VK to invest approximately $S0 million dollars to complete the project. (See VK. response to RFP) The marina functions (wet and dry storage) are proposed to be developed by VK's two main contractors; Shoreline Foundation. Inc. (Shoreline) and Technomarine Group (Technomarine). Shoreline was recently convicted of defrauding the U.S, Coast Guard by filing a false claim to cover up environmental damage which it caused. Technomarine no longer exists. Indeed, it was administratively dissolved by the State of Florida for failure to even file its annual report. Moreover, it has defaulted on public contracts, has multi -million dollar adverse judgements against it, and its headquarters is now vacated with throated eviction proceeding for lack of rent payments. Together, these two main contractors were supposed to develop approximately $42 million dollars -worth of work, or over half of VK's development budget. Submitted into the public record ftor itevi(s) on 74' . City Clerk Below we provide in greater detail the information and documents which clearly show that its two main contractors are not responsible companies and thus VK's team must be disqualified.' Shoreline Foundation. Inc is now a convicted felon. In Exhibit 1 of our exhibits, you will find the budget submitted by Shoreline Foundation, Inc. as part of the VK proposal. In effect, Shoreline was to develop the entire wet slip basin, including mooring piles and concrete floating docks for the marina. As evidenced in Exhibit I, their total participation in this development was approximately $12,5 million. In 2013, Shoreline entered into a contract with the U.S. Coastguard to develop marine channel guides at "Government Main" and "Government Cut". The permits to replace these channel markers established conditions designed to protect marine and benthic resources. The pre - construction surveys of the sea-bed sites identified many species of coral, including endangered staghorn coral, which had to he relocated prior to commencing development activity. Shoreline failed to comply with the permit con.ditions to relocate these environmentally sensitive coral reefs and proceeded to demolish existing structures, anchor its barges and construct the new channel markers without the required relocation of the coral formations, causing unknown damage to the coral reefs. Nevertheless, Shoreline fraudulently billed the United States Coast Guard certifying that all work had been done, as required by the permit conditions. On August 29„ 2018, the United States Attorney for the Southern District charged Shoreline with filing a false, fictitious or fraudulent claim for work in performance with the specification conditions, knowing such claims were :false and fraudulent. You can find a true copy of the charging document at Exhibit 2 of the exhibits. Exhibit 3 consists of two articles from the South Florida Sun Sentinel dated September 11, 2018 and October 31, 2018 respectively. These articles detail the fraudulent scheme and enviromental damage caused by Shoreline. The October 31' article was prompted by the written plea agreement entered into by Shoreline in which it agreed to plead guilty to the charge. Also in Exhibit 4, you will find the factual proffer submitted by the United States attorney, detailing the fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Shoreline. Shoreline has also been involved in additional controversies that verify its lack or responsibility, including the recent scandal regarding erection of an unpermitted seawall in the City of Miami Beach. (See Exhibit 14, Herald article) VK knew or should have known of these serious responsibility issues, which render its team non -responsible. Indeed, Carter McDowell - who along with Al Dotson represents VK — also represented Shoreline in the Miami Beach ' As verified by the terms of the REP, the analysis on responsibility includes "the Proposer or any of its Members"„ (See REP at Pare 12) Submitted into the public record fol. item (s) t\ . 2. on UN /tot . City Clerk unperrnitted seawall matter. According to his lobbyist registration, Mr. McDowell has been Shoreline's attorney since at least March of last year, well before Shoreline was charged with filing false and fraudulent claims for which it was subsequently adjudicated and sentenced. (See Exhibit 15 McDowell registration for Shoreline Foundation, Inc.) Yet, VK failed to disclose these material changes to its proposer team. On the contrary, in the several public hearings on this matter, VK, through its counsel, had only pushed the city for a quick decision on this matter, even proffering that VK would pay up to a million dollar for a special election/referendum to award this project. Surely, VK hoped that an expedited award and special election/referendum would have occurred before the Florida Department of Management Services had the opportunity to place Shoreline on the state's Convicted Vendor List. Florida Statute 287.133 states that any vendor convicted of a public entity crime shall be placed on the Convicted Vendor's List. Placement on the Convicted Vendor's List would prohibit Shoreline from entering into any agreement (as a prime or subcontractor) with a public agency of the State of Florida for at least. 36 months. While not dispositive, it certainly provides circumstantial evidence as to why VK was "hell-bent" on expediting this award, since the Public Entity Crime statute provides that a convicted company may nevertheless provide the services if the execution of the contract predates their inclusion on the Convicted Vendor's List. (See Florida Statute 287.133 "Public Entity Crime Statute" at Exhibit 6.) Now that this evidence has become public, the process, which may take up to three or four months to include them on the state's Convicted Vendor's List has commenced. Technomarine Group proposed to manufacture and install the dry -stack storaze systems is also not responsible While Shoreline was proposed to develop the wet side of the marina, Technomarine was proposed as the main contractor to manufacture and install the dry stack storage systems. The first glaring problem with this is that Technomarine no longer legally exists as an entity in the State of Florida. In fact, this corporate entity was dissolved for failure to file its required annual report. (See Exhibit 7 — Records from Florida Division of Corporations) According to the proposal, Technomarine was to install the dry stack storage system designed by its affiliate Aero-Docks. At first, we were at a loss to understand why the involvement of Technomarine was "minimized" in the proposal narrative. The reason is now evident. At Exhibit 8, you will find the portion of the proposal that Technomarine and its affiliate Aero Docks are supposed to design, manufacture and install. In the heading, it is confirmed that Aero Docks is "a member of the Technomarine Group of Companys (sic)". Aero Docks is highlighted several times, but at the last page, the proposal confirms that the systems will. be "manufactured and installed by Technomarine. Group as noted". (See Exhibit 8) Submitted into the public record fqr ite (s) '(�\ , Z on Lin /9 . City Clerk At Exhibit 9, you will find the financial budget to complete the boat storage dry stack systems. The total budget for this work is $30,392,664, representing well over 30% of VK's total investment in the project. The fact that Teehnomarine no longer legally exists is sufficient to declare VK's proposal not -responsible, as the City cannot award a project to a company whose main dry dock storage developer is non-existent. But the reason it was administratively dissolved becomes much clearer when you analyze some of the financial challenges of this company, which independently render it non -responsible. Indeed, at Exhibit 10, you will find a complaint filed by Technomarine's former qualifier. This complaint alleges a complex scheine to defraud the former qualifier. In such complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Technomarine's CEO, Erik Sanderson, "owns, controls and employs defendant Technomarine Group as a sham entity to defraud creditors, including plaintiff." Immediately following the complaint on Exhibit 10, is a final judgement on that matter wherein it states that after a jury trial, the plaintiff obtained a multi -million dollar judgement against Technomarine, as well as its CEO. But its financial troubles do not end there. In fact, at Exhibit 11, you will find a letter from Ms. Ricinda H. Perry, City Attorney for the City of Bradenton Beach. The letter is an official Notice of Default of a contract with the City of Bradenton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency. It notes the multiple occasions that the city has had to contact Technomarine to effect compliance. This correspondence ends with stating that "in all regards, it appears that the actions of Technomarine are akin to defrauding taxpayer monies and civil theft." At Exhibit 12, you will find articles from a local newspaper documenting why Technomarine was placed in default of the subject contract. These articles also provide additional' disturbing information including mention of another lawsuit filed against Technomarine by the City of Pahokee, and information gleaned from a deposition which indicates that Technomarine may be at the brink of bankruptcy. Having reviewed all this, we conducted an independent investigation of Technomarine. We hired an investigator who began by calling their listed numbers. Only a recording answered the phone. After leaving messages that went unanswered, the investigator went to the listed headquarters of Technomarine. Ile found that the location was vacant and the Technomarine sign had been removed. He did however find and take a picture of a letter from the Akerman law firm which was posted on the door. The letter, dated January 3rd, 2019, informs that Technomarine is in arrears in its rent for approximately $25,000 and that eviction proceeding would commence in three days if the arrears were not paid. (See Exhibit 13) Our investigator tried other means to contact Technomarine, including going to a second Iisted address and found those premises to also be vacant. Finally, he went to both the City Clerk's Office and the Palm Beach County Clerk's Office seeking to obtain business tax receipts occupational licenses for Technomarine Group, Inc., and found that none had ever been issued. 4 Submitted into the public record foir ite� (s) on 7-/t /. City Clerk Analvsis The RFP notes that preliminary determinations of responsibility shall be conducted, but also informs that "any responsibility determination provided to proposers is preliminary based on the information provided by proposer and may be changed in the event additional information is revealed at a later date. The city reserves the right to deem a proposer non responsible for any of the criteria specified in II.G." (See RFP, Page 35) Section II.G2 sets forth some of the circumstances that may lead to a finding that a proposer is not responsible. These criteria apply to the "proposer or any of its members". Some of the criteria, which applies directly in this situation, include whether the proposer or any of its members: • Have any uncured defaults or have failed to perform under the tenns of an agreement or contract with the city or other government entity within the past ten years. • have caused fines. penalties, fees or similar impositions to be levied against the city or any other governmental entity or agency, • Have any past, present or ongoing litigation or adversarial administrative proceeding with the city or other governmental agency or entity. • I-Iave been found liable by any legal or administrative entity via any proceeding for environmental damage, contamination or any other environmental liability. • Have failed to disclose involvement as a party, third party or intervenor in any legal or administrative proceedings concerning environmental damage, contamination or any other environmental liabilities, whether found liable or otherwise. Have been debarred by any public agency or been place on the Convicted Vendors List, pursuant to Florida Statute, Section 287.133 or a similar law, rule or regulation. • Have failed to disclose any of the above. (See RFP. Section IIG at Page 12) Respectfully, it is clear that VK and its legal counsel knew or should have known of these serious responsibility issues, which had been widely reported in the media. Indeed, as to Shoreline, VK's law firm had been counsel to Shoreline in the Miami Beach. Unpermitted Sea Wall case since at least Mr.McDowell's lobbying registration date in March of 2018, or five and half months prior to the criminal charge for fraudulent claim Iodged by the United States government. His registration is still active, yet to our knowledge, neither the criminal conviction nor Shoreline's involvement in the Unpermitted Sea Wail sandal were ever disclosed to the city by VK. or its counsel. In regard to the Technomarinc Group, the above -referenced lawsuit was filed in June of 2017 and final judgement was entered in May of2018. The default of the City of Bradenton Beach contract was issued in October of 2018. 5 Submitted into the public record for item(s) a on 7,i g . City Clerk Thus, .not only are there ample independent grounds to deem both of VK's main marina development members non responsible, but VK's failure to disclose these very relevant and material issues to the city, in and of itself requires disqualification. Conclusion In summary, the city has before it a pending recommendation from the former City Manager to award an $80 million dollar marine development contract to a group whose two main contractors for the floating docks and dry stack storage docks are: 1. A convicted felon that defrauded the U.S. Coast Guard and who was also engaged in unpermitted sea wall work in the City of Miami Beach; and, 2. A phantom company that doesn't legally exist, has no discernible office or place of business, has a multi -million, judgement against it, was accused in that same lawsuit of being a sham entity, and has been accused by a City Attorney of civil theft in an official default notice, is being evicted from their headquarters because they haven't paid their rent, and is on the brink of bankruptcy. None of this information. which VK. and its legal counsel knew or should have known, was ever disclosed to the city. Thus, had this information not come to light, the City may have been in the embarrassing position of seeking approval from the voters of a contract for development of a marina facility wherein the two main contractors were not responsible companies. We trust that, in light of this compelling and verifiable information, the city will follow its own requirements, as set forth in the RIP; and disqualify the VK team. cc: The Honorable Francis Suarez, Mayor 6 Submitted into the public record for iteni(s) 1 , L oni-`si l City Clerk 1 VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR &MARINE CENTER Submitted into the public record fo itengs) 011 / City Clerk Shoreline IinnuIation Inc. 2781 S.W. 56'" Avenue . Pembroke Park, Florida 33023 Phone: (954) 985-0460 . Fax: (954) 985-0462 . www.shorelinefoundation.com May 22, 2017 Mr. John Hopwood Virginia Key, LLC 300 Alton Road MiamiBeach, FL 33139 Re: Virginia Key /vlatina, Virginia Key, FL Subject: Construction Budget Pricing Dear Mr. Hopwood: per your request, we have revised our budget pricing for thc marine works at the above referenced facility. Based on thc provided drawings we have developed the following scope of work. 1. Mobilization/Demobilization- $50,000 This item includes: a. One complete mobilization and demobilization of SFI's barge, crane, crel.vs and materials to and from the jobsite. 2. Concrete Boat Lift Support Pile-(120) @ $1,800 each =$216,000 a. Supply and install (120) 14" square pre -cast pre -stressed concrete pile up to 35' long. 3. Floating Concrete Docks-(79,000 SF) @ $90.00 =$7,110,000 a. Includes supply and uistallation of approximately 79,000 square feet of Matinetek (18" freeboard) floating concrete docks. 4. Floating Aluminum Docks-(10,000 SF) @ $45.00 =$450,000 a. Includes supply and installation of approximately 10,000 square feet of Marinetek (18" freeboard) floating aluminum frame docks at each slip finger piers. 5. Support Piling-(224) @ $4,500 each =$1,008,000 a. For the purpose of this budget we have included supply and installation of (224) new 18" pre- cast concrete pile up 50' long and fitted with a PVC cap. These will be requitedwith either option of floating docks, 6. Electric Service- (89,000 SF) @ $25.00 =$2,225,000 We have assumed a typical system based on previous experience. No additional appurtances or infrastructure upgrades are included. Members of Deep Foundation Institute . Pile Drivers Contractors Association . CASF Virwnio Kcy Morino RIP No, 16- 17-0ii Pep. 36 P 16-010M R3 May 22, 2017 Page 2of2 UIRGINIR KEY HARBOUR MARINE CENTER Submitted into the public record fqr it Q(s) on 'jjt1/ City Clerk 7. Potable Water, Fire Suppression and Sewage Pump Out-(89,000 SF) ® $13.00 = $1,157,000 We have assumed a typical system based on previous experience. No additional appurtenances or infrastructure upgrades arc included. 8. CCA Mooring Pile-(232) EA a $1,400 =$324,800 a. Supply and install (232) 12" round 2.51b retention CCA wood pile up to 40' long, b. Each pile to have a pvc cap and 2 mooring horns. e. All mooring pile will be wrapped with a 30-mil high density polyethylene pile wrap from 1 foot below the mud line. to 1 foot above mean high tide priorto installation. Construction Budget Total-$12,540,800 Exclusions: 1. Engineenng or construction drawings. 2 Bonds (can be provided cQ 1.4% of contract amount). 3. Permits or permit fees. 4. Mangrove trimming. 5. Mitigation. 6. Upland access iuunediately adjacent to the shoreline will be required for material deliveries. Notes for this proposal: This proposal was prepared with the best information available, the pricing contained herein is preliminary and subject to change pending our review of additional information such as soil borings, permit conditions as well as final construction drawings. We have assumed the existing infrastructure to be adequate and no additional transformers, lift stations or other upgrades are included. We hope this information is helpful in your evaluation of this project and appreciate your consideration of our company for your new project. if you should have any questions, please contact me at my office. Respectfully Submitted, SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC. Arydzic..9.4.fee.r Joseph Stanton Senior Estimator 2781 S.W. 56'' Avenue . Pembroke Park, Florida 33023 Phone: (954) 985-0460 . Fax: (954) 985-0462 . www.shoreiinefoundation.com Members of: Deep Foundation Institute . Pile Drivers Contractors Association . CASF Virflinio Key Morino t RFP No. 16-17-011 Pn£)e 87 2 Submitted into the public record f r it m(s) on ; 7 lc City Clerk Case 1.18-cr-20708-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2018 V,,t,)_ of TB p.c. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 1 8-20708-CR-WI LLI,AMS/TORRES Cast No. 18 U.S.C. § 287 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC., Defendant. Aug 29, 2018 STEVEN M, LARWORE CLERK U.S. DIST. CT: S.D. OF FLA. Submitted into the public record f9r ite (s) �k, on Z/?,%/ . City Clerk INFORMATION The United States Attorney charges that: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS At all times relevant to this Information: 1, The United States Coast Guard ("USCG") was an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security responsible for the care and maintenance of maritime aids to navigation. 2. The USCG contracted with marine construction companies to perform maintenance on maritime aids to .navigation, including the replacement of channel marker range lights. These contracts incorporated all required terms and conditions from related state and federal perinits. 3. The USCG required its contractors to submit invoices for progress payments certifying that the amount requested was for performance in accordance with the specifications, terms, and conditions of the contract. 4. SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC. was a marine construction company headquartered in Pembroke Park, Florida. Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2018 Page 2 of 5 FALSE, FICTITIOUS, AND FRAUDULENT CLAIMS (18 U.S.C. § 287) On or about June 3, 2015, in Miami -Dade County, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant, SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC,, did knowingly make and present, and cause to be made and presented, to the USCG, an agency of the United States, materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent claims upon and against the USCG and the United States, that is, an invoice for a monthly progress payment in the amount of S375,061.75 fraudulently claiming that the amount requested was for perfoimuance in accordance with the specifications, terms, and conditions of its contract with the USCG for the replacement of channel marker range lights, knowing such claims were false, fictitious, and fraudulent, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 287 and 2. N„L. BENT MIN G. GREENBERG UNITED STATES A 11 ORNEY A. RAICH TANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Submitted into the public record for ite ��, Z on U/zx /qs) , City Clerk 0 Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Decrypt A15 tm�s'IIAtL-F�EIgii ticket 08/29/2018 Page 3 of 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO. V. SHORELINE: FOUNDATION, ITiC_, Defendant. CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL ATTORNEY* t Superseding Case Information: Court Division: (Select one) New Defendant(s) Yes No Number of New Defendants X Miami Key West Total number of counts >~TL WPB I. I do hereby certify that: 1. I have carefully considered the allegations of the indictment, the number of defendants, the number of probable witnesses and the legal complexities of the Indictment/Information attached hereto. 2. I am aware that the information supplied on this statement will be relied upon by the Judges of this Court in setting their calendars and scheduling criminal trials under the mandate of the Speedy Trial Act, Title 28 U.S.C. Section 3161. 3, Interpreter: (Yes or No) No List language and/or dialect 4. This case will take 0 days for the parties to.try. 5. Please check appropriate category and type of offense listed below: I II ITT IV V. (Check only onc) 0 to 5 days 6 to 10 days 11 to 20 days 21 to 60 days 61 days and over (Check only one) Petty Minor Misdem. Felony 6. Has this case been previously filed in this District Court? (Yes or No) No If yes: Judge: Case No. (Attach copy ofdispositive order) Has a complaint been filed in this 'natter? (Yes or No) No If yes: Magistrate Case No. Related Miscellaneous numbers: Defendant(s)in federal custody as of Defendant(s) in state custody as of Rule 20 from the District of Is this a potential death penalty case? (Yes or No) No 7. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the U.S. Attorney's Office prior to October 14, 2003? Yes - No x *Penalty Sheet(s) attached G-r A. RAICH NT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY a No. 40111 a v V1/i7 Submitted into the public recordgr�elnCs) ,1 on Z!1 . City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2018 Page 4 of 5 PUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENALTY SHEET Defendant's Name: SHORELINE FOUNDATION INC. Case No: Count #: 1 False, Fictitious, or Fraudulent Claims Title 18, United States Code, Section 287 * Max. Penalty: $500,000 or twice the gross gain or loss Submitted into the public record fqr iterp(s) on 2,/7 % /' q , City Clerk *Refers only to possible terra of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution, special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable. Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2018 Page 5 of 5 AO455 (Rev, 01/09) Waiver of nc Indictment UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern District of Florida United States of America v, Shoreline Foundation, inc., Defendant Case No. WAIVER OF AN INDICTMENT I understand that I have been accused of one or more offenses punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. I was advised in open court of my rights and the nature of the proposed charges against me. After receiving this advice, I waive my right to prosecution by indictment and consent to prosecution by information. Date. Defendant's signature Signattn•e of defendants attorney Printed name of defendants attorney Judge's signature Judge's printed name and title Submitted into the public record or it m(s) N.Z on Zit i q City Clerk Submitted into the public record for ite (s) �'� \ , on (,/2�i City Clerk Feds charge Pembroke Park marine engineering firm with submitting $375,062 fraudulent... Page 1 of 3 Submitted into the public record fpr it m(s) '�l, z on Z�2 1� City Clerk Feds charge Pembroke Park marine engineering firm with submitting S375,062 fraudulent invoice A Pembroke Park marine engineering firm has been charged in federal criminal court with submitting a "materially false, fictitious and fraudulent" invoice in 2015 for $375,062 while it was contracted to replace channel marker range lights for the U.S. Coast Guard. (Sun Sentinel) By Ron Hurtibise South Florida Sun Sentinel SEPTEMBER 11, 2018, 10:10 AM APembroke Park marine engineering firm has been charged in federal criminal court with submitting a "materially false, fictitious and fraudulent" invoice in 2015 for $375,n62 while it was contracted to replace channel marker range lights for the U.S. Coast Guard. Few other details were in a felony charging document filed Aug_ 29 in U.S. District Court in Miami, —beyond-the-accusation-that-Shoieliiie Foundati nc whitch^has completed marine work worth ltttp://www.sun-sentinel.comlbusinessffl-bz-shoreline-foundation-felony-fraud-charge-20... 11/30/2018 Feds charge Pembroke Park marine engineering firm with submitting $375,062 fraudulent... Page 2 of 3 millions of dollars under federal contract in South Florida and elsewhere since 1986, fraudulently submitted the invoice "for performance in accordance with the specifications, terms, and conditions of its contract" with the U.S. Coast Guard. The assistant U.S. attorney who filed the ease, Jame A. Raich, said by email that additional information about the charges is not publicly available but will be in about two weeks. Reached by phone on Monday, Shoreline attorney Douglas Molloy, of the Fort Myers -based Molloy Law, said the company plans to take responsibility at an upcoming plea hearing for "mistakes" that actually amount to about $30,00o in damages.. Aformer employee of the firm committed the error in the "bidding and reporting process," Molloy said. He noted that the government allowed Shoreline vice president John McGee, as the company's representative, to waive indictment and consent to prosecution by information. "After the parties sat down and talked about what happened, they agreed this the best course of action as far as taking responsibility," he said. But Molloy declined to identify the former employee who made the "mistake," or to say why it was made or why the company didn't settle the matter with the Coast Guard before it went to criminal court. According to data accessed on the federal website USAspending.gov, Shoreline Foundation Inc. entered into a $2.86 million contract with the U.S. Coast Guard in 2013 to .rebuild navigational guide lights at two channels — "Miami Main" and "Government Cut" — in Miami -Dade County. The website shows the company was paid $2.86 nnillion at the beginning of the two-year contract term in July 2013. In February, 2015, the company was paid $66,246 as part of a supplemental work agreement, then was debited $69,073 in August 2015, the site shows. The offense carries a maximum penalty of $Soo,000 or twice the amount lost, according to the charging document. Shoreline Foundation came under federal scrutiny several times during a seawall rebuilding project at the Port of Palm Beach after a 13-year employee fell into the interior of a barge and died from lack of oxygen in May 2013. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited the company with five violations in connection with the death, then cited the company with 33 violations following inspections at the site in .December 2014 and January 2015. OTHER NEWS: SEC,_aliegesHallandaie_caslr.advance firrr-n-defrauded-3 4oa-investors-out-of $28-7-million Submitted into the public record f r item(s) ` \\ , 7_ on / i / I City Clerk Minn://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/ll-la2-shoreline-foundation-felony-fraud-charge.-20... 11 /3 0/2 018 Feds charge Pembroke Park marine engineering firm with submitting $375,062 fraudulent... }'age 3 of 3 SEC sues 5 Florida agents over sales of unregistered securities i.n alleged Ponzi scheme More lawsuits filed against South Florida drug maker accused of selling contaminated medicines Copyright O 2018, Sun Sentinel This 'attr(data-c-typename)' is related to: Miami Missing comments? We've turned off comments across Sun Sentinel while we review our commenting platform and consider ways to improve the system. If you purchased points through the Solid Opinion platform and would like a refund, please let us know at ciresupportt©tronc.com. Submitted into the public record f r ite� (s) ti\ on `z%Z8 l l q City Clerk http://wwwaun-se ntinel.com/businesslil-bz-shoreline-foundation-fel ony-fraud-ch€urge-20... I 1 /30/2018 1/30/2019 Pembroke Park firm admits it ignored duty to protect endangered coral - Sun Sentinel Dembroke Park firm admits it ignored duty to „rotect endangered coral Staghorn coral of the type seen in this Sun Sentinel file photo was among hundreds of coral colonies discovered at construction sites in the Port of Miami in 2014. A Pembroke Park engineering firm has admitted to commencing work before relocating the coral, in violation of laws. (Sun Sentinel file photo) By Ron Hurtibise South Florida Sun Sentinel OCTOBER 31, 2018, 6:40 PM APembroke Park -based marine engineering firm ignored a requirement to survey and remove endangered coral while replacing channel marker range lights in the Port of Miami in 2014 and 2oi5, the company has admitted in federal court. Facing a federal felony charge, Shoreline Foundation Vice President John McGee signed a proffer admitting that the company ignored state and federal permit requirements tied to a $2.9 million contract to replace four nnel marker range lights used by boaters for navigation. Submitted into the public record for iteip(s) 7, on / . City Clerk 1531EIBIMMOME8=1 /Iritamianisr h bps://www.sun-sentinel,comibusiness/11-bz-shorel ine-founda lion -coral -pro te ction -Mil-folony-201 8 1 030-s tory, html 1/3 1/30/2O19 Pembroke Park firm admits it ignored duty to protect endangered corat - Sun Sentinel In exchange, prosecutors agreed to seek a penalty at the lower end of federal sentencing guidelines for the crime and to ask the court to agree that the company caused $30,00o in loss. The U.S. Attorney's Office declined to provide information about the case not included in court filings. A sentencing hearing is set for Jan. 3, The proffer signed by McGee; Shoreline's attorney, Douglas Molloy; and Assistant U.S. Attorney Jaime A. Raich states that the parties agree that "if this matter were to proceed to trial, the United States would prove the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt," The document states that before starting the construction and demolition project, a subcontractor identified hundreds of coral species in pre -construction surveys at two of the sites, including several colonies of endangered Staghorn coral "in the radius of the construction footprint." One of the sites contained 231 colonies of coral and octocoral, and another contained 332 colonies, all of which "met the parameters for relocation," the proffer said. But construction at the two sites commenced in July and September 2014 with Shoreline Foundation managers aware that the required coral relocation had not occurred, the proffer said. The following year, the subcontractor reminded senior company managers that it was ready to conduct pre - demolition coral surveys that Shoreline was required to perform before demolishing four aging channel marker lights. The company demolished the marker lights without conducting the surveys, the proffer said. "The defendant performed the demolition despite the knowledge of senior [Shoreline Foundation] managers that pre -demolition surveys had not occurred, that there had been no opportunity for the relocation of any coral within the demolition work zone and attached to the range lights." both the construction and demolition phases, the company anchored a work barge by driving pilings into the seabed — a process called spudding -- with no guidance from scientific divers about where to spud, according to the proffer. Submitted into the u ttttps://wwwun-sentinet.comibusinessltl-bz-shoreline-Poundalion-coral-prelectton-tail-felony-2o181o3o•story.html public 2/3 s record fir ite� s) on �� / i City Cie Submitted into the public record fqr iteip(s) j� j , on LIZ,g sCity Clerk Submitted into the public record foir ite (s) , 7, on ln' %iq . City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 18-20708-cr-KMW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC, Defendant. PLEA AGREEMENT The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("this Office") and SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC., (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") enter into the following agreement: 1. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to the Information, which charges the defendant withfalse, fictitious, or fraudulent claims, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections287 and 2. 2. This elements of this offense are (1) that an employee or agent of the Defendant knowingly presented, or caused to be presented, a false claim against the United States to an agency of the United States; (2) that that the claim was based on a false or fraudulent material fact; and (3) that an employee or agent of the Defendant acted intentionally andknew that the claim was false and fraudulent; (4) that each of the acts committed by the employee or agent of the Defendant were within the course and scope of the employment or agency given to the employee or agent by the corporate defendant; and (5) that the employee or agent of the Defendant committed each of the essential elements of the offense, motivated at least in part, by an intent on the part of the officer, director, employee or agent, to benefit the corporation. Submitted into the public record for itev; (s) '01, Z on ZhY,/ o i . City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 2 of 6 3. The defendant is aware that the sentence will be imposed by the Court after considering the advisory Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements (hereinafter "Sentencing Guidelines"). The defendant acknowledges and understands that the Court will compute an advisory sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines and that the applicable guidelines will be determined by the Court relying in part on the results of a pre -sentence investigation by the Court's probation office, which investigation will commence after the guilty plea has been entered. The defendant is also aware that, under certain circumstances, the Court may depart from the advisory sentencing guideline range that it has computed, and may raise or lower that advisory sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The defendant is further aware and understands that the Court is required to consider the advisory guideline range determined under the Sentencing Guidelines, but is not bound to impose a sentence within that advisory range; the Court is permitted to tailor the ultimate sentence in light of other statutory concerns, and such sentence may be either more severe or less severe than the Sentencing Guidelines' advisory range. Knowing these facts, the defendant understands and acknowledges that the Court has the authority to impose any sentence within and up to the statutory maximum authorized by law for the offense identified in paragraph I and that the defendant may not withdraw the plea solely as a result of the sentence imposed. 4. The defendant also understands and acknowledges that the Court may impose a statutory maximum fine of the greater of $500,000 or twice the gross gain or loss. In addition, the Court may impose a term of probation of not less than one year nor more than five years, and may order restitution. 5 The defendant further understands and acknowledges that, in addition to any 2 Submitted into the public record f itei (s) 'n / 7 City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 3 of 6 sentence imposed under paragraph 4 of this agreement, a special assessment in the amount of $400wi11 be imposed on the defendant. The defendant agrees that any special assessment imposed shall be paid at the time of sentencing. If a defendant is financially unable to pay the. special assessment, the defendant agrees to present evidence to this Office and the Court at the time of sentencing as to the reasons for the defendant's failure to pay. 6. This Office reserves the right to inform the Court and the probation office of all facts pertinent to the sentencing process, including all relevant information concerning the offenses committed, whether charged or not, as well as concerning the defendant and the defendant's background. Subject only to the express terms of any agreed -upon sentencing recommendations contained in this agreement, this Office further reserves the right to make any recommendation as to the quality and quantity of punishment. 7, This Office agrees that it will recommend at sentencing that the Court reduce by two levels the sentencing guideline level applicable to the defendant's offense, pursuant to Section 3E1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines, based upon the defendant's recognition and affirmative and timely acceptance of personal responsibility. If at the time of sentencing the defendant's offense level is determined to be 16 or greater, this Office will recommend an additional one level decrease pursuant to Section 3El .1(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines, stating that the defendant has assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of the defendant's own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of the defendant's intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the government and the Court to allocate their resources efficiently. This Office further agrees to recommend that the defendant be sentenced at the low end of the guideline range, as that range is determined by the Court. This Office, however, will not be required to make these recommendations if the defendant: (1) fails or 3 Submitted into the public record foil' ite (s) ''r' / City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 9 Entered on PLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 4 of 6 refuses to make a full, accurate and complete disclosure to the probation office of the circumstances surrounding the relevant offense conduct; (2) is found to have misrepresented facts to the government prior to entering into this plea agreement; or (3) commits any misconduct after entering into this plea agreement, including but not limited to committing a state or federal offense, violating any teen of release, or making false statements or misrepresentations to any governmental entity or official. S. This Office and the defendant agree that, although not binding on the probation office or the Court, they will jointly recommend that the Court make the following findings and conclusions as to the sentence to be imposed: (1) Loss: That the relevant amount of actual, probable or intended loss under Section 2B 1.1(b)(1) of the Sentencing Guidelines resulting from the offense committed in this case is $30,000. 9. This Office and the defendant agree that, although not binding on the probation office or the Court, they will jointly recommend that the Court impose a sentence within the advisory sentencing guideline range produced by application of the Sentencing Guidelines. 10. This Office and the defendant agree and understand that debarment and suspension are administrative processes that are separate and distinct from the defendant's criminal conviction, that the relevant authority for debarment and suspension is the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), and that DHS alone makes adjudications of debarment and suspension, To the extent that DFIS considers debarment or suspension of the defendant for the acts giving rise to this offense, this Office shall recommend that the defendant be neither debarred or suspended. This Office shall be under no affirmative obligation to make this recommendation, and shall only do so in response to a request from the relevant debarment and suspension authority. 4 Submitted into the public record f r it m(s) t on ?An . City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 5 of 6 11. Although not binding on the probation office or the Court, this Office and the defendant further agree that, except as otherwise expressly contemplated in this Plea Agreement, they will jointly recommend that the Court neither depart upward nor depart downward under the Sentencing Guidelines when determining the advisory sentencing guideline range in this case. l2. The defendant is aware that the sentence has not yet been determined by the Court. The defendant also is aware that any estimate of the probable sentencing range or sentence that the defendant may receive, whether that estimate comes from the defendant's attorney, this Office, or the probation office, is a prediction, not a promise, and is not binding on this Office, the probation office or the Court. The defendant understands further that any recommendation that this Office rnakes to the Court as to sentencing, whether pursuant to this agreement or otherwise, is not binding on the Court and the Court may disregard the recommendation in its entirety. The defendant understands and acknowledges, as previously acknowledged in paragraph 3 above, that the defendant may not withdraw its plea based upon the Court's decision not to accept a sentencing recommendation made by the defendant, this Office, or a recommendation made jointly by the defendant and this Office. Submitted into the public, record f r it� (s) public. , on ?,%% / 1 City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 6 of 6 13. This is the entire agreement and understanding between this Office and the defendant. There are no other agreements, promises, representations, or understandings. Date: Date: Date: ARIANA FAJARDO ORSHAN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: B By: JAL A. RAICH A IST T UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ATTO FOR DEFENDANT MCGEE. VICE PRESIDENT AUTHORIZED CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF DEFENDANT 6 Submitted into the public record for ite (s) on Z tiI / 11 . City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 18-20708-cr-I MW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC., Defendant. FACTUAL PROFFER The United States of America and the defendant, SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC., agree that that if this matter were to proceed to trial, the United States would prove the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. The U.S. Coast Guard ("USCG") is an agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security responsible for the care and maintenance of maritime aids to navi:n Lion. 2. In 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard ("USCG") began the process of replacing four aging channel marker range lights in the Port of Miami. Embedded into the sea floor and rising out of the water, the range lights art aids to navigation that guide boats through the Miami channel. 3. The USCG obtained a permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("FDEP") on January 30, 2013, and a permit from the United States Army Corps ("USACE") on March 27, 2013. The permits established terms and conditions designed to protect marine and bcnthic resources. 4. On May 3, 2013, the USCG solicited bids for a project to replace the channel marker range lights in the Port of Miami. As part of a competitive bidding process, the defendant submitted a bid to complete the project for $2,864,454.00. On June 5, 2013, the USCG awarded 1 Submitted into the public record f rite (s) 1)1 on City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 2 of 5 the project to the defendant. At every stage of the bidding prorrzs, the USCG alerted the defendant of the FDEP and USACE permit requirements. 5. The USCG's contract with the defendant established specifications for the construction of the four new range markers. Through incorporation of the USACE permit, the USCG's contract with the defendant also specified terms and conditions for the protection of coral during construction. Some of the specifications for the protection of coral included: a. Pre -construction surveys within the radius of the construction impact zone; b. Relocation of coral meeting size parameters prior to construction; c. The assistance of a scientific diver during barge movements and spudding to mitigate impact to benthic resources in the secondary construction zones; and d. Post -construction surveys within thirty days of the completion of the work. The USCG contract and USACE permit required the same terms and conditions for the demolition of the old range makers as well. The USCG contract and the USACE permit required compliance with these conditions. 6. The defendant hired a subcontractor to perform the required environmental compliance for the total amount of approximately $74,000. Non -Performance of Required Safeguards During Construction 7. En May and _Tune 20I4, the subcontractor performed pre..construction surveys of the four construction sites, as required. The subcontractor identified 162 different species of coral in the construction sites. While one of the sites had no coral, and a second site had only 33 coral colonies meeting the parameters for relocation, two of the sites had substantial coral. The site "Government Cut Rear— Proposed" ("GCR-P") was in a coral reef with abundant coral and several colonies of endangered Staghorn coral (Acropora cerulcarnis) in the radius of the construction 2 Submitted into the public record fQr itern(s) 01 on City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 3 of 5 footprint. The site contained 231 colonies of coral and octocoral that met the parameters for relocation. Likewise, the site "Miami Main Rear — Proposed" ("MMR-P") contained abundant coral and at least one colony of endangered Staghorn coral. The site contained 332 colonies of coral and octocoral that met the parameters for relocation. 8. In July and September, 2014, the defendant performed construction at sites MMR- P and GCR-P respectively, but the subcontractor had not initiated coral relocation at these sites, Responsible senior SFI managers were aware of the requirement for relocation and the fact that it had not yet occurred. Additionally, the defendant's work barges spudded at these sites without scientific diver guidance on spudding locations. Likewise,_ senior SFI managers were aware not only of the permit requirement for scientific diver assistance but also that spudding occurred at these sites without it Non-Pcrfgnnance of Required Safeguards During Demolition 9. In the spring of2015, the subcontractor reminded responsible senior SFI managers that it was necessary to perform pre -demolition surveys of coral at the four demolition sites and indicated that the subcontractor was standing by to perform the surveys. 10. From approximately April 21, 2015 through June 5, 2015, the defendant performed the demolition of the existing channel marker range lights. The demolition occurred without pre - demolition coral surveys. The defendant performed the demolition despite the knowledge of senior SFI managers that pre -demolition surveys had not occurred, that there had been no opportunity for the relocation of any coral within the demolition work zone and attached to the range lights, and that SFI crews had no guidance from scientific divers about where to spud. 3 Submitted into the public record f?r on ti�� City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Docurnent 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 4 of 5 Submission of a Representative False Claire 11. Specifically, on May 6, 2015, the defendant's work logs indicate that the defendant went to the old range marker at site Government Cut Rear -Existing ("GCR-E"), spudded down, and removed the channel marker. 12. ' Because there was no pre -demolition survey, it is impossible to know the impact of the demolition on coral at GCR-E and the other three demolition sites. 13. Throughout the construction and demolition, the defendant submitted claims to the USCG for payment. 14. On June 3, 2015, the defendant submitted an invoice for May 2015. The May 2015 invoice indicated that the USCG had paid the defendant S2,439,888,00 to date and requested S375,061.75 for all of the work performed in May 2015, including the demolition of GCR-E. As with all of the previous twelve progress payment invoices that the defendant had submitted to the USCG, the invoice certified that the "amounts requested are only for performance in accordance with the specifications and conditions of the contract." 4 Submitted into the public record for it9m(s) j 1, n on 2PY, . City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/26/2018 Page 5 of 5 15. The defendant completed all construction and demolition in approximately June 2015 but did not submit its post -construction and demolition survey until the spring of 2016. During the process of preparing its final report, a senior manager for the defendant discouraged the subcontractor from reporting the environmental compliance failures to the USCG. Date: f012.'S/1k By: Date: Date: /c i ARIANA FAJARDO ORSI-IAN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY JA:v ' A. RAICH .TANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: C1 / DOUGL.'' MOLLOY ATTOR EY FOR DEFENDANT By: MCGEE, VICE PRESIDENT UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF DEFENDANT 5 Submitted into the public record fo ite (s) AA on Z City Clerk 5 Submitted into the public record f r ite i(s) '� , on MI / i City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2019 Page 1 of 5 US DCFLSD 245B(Rey .G9/O81-Judi/pant inaCriminalCasc i'as5ior5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Southern District of Florida Miami Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC. JUDGMENT LN A CRIMINAL CASE Case Number: 18-CR-20708-WILLIAMS USM Number: Counsel For Defendant: Douglas Molloy Counsel For The United States: .Jaime A. Raich Court Reporter: Patricia Sanders The defendant pleaded guilty to Count 1 of the Information. The defendant is adjudicated guilty of these offenses: TITLE & SECTION NATURE OF OFFENSE OFFENSE COUNT ENDED 18 U.SC 287 False, Fictitious and Fraudulent Claims to an Agency in the United States 08/29/2018 1 The defendant is sentenced as provided in the following pages of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. t is ordered that the defendant must notify the United States attorney for this district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid. If ordered to pay restitution, the defendant must notify the court and United States attorney of material changes in economic circumstances. Date of Imposition of Sentence: 1/9/2019 Katbleen M Williams United Sta District Judge Date: Submitted into the publi record for itern(s) on City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 17 Entered an FLSD Docket 01/10/2019 Page 2 of 5 USDC Ft.SD 24513 (Rev. 09/O8) - Judgment inn Criminal Case Page 2 of 5 )EFENDANT: SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC. ASE NUMBER: 18-CR-20708-WILLIAMS PROBATION The defendant is hereby sentenced to probation for a term of 5 years. The defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local crime. The defendant must report to the probation office in the district to which the defendant is released within 72 hours of release from the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, The defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled substance. The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. The defendant shall submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter, as determined by the court. The defendant shall cooperate in the collection of DNA as directed by the probation officer. The defendant shall not possess a firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or any other dangerous weapon. if this judgment imposes a fine or restitution, it is a condition of supervised release that the defendant pay in accordance with the Schedule of Payments sheet of this judgment. The defendant must comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court as well as with any additional conditions on the attached page. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION l . The defendant shall not leave the judicial district without the permission of the court or probation officer; 2. The defendant shall report to the probation officer and shall submit a truthful and complete written report within the first fifteen days of each month; 3. The defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer; 4. The defendant shall support his or her dependents and meet other family responsibilities; 5. The defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation, unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, training, or other acceptable reasons; b. The defendant shall notify the probation officer at least ten days prior to any change in residence or employment; 7, The defendant shall refrain from excessive use of alcohol and shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or administer any controlled substance or any paraphernalia related to any controlled substances, except as prescribed by a physician; 8. The defendant shall not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered; 9, The defendant shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity and shall not associate with any person convicted of a felony, unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer; l O.The defendant shall permit a probation officer to visit him or her at any time at home or elsewhere and shall permit confiscation of any contraband observed in plain view of the probation officer, 1.The defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer; 12.The defendant shall not enter into any agreement to act as an informer or a special agent of a law enforcement agency without the permission of the court; and 13.As directed by the probation officer, the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant's criminal record or personal history or characteristics and shall permit the probation officer to make such notifications and to confirm the defendant's compliance with such notification requirement. Submitted into the public record f ite (s) N , L on " City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 17 Entered on PLSD Docket 01/10/2019 Page 3 of 5 '!SDC FESD245B (Rcv. 04I08)-Judfineni in e Crimin&l Gast FENDANT: SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC. tSE NUMBER: 18-CR-20708-WILLIAMS SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION Papc 3 or5 I , Disclosure of Business/Financial Records: The defendant corporation shall make full and complete disclosure of its business finances/financial records to the U.S. Probation Officer. The defendant corporation shall submit to an audit of its business financial records as requested by the U.S. Probation Officer, 2. Permissible Search: The defendant corporation shall submit to a search and/or inspection of any of its properties and places of business conducted at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner by the U.S. Probation Officer and shall permit the U.S. Probation Officer to accompany any law enforcement or regulatory official during any enforcement or inspection of the defendant's properties or places of business. Required Notification - Financial: The defendant corporation shall be required to notify the U.S. Probation Officer immediately upon learning of any material adverse change in its business or financial condition or prospects, the commencement of any bankruptcy proceeding or any major civil litigation in excess of $25,000. 4. Required Notification - Breach of Compliance: The defendant corporation is to inform the U.S. Probation Officer of any breach of compliance involving the defendant company. A description of the nature, date and time of the breach of compliance shall be provided to the U.S. Probation Officer within three days of the breach. 5. Corporate Compliance: The defendant corporation shall not, through a business transaction of any type, including but not limited to, a change of name, business reorganization, sale or purchase of assets, divestiture of assets, or any similar action, seek to avoid the obligations and conditions set forth in the plea agreement, The plea agreement, together with all of the obligations and terms thereof, shall inure to the benefit of and bind assignees, successors -in -interest, or transferees of the defendant. 6. Required Compliance Program: The defendant corporation shall establish and maintain an effective compliance program which shall comply with all federal rules and regulations pertaining to false, fictitious and fraudulent claims to an agency of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287, and shall employ an appropriately qualified Compliance Officer, subject to the approval of the Court. This Compliance Officer shall have the responsibility for implementing the compliance program and overseeing the compliance program. The Compliance Officer shall be a senior level management or supervisory level officer. The entire compliance program shall remain under the supervision of the Court for the duration of the term of probation. Submitted into the public record fp r item(s) on U/?City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 17 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/10/2019 Page 4 of 5 USDC FLSD 245E (Rev, 09/08).1udfnent in a Criminal Cast )EFENDANT: SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC. ASE NUMBER: 18-CR-20708-WILLIAMS Pale 4 nt 5 CRIMINAL MONETARY PENALTIES The defendant must pay the total criminal monetary penalties under the schedule of payments on Sheet 6. TOTALS Assessment $400.00 Fine Restitution $70,000.00 $0.00 If the defendant makes a partial payment, each payee shall receive an approximately proportioned payment, unless specified otherwise in the priority order or percentage payment column below. However, pursuant to l8 U.S.C. § 3664(i), all nonfederal victims must be paid before the United States is paid. NAME OF PAYEE TOTAL LOSS* RESTITUTION ORDERED * Findings for the total amount of losses are required under Chapters 109A, 110, 110A, and 113A of Title 18 for offenses committed on or after September 13, 1994, but before April 23, 1996. **Assessment due immediately unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Submitted into the public record f9r ite (s) . L on n City Clerk Case 1:18-cr-20708-KMW Document 17 Entered on PLSD Docket 01/10/2019 Page 5 of 5 USDC FLSD 245II (Rcv. 69/0B)- }udpncnt in a Criminal Case )EFENDANT: SHORELINE FOUNDATION, INC. ASE NUMBER: 18-CR-20708-WILLIAMS Pare 5 ors SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS Having assessed the defendant's ability to pay, payment of the total criminal monetary penalties is due as follows: A. Lump sum payment of S400.00 due immediately. Unless the court has expressly ordered otherwise, if this judgment imposes imprisonment, payment of criminal monetary penalties is due during imprisonment. All criminal monetary penalties, except those payments made through the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, are made to the clerk of the court. The defendant shall receive credit for all payments previously made toward any criminal monetary penalties imposed, This assessment/fine/restitution is payable to the CLERK, UNITED STATES COURTS and is to be addressed to: U.S. CLERK'S OFFICE ATTN: FINANCIAL SECTION 400 NORTH MIAMI AVENUE, ROOM 08N09 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33128-7716 The assessment/fine/restitution is payable immediately. The U.S. Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Probation Office and the U.S. Attorney's Office are responsible for the enforcement of this order. Defendant and Co -Defendant Names and Case Numbers (including defendant number), Total Amount, Joint and Several Amount, and corresponding payee, if appropriate. L'ASE NUMBER DEFENDANT AND CO-DEFENDANT NAMES TOTAL AMOUNT (INCLUDING DEFENDANT NUMBER) Payments shall be applied in the following order: (1) assessment, (2) restitution principal, (3) restitution interest, (4) fine principal, (5) fine interest, (6) community restitution, (7) penalties, and (8) costs, including cost of prosecution and court costs, JOINT AND SEVERAL AMOUNT Submitted into the public record fpr it m(s) on �.� �)a City Clerk 6 Submitted into the public record f r it m(s) on?j7, �19 ' City Clerk The 2018 Florida Statutes Title XIX Chapter 287 PUBLIC PROCUREMENT OF PER ONAL PR( BUSINESS AND SERVICES 287.133 Public entity crime; denial or revocation of the right to transact business with public entities. — (I) As used in this section: (a) "Affiliate" means: 1. A predecessor or successor of a person convicted of a public entity crime; or 2. An entity under the control of any natural person who is active in the management of the entity and who has been convicted of a public entity crime. The term "affiliate" includes those officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, and agents who are active in the management of an affiliate. The ownership by one person of shares constituting a controlling interest in another person, or a pooling of equipment or income among persons when not for fair market value under an arm's length agreement, shall be a prima facie case that one person controls another person. A person who knowingly enters into a joint venture with a person who has been convicted of a public entity crime in Florida during the preceding 36 months shall be considered an affiliate. (b) "Convicted" or "conviction" means a finding of guilt or a conviction of a public entity crime, with or without an adjudication of guilt, in any federal or state trial court of record relating to charges broughtby indictment or information after July 1, 1989, as a result of a jury verdict, nonjury trial, or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, Submitted into the public record fpt I r ite s) \, '. on 'L `A . City Clerk (c) "Convicted vendor list" means the list required to be kept by the department pursuant to paragraph (3)(d). (d) "Department" means the Department of Management Services. (e) "Person" means any natural person or any entity organized under the laws of any state or of the United States with the legal power to enter into a binding contract and which bids or applies to bid on contracts let by a public entity, or which otherwise transacts or applies to transact business with a public entity. The term "person" includes those officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, and agents who are active in management of an entity. (l) "Public entity" means the State of Florida, any of its departments or agencies, or any political subdivision. (g) "Public entity crime" means a violation of any state or federal law by a person with respect to and directly related to the transaction of business with any public entity or with an agency or political subdivision of any other state or with the United States, including, but not limited to, any bid, proposal, reply, or contract for goods or services,any lease for real property, or any contract for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, involving antitrust, fraud, theft, bribery, collusion, racketeering, conspiracy, or material misrepresentation. (2)(a) A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity; may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work; may not submit bids, proposals, or Submitted into the public record for item(s) on 743 /)tt . City Clerk replies on leases of real property to a public entity; may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with any public entity; and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY TWO fora period of36 months following the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list, (b) A public entity may not accept any bid, proposal, or reply from, award any contract to, or transact any business in excess of the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY TWO with any person or affiliate on the convicted vendor list for a period of 36 months following the date that person or affiliate was placed on the convicted vendor list unless that person or affiliate has been removed from the list pursuant to paragraph (3)(f). A public entity that was transacting business with a person at the time of the commission of a public entity crimeresulting in that person being placed on the convicted vendor list may not accept any bid, proposal, or reply from, award any contract to, or transact any business with any other person who is under the same, or substantially the same, control as the person whose name appears on the convicted vendor list so long as that person's name appears on the convicted vendor list. (3)(a) All invitations to bid, requests for proposals, and invitations to negotiate, as defined in s. 287.012, and any contract document described by s. 287.058 shall contain a statement informing persons of the provisions of paragraph (2)(a). (b) Any person must notify the department within 30 days after a conviction of a public entity crime applicable to that person or to an affiliate of that person. Any public entity which receives information that a person has been convicted of a public entity crime shall transmit 3 Submitted into the public record fa9r itein(s) t, on Z/,'it / 11 . City Clerk that information to the department in writing within 10 days. (e) If the department has reason to believe that aperson or an affiliate has been convicted of a public entity crime, the department may issue a written demand upon that person or affiliate, concerning any such conviction or affiliation, to appear and be examined under oath, to answer interrogatories under oath, or to produce documents or other tangible evidence for inspection and copying. The department shall conduct any such inquiry in accord with applicable provisions of the Florida Rules:of Civil Procedure. (d) The department shall maintain a list of the names and addresses of those who have been disqualified from the public contracting and purchasing process under this section. The department shall publish an initial list on January 1, 1990, and shall publish an updated version of the List quarterly thereafter. The revised quarterly lists shall be electronically posted. Notwithstanding this paragraph, a person or affiliate disqualified from the public contracting and purchasing process pursuant to this section shall be disqualified as of the date the final order is entered. (e)1. Upon receiving reasonable information from any source that a person has been convicted, the department shall investigate the information and determine whether good cause exists to place that person or an affiliate of that person on the convicted vendor list. If good cause exists, the department shall notify the person or affiliate in writing of its intent to place the name of that person or affiliate on the convicted vendor list, and of the person's or affiliate's right to a hearing, the procedure that must be followed, and the applicable time requirements. If the person or affiliate does not request a hearing, the department shall enter a final order placing the name of the person or 4 Submitted into the public record fo iterp s) 1)1, (- on / t City Clerk affiliate on the convicted vendor list. No person or affiliate may be placed on the convicted vendor list without receiving an individual notice of intent from the department. 2. Within 21 days of receipt of the notice of intent, the person or affiliate may file a petition for a formal hearing pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57(1) to determine whether it is in the public interest for that person or affiliate to be placed on the convicted vendor list. A person or affiliate may not file a petition for an informal hearing under s. 120.57(2). The procedures of chapter 120 shall apply to any formal hearing under this section except where they are in conflict with the following provisions: a. The petition shall be filed with the department. The department shall be a party to the proceeding for all purposes, b. Within 5 days after the filing of the petition, the department shall notify the Division of Administrative Hearings of the request for a formal hearing. The director of the Division of Administrative Hearings shall, within 5 days after receipt of notice from the department, assign an administrative law judge to preside over the proceeding. The administrative law judge, upon request by a party, may consolidate related proceedings. c. The administrative law judge shall conduct the formal hearing within 30 days after being assigned, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties. d. Within 30 days after the formal hearing or receipt of the hearing transcript, whichever is later, the administrative law judge shall enter a final order, which shall consist of findings of fact, conclusions of law, interpretation of agency rules, and any other information required by law or rule to be contained in the final order. Such final order shall place or not Submitted into the public record for item(s) 01, 7—_ on 7., N/ . City Clerk place the person or affiliate on the convicted vendor list. e. The final order of the administrative law judge shall be final agency action for purposes of s. 120.68. f. At any time after the filing of the petition, informal disposition may be made pursuant to s. 120.57(4). In that event, the administrative law judge shall enter a final order adopting the stipulation, agreed settlement, or consent order. 3. In determining whether it is in the public interest to place a person or affiliate on the convicted vendor list, the administrative law judge shall consider the following factors: a. Whether the person or affiliate committed a public entity crime. b. The nature and details of the public entity crime. c. The degree of culpability of the person or affiliate proposed to be placed on the convicted vendor list. d. Prompt or voluntary payment of any damages or penalty as a result of the conviction. e. Cooperation with state or federal investigation or prosecution of any public entity crime, provided that a good faith exercise of any constitutional, statutory, or other right during any portion of the investigation or prosecution of any public entity crime shall not be considered a lack of cooperation. f Disassociation from any other persons or affiliates convicted of the public entity crime. g- Prior or future self -policing by the person or affiliate to prevent public entity crimes. Submitted into the public record f r iteln(s) 0\ . 1, on till . City Clerk h. Reinstatement or clemency in any jurisdiction in relation -to the public entity crime at issue in the proceeding. i. Compliance by the person or affiliate with the notification provisions of paragraph (b). j. The needs of public entities for additional competition in the procurement of goods and services in their respective markets. k. Mitigation based upon any demonstration of good citizenship by the person or affiliate. 4. In any proceeding under this section, the department shall be required to prove that it is in the public interest for the person to whom it has given notice under this section to be placed on the convicted vendor list. Proof of a conviction of the person or that one is an affiliate of such person shall constitute a prima facie case that it is in the public interest for the person or affiliate to whom the department has given notice to be put on the convicted vendor list. Prompt payment of damages or posting of a bond, cooperation with investigation, and termination of the employment or other relationship with the employee or other natural person responsible for the public entity crime shall create a rebuttable presumption that it is not in the public interest to place a person or affiliate on the convicted vendor list. Status as an affiliate must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. If the administrative law judge determines that the person was not convicted or is not an affiliate of such person, that person or affiliate shall not be placed on the convicted vendor Iist. 5. Any person or affiliate who has been notified by the department of its intent to place his or her name on the convicted vendor list may offer evidence on any relevant issue. An affidavit alone shall not constitute competent substantial evidence that the person has not been convicted or is not an affiliate of a person 7 Submitted into the public record f r ite s)j, on Z t City Clerk so convicted. Upon establishment of a prima facie case that it is in the public interest for the person or affiliate to whom the department has given notice to be put on the convicted vendor list, that person or affiliate may prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would not be in the public interest to put him or her on the convicted vendor list, based upon evidence addressing the factors in subparagraph 3. (f)1. A person on the convicted vendor list may petition for removal from the list no sooner than 6 months from the date a final order is entered disqualifying that person from the public purchasing and contracting process pursuant to this section, but may petition for removal at any time if the petition is based upon a reversal of the conviction on appellate review or pardon. The petition shall be filed with the department, and the proceeding shall be conducted pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this subsection. 2. A person may be removed from the convicted vendor list subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the administrative law judge upon a determination that removal is in the public interest. In determining whether removal would be in the public interest, the administrative law judge shall give consideration to any relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the factors identified in subparagraph (e)3. Upon proof that a person's conviction has been reversed on appellate review or that he or she has been pardoned, the administrative law judge shall determine that removal of the person or an affiliate of that person from the convicted vendor list is in the public interest. 3. If a petition for removal is denied, the person or affiliate may not petition for another hearing on removal for a period of 9 months after the date of denial, unless the petition is based upon a reversal of the conviction on 8 Submitted into the public record fpr itqm(s) City on p%�� Clerk appellate review or a pardon. The department may petitionfor removal prior to the expiration of such period if, in its discretion, it determines that removal would be in the public interest. (4) The conviction of a person for a public entity crime, or placement on the convicted vendor list, shall not affect any rights or obligations under any contract, franchise, or other binding agreement which predates such conviction or placement on the convicted vendor list. However, the administrative law judge in a proceeding instituted under this section may declare voidable any specific contract, franchise, or other binding agreement entered into after July I, 1989, by a person placed on the convicted vendor list and a public entity, but only if the administrative law judge finds as fact that the person to be placed on the list has not satisfied the criteria set forth in sub - subparagraphs (3)(e)3.d., f., and g. (5) The provisions of this section do not apply to any activities regulated by the Florida Public Service Commission or to the purchase of goods or services made by any public entity from the Department of Corrections, from the nonprofit corporation organized under chapter 946, or from any accredited nonprofit workshop certified under ss. 413.032-413.037. History.—s. 2, ch. 89-114; s. 1, ch. 90-33; s. 32, ch. 90-268; s_ 259, ch. 92-279; s. 55, ch. 92- 326; s. 217, ch. 95-148; s. 33, ch. 95-196; s. 4, ch. 95-420; s. 62, ch. 96-410; s. 58, ch_ 99-13; s. 29, ch. 2002-207. Copyright © 1995-2018 The Florida Legislature • Privacy Statement • Contact Us 9 Submitted into the public record fpr it m(s) i� , on ti City Clerk Submitted into the public record fpr it (s) 1)\, L on 7,I73 / City Clerk 7 1 /30/2019 Detail by Entity Name 0001rsn)r1 Or CORPORA-OO, ,<t 'IJorg r `j, Jrj J rr aliziafsmf of SI7ifi 1 25irkn of Corgor ti.nng / ,j,-;arch Rr;r-oft;. / Dh-tail,,,�3y Nrrmhar / Detail by Entity Name Foreign Profit Corporation TECHNOMARINE GROUP, INC. Filing Information Document Number F15000001638 FEI/EIN Number 47-3470235 Date Filed 04/13/2015 State DE Status INACTIVE Last Event REVOKED FOR ANNUAL REPORT Event Date Filed 09/28/2018 Event Effective Date NONE atincipl Address 1208 US Highway 1 Suite C North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Changed: 04/27/2016 Mailing Address 1208 US Highway 1 Suite C North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Changed: 04/27/2016 RegisteleitAgentName & Address STANTON, ROGER C 1208 US Highway 1 Suite C North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Address Changed: 04/27/2016 Officer/Director Detail Name & Address Title President, Director, Treasurer SANDERSON, ERIK Submitted into the public record f r ite�;(s) j , L. on 7,� 1 A / 19 . City Clerk h ttp://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporalionSearch/SearchResullDe tail7ir iquirytype=EntityNarne&directioniype= Initial&searchNameOrder=TE CHNOM.. 1/2 1/30/2019 1208 US Highway 1 Suite C North Palrn Beach, FL 33408 Title Secretary Stanton, Roger C 1208 US Highway 1 Suite C North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2016 04/27/2016 2017 01/03/2017 Document Imagers tl t10°,+2017._ ANNUAL REPORT 0027.2016 •- ANNUAL REPORT 04/13t2015 -- Forejgn Profit View image in PDF Format View image in PDF format View imago in PDF format Detail by Entity Name Submitted into the public record fivr itei;' (s) 16\ , on Li . City Clerk http://searchsunbiz.org/inquiry/ComorationSearch/SearchResultDotail?inquirytype.EntityName&directionType=lnilial&searchNameOrder TECHNOM... 2/2 Submitted into the public record f r ite s) tj \ , L on City Clerk Mr. Robert Christoph Sr. President and Chairman Virginia Key LLC 300 Alton, Road, Suite 303 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Proposal for the City of Miami REP REP 16-17-011 Virginia Key Marina Virginia Key LLC Dry Stack Storage from Aero-Docks a Member of the Technomarine Group of Companys Aero-Docks Boat Storage Systems Virginia Key Design - 750 Boats within the dry stack, maximum length 65 feet, 45,000 pounds maximum weight. Aero-Docks System III stores 40-55% more boats depending on layout in EXACT same size building footprint and height of forklift dry stack, System Ill's unique ability to work in a building maximum of 200 feet (61 m) in height allows 250% more boats on same amount of land when going above the 61 ft (19m) maximum fora forklift building. See Casa Del Mar project detailed design layout comparison of forklift dry stack system to our System lit designed layout later this page. We put 46% more boats in exact same building and increased linear footage available and PROFITABLE INCOME by 86%1 Our System III does NOT use individual boat carriers which is a significant cost and cycle time savings. Systems attempting to use carriers have their cycle times greatly increased due to once boat is launched the boats carrier must be returned into building. Aero-Docks system is ready to retrieve or launch another vessel immediately offering 20-30 boats per hour launch/retrieval. FOUR REASONS WHY AERO-DOCKS SYSTEM III STORES MORE BOATS 1. Aisle is 30% narrower than forklift as our aisle only needs to be 2 ft longer than longest boat giving more space for boats to be stored. Submitted into the public record on f It . City Clerk Longest boots con be stored top levels where forklift higher it goes less weight it can lift. This creates a triangle of space in front of boats on 3rd and 4th level providing no income from paid for building space.. With forklift this restriction of shorter boats top 2 levels greatly reduces mix of boats you can store. 3. Aero-Docks building height can be 200ft ( 60m) vs. maximum of 62ft(19m) for forklift building. Additional 220% of boat storage space on same site. Converting AIR SPACE above building that a forklift can never use. 4. In forklift building if max row length is 45 ft most always boats less than 45ft are stored leaving often 25%-35% lost income from space that is there but empty. Aero-Docks ability to put 2-4 boats one row and computer density software matching mix of boat lengths so up to 90%+ linear footage of all rows all levels are income producing. 5. SEE Aero-Docks DVD OF SYSTEM III THAT IS INCLUDED WITH THE PROPOSAL (2 minute and 7 minute versions are includeed within the package) VESSEL SORTING OPTIMIZATION SOFTWARE You will also see the fantastic advantage our sorting optimization software unique in the boating world has. It optimizes each night where boats are stored allowing each new boat added to be placed with other boats in a row to use 90% or more of linear footage (meters). Marina owners know that over past few decades the size and type of boats (MIX) changes. A forklift marina due to only one boat per row ( one each side of space wasting wide aisle) is forced in most slots to place a shorter boat than length of slot losing that income. Also often a marina must turn away potential members due to no space for their size boat currently available even though linear footage is there. Aero-Docks System III has no such limitations, instead granting the marina owner ability to re -sort boats to create space needed for new boat owners especially into future when the MIX of boats changes. The Aero-Docks at Virginia Key will always be able use nearly all linear feet in building now and most important decades into the future no matter the mix of boats. Another equally important Aero-Dock advantage is this optimization software stores the usage of the boat owners and adjusts during night to move these boats close to launch entrance of building allowing 2-3 min. launch times. PHONE APP BOAT OWNERS APPLE AND ANDROID PHONES Ultimate Convienence. Request your boat, set time you need your vessel, know marina lead time, provision your boat from the merchants located at the Virginia Key Campus for you day on the water, food, ice, bait and all you need from the marina's concierge service desk including maintenance for you vessel. Key Equipment within the system is the SWE (Steel Wheeled Elevator) that moves the boats within the building and to the waiting water lifts where boats are either Submitted into the public record for ite i(s) �� r L. on VPit( . City Clerk launched or retrieved at the water. Here are schematics showing these two pieces of equipment: SWE (3) Liff and travel speeds from 2 to 5 feet per second/300 feet per minute. Submitted into the public record fqr ite n s) N Z. on tilA J l City Clerk Water Lifts for Virginia Key (61 Included within the Budget Proposal Included is: Building less wall system, Hot Dipped Galvanized Structural Steel, Automated Boat Recycle Wash Down Systems, Automated Ingress and Egress Doors, SWE (3), Water Lifts (6), Boat Storage for 750 Boots to 65 feet, Building Designed -to Arquitecfonica drawings and plan manufactured and installed by Technomarine Group as noted, Maintenance Program; Ten (10) Year Maintenance Contract Administered by Rockwell Automation (NYSE) and Aero-Docks, renewable in 10 year increments. See Details in Exhibit I Spread Sheet for Details. Submitted into the public record fqr iteip (s) {,1 on t / . City Clerk Submitted into the public record fqr ite}(s) 1, L on 7,/n ! I . City Clerk 9 5/22/7017 Virginia Key Budget From Aero-Docks, LLC VIRGINIA KEY HARBOUR & MARINE CENTER Item 9 Description -Virginia Key, LLC - City of Miami - Virginia Key Revitazation Project 2017 Proposal RFP 15-17-911 Virginia Key LLC Cost For Budget Proposal 5-22.2017 per .1.H./RClhtrrginta Key, 1LC Aero-Docks- LLC Baal Storage Dry Stack Systems 1 1 INITIAL ENGINEERING PACKAGE 5 186 775.20 INCLUDES ALL TRAVEL AND ENGINEERING COSTS 2 3 BOAT ELEVATOR APPROXIMATELY 39' HT X 65' BOATS 45 kps boat max..... 5 5,167,277.28 INCLUDES STRUCTURE AND ASSEMBLY OF ALL MECHANICAL COMPONENTS 3 1 Set of Floor RAILS W/ CONTINUOUS FLOOR MOUNTING PLATE on third (3rd) floor above 2 car park levels supplied by others -parking structure ready for Aoro-Docks Structure and roof support ready .Root deck concrete 6: supplied by others. 5 394,200,00 Elevator Rails Installation including GALVANIZED PLATE WITH STAINLESS STEEL BOLTS, 800 Feet 4 1 INSTALLATION OF RAIL SYSTEM ONLY S 175,572,80 INCLUDES LABOR. EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS 5 INSTALLATION OF 3 BOAT ELEVATORS 5 523,800.00 INCLUDES L.AEOR. EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS 6 Elevator Slides Engineering and Manufacture to transfer boats from elevator into building apartments. 5 345,600.00 _ _... 7 Aero-Docks Travel, Management, Commissioning -Fig SWE Erection and Demo Set Up in Ft Worth TX factory 5 96,12000 8 Aero-Docks Tugs 45,000 x 3 units 24 inch lift... Adjustable in and up S 742 737.56 5 6,889;u5.28 x_ . _ _,m 9 Aluminize Apartment Bunks w Vinyl Extruded Cap -NO UV Additive 36,508,5 linear feet hvo bunks side by side S 551,132.64 10 Install Aluminum Bunks in apartments 5 164.160.00 11 Aero-Docks H Beam Rail System sized 1or30 ft span and installation 36,508 linear 8 S 2,079,541.76 12 45 K Boat Lift-tdtet ion of 30 feet. (6) lifts 5 2,484,000.00 13 6 City Water Wash Down Systems for 6 entry / exit points Manual System- $ 24,25896 14 Hurricane Roll up Out Side Doors (6) 5 125,280,00 45 4 Pate Buss Bar Power System Installed al Roof Trusses 800 feet 5 324,000.00 16 Install Buss Bar Power System at Roof Trusses 5 108,000.00 17 Rockwell Automarion-Motors. Drives, PLC's etc. and Aero-Dooks Location Scanners (6) for L x B x H system 5 4,153,846.32 18 Automatic Scan Attachment tor Props, Rudders, IPC Drives etc. -first line boat set up 5 48,600.00 19 Aare -Decks System Inters a: on. Network Seccnly. Instaiaccn arc 1' , o'ry 5 1.404.CCU.00 rote: Aare-r *s Worldwide. LLC- Egclpment Totals S 18 355.564, S 1 B 3E8'k4.9' 1 Aviv -pocks David Mack Bu0tn2 Sys -ems fens Ex1er:cr 'Nall- Hot C/ppad DJ, var.'zfng, Roof Deck- al boat radks per drawings _ - 5 12,038,000.00 512.035.000.00 See Pilings cost below, Concrete Work see below, Budget is for Arquitectonica & Aero-Docks Design.. Does pot ,ncluded Sales Tax On Aero-Docks System Equipment and/or Structural Pkg, Price or building does NOT includes concrete decks between cat park and/or roof deck. Sates lax included for building erection price only. 2 366x 80' Concrete Pilings, Caps and 6" stab between boat Storage and car park levels and 6" mot stab by Monamy, boat storage levet 3 column layout to match Aero-Docks boat layout and supply coiorens 4 bell base plate pattern to exact required dimensions a5 determined bo hero -Docks and ARO buadin0 layout titans. . _ Prodkrt Sun Totals 5 30.392.6i 4.96 5 ::392.66-1.S6 NOTE. No Ado;vanca for Binding Lights, Building 0ecihcal Service or F're Sprinkler system by others. Aero-Docks system raquuas 480 V. 3 prase + ground. 5000 AMP Service -size of electrical service subject to revision atter engineering is completed, Sales Tax included on Building end Erecters Onvy. Total pry Stack Budgot Bid used in Phase Calculations beide is 538.744,28560 plus additional mulbplo Mobilization Fees to to sere ninso at Erne of Phase determination slain_ Phase One = 40% 01txbject or 5 5 12.157.C65.99 43 ase Two = 2318 d prciec1 or S 5 6.2943,312.9a Phase 'Pyre = 37%et erect 5c S 5 11 245 258.03 5 30.392.584 95 Mautteranco Package Estimate-10 Year Contrast renewable at each 10 year cycle, by Awo.Ddcks and administered by Rsc5wa3 a ton on (NYSE) Priced Per Year -Fin ai Priand to be done an& fxofect is yulty engineered pilot to construction 5 200. 43000 S 2C0,430.00 Budget by Aare Docks. LLC North Palm Beach, Fonda Submitted into the public Virginia Key Morino i RFP Na. )b-h-n)) Pogo 8' record forite (s) C' '1,,on ti7,111i . City Clerk Submitted into the public record 1�niterr�(s) �1�1- on 4 City Clerk CASE NUMBER: 502017CA006832XXXXMB Division: AN "" Filing # 57940810 E-Filed 06/19/2017 02:46:44 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO, CHRISTOPHER KARCH, Plaintiff, v. ERIK SANDERSON, Individually: TECHNOMARINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida Corporation; and TECHNOMARINE GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants. COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff, Christopher Kamh, by and through his undersigned counsel. and sues Defendants, Erik Sanderson, individually, Technomarine Construction, Inc., a Florida Corporation ("Florida Technumarinc Construction"), and Technomarine Group, Inc. ("Technomarine Group"), a Delaware Corporation, and states: JURISDICTION, PARTIES AND VENUE I. This is a direct action for tortious interference, conversion and equitable relief.. 2. Plaintiff, Christopher Karch, is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida_ 3. Defendant, Erik Sanderson, is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida. 4. Defendant, Technomarine Group, is a Delaware entity, with a principal address of 1208 U.S. Highway 1, Suite C, North Palm Beach, Florida, and actually conducting business in Palm Beach County, Florida. Submitted into the public record f r it (s) lit i on `��1`/61 . City Clerk FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R. BOCK, CLERK, 06/19/2017 02:46:44 PM 5. On information and belie!, Defendant Sanderson owns, controls and employs Defendant Technomarine Group as a share entity to defraud creditors, including Plaintiff, and further, Defendant Sanderson operates Defendant Technomarine Group as his alter ego. 6. Defendant, Florida Technornarine Construction, is a Florida entity also with a principal address of 1208 U.S. Highway I, Suite C, North Palm Beach, Florida, and actually conducting business in Palm Beach County, Florida. 7. Defendant Sanderson is the purported "CEO" of Defendant, Florida Technomarine Construction. 8. On information and belief, Defendant Sanderson owns, controls and employs Florida Technomarine Construction as a sham entity to defraud creditors, including Plaintiff and further, Defendant Sanderson operates Defendant Florida Technomarine Construction as his alter ego. 9, Non -Party, Technornarine Construction, Inc. ("Delaware Technomarine Construction"), was a Delaware entity wrongfully dissolved by Defendant Sanderson, also with a former principal address of 1208 U.S. Highway I, Suite C, North Palm Beach, Ronda, registered to conduct business in Florida. 10. Plaintiff, prior to Sanderson's wrongful dissolution of Delaware Technomarine Construction, owned a significant stake in Delaware Technomarine Construction, and Defendant Sanderson owned a majority stake in Delaware Technomarine Construction. I l , Plaintiff knowingly served solely as Delaware Technomarine Construction's qualifying contractor; however, Defendants Sanderson, Technomarine Group and Florida Technornarine Construction wrongfully, and without Plaintiff's knowledge, used Plaintiff's Submitted into the public City Clerk contractor's license to qualify said Defendants to conduct construction business in Florida. including in Palm Beach County. 12. Venue is proper in Palm Beach County, Florida, became the action that gives rise to this lawsuit occurred or accrued in Palm Beach County, Florida, and the parties reside in Palm Beach County. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 13, At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff is and was a Florida licensed general contractor. 14. On or before June 1, 2012, Defendant Sanderson solicited Plaintiff to become involved as a shareholder, officer and the qualifying contractor for non-party Delaware Technomarine Construction. 15. Plaintiff worked in the Delaware Technomarine Construction office located at 1208 U.S. Highway 1, Suite C, North Palm Beach, Florida, 16. Delaware Technomarine Construction was in the business of building and/or installing docking systems for marinas, specifically including docking systems licensed for sale through Technomarine Group, 17, Plaintiff served as Delaware Technomarine Construction's qualifying licensed contractor starting in early 2014. 18, Plaintiff only served as Delaware Technomarine Construction's qualifying contractor because Defendant Sanderson guaranteed that Plaintiff would receive significant profits from construction of marina facilities in Horida. Submitted into the public record fir ite (s) �� , t on 2�i, /1 . City Clerk 19_ On June 9. 2014. Del-e Technomarine Construction entered into that certain Agreement with Royal Palm Yacht & Country Club for the construction of marina facilities (the "Royal Palm Agreement") for $4, f 79,001). 20. Plaintiff was Delaware Technomarine Construction's Qualifying Contractor at the time Delaware Technomarine Construction entered into the Royal Palm Agreement; however, Defendants Sanderson and Technomarinc Group hid the Royal Palm Agreement from Plaintiff. 21. On September 29, 2014, Defendant Sanderson, without proper notice or a shareholder meeting, secretly executed and filed a Short Form Certificate of Dissolution with the State of Delaware, dissolving Delaware Technomarine Construction, effective July 15, 2014. 22. Defendant Sanderson falsely represented in the Certificate of Dissolution that the dissolution was authorized, and further that Delaware Technomarine Construction "has no assets and has ceased transacting business," despite the Royal Palm Agreement. 23. On October 6, 2014, after Defendant Sanderson wrongfully dissolved Delaware Technomarine Construction, but before Defendants secretly formed Defendant Florida Technomarine Construction, "Technomarine Construction" entered into that certain Agreement with The Club at Admirals Cove for the construction of marina facilities (the "Admirals Cove Agreement") for $5.780,000. 24. Defendants Sanderson and Technomarine Group hid the Admirals Cove Agreement from Plaintiff, despite that Plaintiff was "Technomarine Construction's" Qualifying Contractor at the time of its execution. 25. On December 17. 2014, after Defendant Sanderson wrongfully dissolved Delaware Technomarine Construction, but before Defendants secretly formed Defendant Florida Technomarine Construction, "Technomarine Construction" entered into that certain Agreement Submitted into the publ'c a record f r ite (s) \, (� on 2% I '� . City Clerk with Flagstone island Gardens, LLC for the construction of marina facilities at Deep Harbor at Island Gardens in Miami, Florida (the "Flagstone Island Agreement") for S4,700,000. 26. Defendants Sanderson and Technomarine Group hid the Flagstone Island Agreement from Plaintiff, despite that Plaintiff was "Technomarine Construction's" Qualifying Contractor at the time of its execution, 27. On January 16, 2015, Defendant Sanderson secretly formed Defendant Florida Technomarine Construction, a new entity with the exact same name as Delaware Technomarine Construction, located at the same principal business address as Delaware Technomarine Construction, for the sole purpose of converting Delaware Technomarine Construction's proceeds from the Royal Palm, Admirals Cove and Flagstone Island Agreements, as well as other potential agreements or business. 28. Defendants wrongfully profited from the Royal Palm, Admirals Cove and Flagstone Island Agreements, as well as other potential business revenue, 29. All conditions precedent to bringing this action have been met, or have been waived. COUNT I: CONVERSION 30. Plaintiff realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 29, above. 31. Defendants Florida Technomarine Construction and Sanderson wrongfully converted the proceeds of the Royal Palm, Admirals Cove, and Flagstone Island Agreements, and potential other undisclosed business, for their own use. 32. Specifically, these Defendants used Plaintiff's license and the corporate form of Delaware Technomarine Construction to enter into these Agreements, without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, 5 Submitted into the publi record f r ite (s) 13` , L, on .,/ i / '1 . City Clerk 33. These Defendants are not permitted by law to simply form a new Florida entity with the same name of an existing Delaware entity and convert the assets of the latter. 34, The proceeds from the Royal Palm, Admirals Cove, and Flagstone Island Agreements belong to Plaintiff; however, these Defendants wrongfully exercised dominion over the same, inconsistent with Plaintiffs ownership of the proceeds. COUNT II: EQUITIBLE ACCOUNTING 35. Plaintiff realleges the allegations in Paragraphs I through 29, above. 36. Plaintiff is entitled to the equitable relief of an accounting, and an adjustment of the account thereafter, as between himself and Defendants Sanderson and Florida Technomarine Construction. 37. These Defendants wrongfully entered into the Royal Palm, Admirals Cove, and Flagstone Island AL, ements using Plaintiff's license and the corporate form of Delaware Technomarine Construction, as described herein. 38. These Defendants' wrongful conduct leaves no adequate remedy at law. COUNT III: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 39. Plaintiff realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 29, above. 40. Defendants Sanderson and Technomarine Group represented to Plaintiff that if he provided his license to be the qualifying contractor for the construction of marina facilities sold by Technomarine Group, that he would receive a portion of the proceeds from such construction. 4.1. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon these Defendants' representations and allowed his license to be used, and further, appeared regularly in Defendants' physical office in furtherance of his obligation as a qualifying contractor. 6 Submitted into the public record fpr it m�(s) , Z on 2�. %� . City Clerk 42. These Defendants, contrary to their represented position, surreptitiously entered into the Royal Palm, Admirals Cove, and Flagstone island Agreements using Plaintiff's license and the corporate form of Delaware Technomarine Construction. 43. Further, these Defendants secretly formed Florida Technomarine Construction in order to avoid making payment to Plaintiff. 44, These Defendants' change in position directly and proximately caused Plaintiff damages, including the loss of his share of the proceeds of the Royal Palm, Admirals Cove, and Flagstone Island Agreements. COUNT IV: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE 45. Plaintiff realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 29, above. 46. Defendants Sanderson, Florida Technomarine Construction and Technomarine Group tortuously interfered with Plaintiff's relationship with Delaware Technomarine Construction, and Delaware Technomarine Construction's relationships stated in the Royal Palm, Admirals Cove, and Flagstone Island Agreements, as alleged herein. 47. Defendants had actual knowledge of Plaintiffs relationship with Delaware Technomarine Construction, and Delaware Marine Construction's relationships stated in the Royal Palm, Admirals Cove, and Flagstone Island Agreements. 48. By performing and accepting payment pursuant to the Agreements, Defendants intentionally, tortuously and without justification interfered and usurped Plaintiff's relationship with Delaware Technomarine Construction, 49. Defendants' conduct directly and proximately caused Plaintiff damages, including but not limited to, Plaintiffs' portion of the profits derived from the Agreements. 7 Submitted into the public record fq n i`t�el♦n(s) Q� , City on ,ll ,, f l Clerk WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Christopher Karch. demands judgment against Defendants. jointly and severally, for damages, finding entitlement to an accounting and ordering the same, pre- and post judgment interest as applicable, and such other relief that this Court deems fair and just. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all Counts for which Plaintiff is entitled. Date: June 19, 2017 Respectfully submitted, MRACHEK, FITZGERALD & ROSE, KONOPKA, THOMAS & WEISS, P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 600 West Palrn Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 655-2250 Facsimile: (561) 655-5537 Email: gweiss@mrachek-law.com Secondary Email: psymons@mrachek-law.com sl GREGORY S. WEISS GREGORY S. WEISS, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 163430 Counsel for Plaint 8 Submitted into the public record foir ite (s) on t i , City Clerk Filial; # 72251973 E-Filed 05/16/2018 04:10:0, PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 1STH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA C-t1'ra' NO.502017CA006832XXXXMBAN GHR STOPHER KARCI•I, Plaintiff, v. ERIK SANI,,?ISON, Individually; TECHNOMA LINE CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida. Corpo tt on; and TECHNOMARr NgGROUP, INC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants. / CFN 20180195944 OR BK 29866 PG 279 RECORDED 05/21)2018 14 54 31 Palm Beach Co;iniv F Ionda AMT Sharon R. Bock CLERK a COMPTROLLER Pgs0279-0282.t4P9s) FINAL JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE came before the Court for jury trial on May IS, 2018, and upon the Jury's Verdict rendered in this use on May IS, 2018. The Court, having conducted the jury trial in this matter and being fully advised in the premises, HEREBY ORDERS AND ADJUDGES AS FOLLOWS: I. Based upon the Verdict, the Jury awarded Plaintiff, Christopher Karch ("Karch"), damages in the amount of S3,873,000, against Defendants, Erik Sanderson and Technomarine Construction, Inc., for Count I for Conversion. Karch shall recover the sum of S3,873,000, from Defendants, Sanderson and Technomarinc: Construction, Inc., jointly and severally, that shall bear interest at the statutory rate from and after the date of this Final Judgment, for which sum let execution issue. 2. Based upon the Verdict, the Jury awarded Karch damages in the amount of $1,703,000, against Defendants, Erik Sanderson and Technomarine Group, Inc., for Count IV for Submitted into the public record f r itqm(s) �i 1, on tin)q City Clerk FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, SHARON R BOCK. CLERK. 05/16/2018 04 1C:04 PM CFN 2018019s944 BOOK 29866 PAGE 280 2 OF 4 Karch v. Sanderson et al. Pinot Judgment Case No.: 502017CA006832XXXXM13AN IV 2 of 4 Tortto-ns Interference. Karch shall recover the sum of $1,703,000, from Defendants, Sanderson and Tec}tnomarine Group, Inc., jointly and severally, that shall bear interest at the statutory rate from and:After the date of this Final Judgment, for which sum let execution issue. 3. . --:jr1 no event shall Karch collect more than the total amount provided in 1 above. Moreover, Karch.shall not collect from Defendant. Technomarinc Group, Inc. more than the amount provided 41-.1.2 above. '1. The Court reserves jurisdiction to enter an additional tinal judgment for prejudgment interest, niiti for the costs for bringing this matter in accordance with the the Uniform Guidelines, 5. In addition to the damages awarded for the legal claims tried to the Jury,. the Court finds that Karch would be entitled to, equitable relief pursuant to Count II for an Equitable Accounting, and Count III for Promissory Estoppel. However, in light of the Jury's Verdict and the award of damages on Karch's legal coitus, and Karch's acknowledgement that the relief granted on the legal claims affords him a full recovery on the equitable claims, the Court dismisses Karch's equitable claims set forth in Counts 11 and 1II as moot. Current Address and Tnx ID Information 6. The current address for Judgment Debtor fechnomarine Construction, Inc., is 1205 US Highway I, Suite C, North Palm Beach, FL 33408, and the current Tax ID number is 80-0418615. Submitted into the public record foil.ite (s) t\ t on 2,%/ 9 . City Clerk i CFN 20180'959.44 BOOK 29866 AAGt 28 3 OF 4 Karol) v, Sanderson et al. Final Judgment Case No.: 502017CA006832XXXnit BAN PtIge 3 of4 '7. The current address for Judgment Debtor Technomarine Group, Inc., is 1208 US IligInvay I, Suite 400, North Palm Beach, FL 33408, and the current Tax 1D number is 47- 3470235 ,�.,. 8. . ;ltihc current address for Judgment Debtor Erik Sanderson, is 1208 US Highway I, Suite C, North Palm Beach, FI.33408. 9. 'Che,urrent address of the judgment creditor Plaintiff, Christopher Karel), is 13125 Tangerine Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33412. 10, The Courkreserves jurisdiction to enforce this Final Judgment. 11. Defendants shall each complete, wider oath, the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.977 (Fact Information Sheet), including all required attachments, and serve the forms on Plaintiff's attorney within 45 days of the date of this Final Judgment, unless Judgment is satisfied or post judgment discovery is stayed. DONE AND ORDERED in Charnbe7s at West Palm Beach, Florida, this + L9 day of May, 2018. Copies furnished to counsel on attached list: JOSE]31-I MARX C� 1 (11T COURT JUDGE UM ALE Submitted into the public record f r ite ) �, L on 1,JL,Ij'_ . City Clerk CFN 20180195944 BOOK 29866 PAUL 282 4 OF 4 Karch v. Sanderson et al, Final Judgment Case No.: 502017CA006832XXXXMBAN Page 4 of 4 Grc ory‘S. Weiss, Esq, MRAHCEK, FITZGERA LD, ROSE, KONOZ.K ,, THOMAS & WEISS. P.A. 505 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 6U0 West Palm O h, FL 33401 Email: gweis inrttchek-Iavi.com: psymonsfattrachek-law.com Telephone: (5641655-2250 Facsimile: (561 ):'65575537 Reber C. Stanton, STANTON 1.A W, 1208 US Hwy. I, Sctite.0 North Palm Beach, 31468 Email: RCS @rstantonlawratmi Telephone: (561) 922-7064'; Facsimile: (561) 257-7064 Submitted into the publl L record f ite (s) u , " on ?'/ b �tq . City Clerk 11 Submitted into the publi , record f r iteins) , on % I L 1 i City Clerk I iit(1a I -I. I't't'I•v_ A1tut't1t'\ �1l �tl October 30, 2018 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Attn: Roger C. Stanton, Esq. Technomarine Construction, Inc. 1208 US Highway 1, Suite C North Palm Beach, FL 33408 RE: Notice of Default To Whom It May Concern: The purpose of this letter is to formally place you on notice that you are in default of Contract Agreement for Construction with the City of Bradenton Beach, Community Redevelopment Agency ("CRA") dated January 16, 2017 (hereinafter, "Agreement"). Pursuant to Section 7, "Time is of the essence in all respects under this Contract. Services shall commence upon the full execution of this Contract and all work shall be completed within six (6) months, unless otherwise terminated pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth herein." The CRA has gone above and beyond to perform its legal obligations under the Contract and has been exceedingly accommodating to the issues of delay presented by Technomarine. To date, you have failed to provide a proper set of engineered plans in accordance with the Request for Proposal Submission by Technomarine, failed to provide the dock materials paid for by the CRA on July 31, 2018, and failed to timely install the floating dock. This notice is required pursuant to Sections 7 and 8 of the Agreement. The CRA has repeatedly attempted to obtain information on the status of this project: through written correspondence of Chairman Cole, a personal visit and correspondence from board member Horne, and countless email and phone calls from Chief Speciale. Technomarine has been largely unresponsive and has provided little to no communication or reasonable assurances as to when your legal obligations will be performed. On 9/11/18, 9/13/18, 9/14/18, 9/17/18, and continuing into this month, Chief Speciale has attempted to work with your office in arranging the transfer of the dock materials; however, said attempts have been ignored by Technomarine. The CRA has been informed by a representative from Batalink that the overseas container from Ronautica has been delivered and the CRA has been informed from outside sources that the container is now in Tampa awaiting a barge. The CRA has authorized my office to work on an amicable solution to this matter up to and including the CRA making arrangements at its own cost to secure the materials from Tampa and deliver them into the City. Please be advised that failure to immediately respond to this correspondence and timely work on a solution will result in the CRA filing any and all legal actions pursuant to Section 18 of the Agreement. The CRA has also authorized the filing of Legal actions personally against individuals associated with Technomarine, as well as administrative complaints to the raj Gull' Uri•. ISr:01,9nl,ui !lo:n•Ir. I,Iuri,I:, 14217 I:,\ u4t-798-u177 11.11 j41-5:X-6468 rnE:1i1 i, in,3:d=�rri�nn_url Submitted into the public record fpr ite s) \'\ , on tAl City Clerk Technomarine Construction, Inc. 10/30/2018 Page 2 of 2 department of Business and Professional Regulation, the Office of the Florida Attorney General, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the Federal Trade Commission, and any other appropriate agency. Technomarine expressly provided in correspondence dated July 23, 2018, July 26, 2018, and July 31, 2018 that the taxpayer funds from the CRA would be directly wired to Spain for the dock materials manufactured by Ronautica. The CRA has been advised that those monies were never appropriated to Spain and were reallocated to something wholly unrelated to the CRA's project. Likewise, Ronautica has informed the CRA that it was never paid for the overseas materials and had incurred significant Port of Miami holding fees due to your failure to timely retrieve the materials. Despite reassurances from Technomarine that the materials would be delivered to the CRA—to date no such delivery has occurred. Significantly disconcerting is the testimony under oath provided by Erik Sanderson on August 8, 2018 in his deposition from Karch v. Sanderson, et al, 502107-CA- 006832XXXXMBAN, on page 28, lines 14-19, wherein he stated that the "the City of Bradenton Beach project, to my knowledge is paid in full and 100 percent complete." Mr. Sanderson also testified on page 30, lines 7-10 that the "City of Bradenton Beach doesn't make payments to Technomarine Construction. They make payments direct to the factory and to the contractor." These statements were patently false testimony. In all regards, it appears that the actions of Teclinornarine are akin to defrauding taxpayer monies and civil theft You have 10 days from the receipt of this correspondence to make appropriate arrangements to resolve the delivery of the dock materials. Failure to do so will result in my client exercising any and all of its legal rights to protect its public funds and this current project. My cell phone is (941)526-6468. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to work out an amicable solution. Sincerely yours, RICINDA . ' RRY, P.A. Ricindas, City Attmey for the City of Bradenton Beach RHP/MAM cc: Terri Sanclemente, City Clerk for the City of Bradenton Beach CRA Chairman Ralph Cole The Honorable John Chappie, Mayor of the City of Bradenton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Bradenton Beach Chief Sam Speciale, City of Bradenton Beach Submitted into the public record fo iteip(s) Q\, Z on titA l I City Clerk 12 Submitted into the public record f r ite 1(s) )\ on '(,/�N City Clerk 1/3012019 CRA declaring Technomarine in default of dock contract l Anna Maria Island Sun CRA declaring Technomarine in default of dock contract ay joe Hendricks - November 2. 201a In September, this photograph at Bradenton Beach's Beating dock components was sent to Police Chief Sam Speciate. - City of Bradenton Beach I Submitted BRADENTON BEACH - Technomarine's failure to install a floating public dock alongside the Bridge Street Pier has resulted in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) initiating contractual default proceedings. The CRA members remain open to taking possession of the manufactured dock sections and finishing the floating dock project with another contractor. They've also discussed installing a fixed wooden dock instead. The previous storm -damaged floating dock was removed in August 2017. The CRA members are considering partnering with the city of Pahokee and seeking a Florida Attorney General Office investigation of Technomarine's business practices. In April, the city of Pahokee terminated its contract with Technomarine for a stalled city marina and campground renovation project and filed a lawsuit seeking to recoup $125,000 paid to Technomarine. The Bradenton Beach dock sections were manufactured by Ronautica Marinas in Spain and shipped to Port Everglades in August. On Sept. 25, Technomarine CEO Erik Sanderson emailed Police Chief and Pier Team facilitator Sam Speciale and informed him the dock sections were trucked to a Tampa boat yard pending future barge delivery to Bradenton Beach. To date, Sanderson has not provided an address for the undisclosed storage location and City Attorney Rtcinda Perry said the dock sections remain Technomarine's property until delivered to Bradenton Beach. Default letter On Oct. 18, the CRA directed Perry to draft a letter- putting Technomarine and Sanderson on notice of being in default of the $119,980 contract the CRA and Technomarine executed in January 2017 and finalized in March 2017. https:f/www.amisun.com/2018111 t02tcra-declaring-Technomarine-In-default-of-dock-contract/ Submitted into the public record f r item(s) on ti�� lw . City Clerk tin 1/30/2019 CRA declaring Technomarine in default of dock contract 1 Anna Maria [stand Sun On Friday, Oct, 26, Perry sent the requested letter to City Clerk Terri Sanclemente and asked that it be reviewed by CRA chair Ralph Cole before being sent by certified mail to attorney Roger Stanton at Technomarine's North Palm Beach office. Perry also requested that Speciale email the default letter to Sanderson. "It appears that the actions of Technornarine are akin to defrauding taxpayer monies and civil theft." — Ricinda Perry, City Attorney "To date, you have failed to provide a proper set of engineered plans In accordance with the request for proposal submission by Technomarine, failed to provide the dock materials pald for by the CRA on July 31 and failed to timely install the floating dock. Technomarine has been largely unresponsive and has provided little to no communication or reasonable assurances as to when your legal obligations will be performed," Perry's letter states. "Despite reassurances from Technomarine that the materials would be delivered to the CRA— to date no such delivery has occurred. Significantly disconcerting is the testimony under oath provided by Erik Sanderson on Aug. 8 in his deposition from Karch v. Sanderson, wherein he stated 'the city of Bradenton Beach project, to my knowledge is pald in full and 100 percent complete,' Mr. Sanderson also testified the 'city of Bradenton Beach doesn't make payments to Technomarine Construction. They make payments direct to the factory and to the contractor.' These statements were patently false testimony," Perry's letter states. According to City Treasurer Shayne Thompson, the city has made three payments to Technomarine Construction Inc. totaling $83,682 - including the $29,961 July payment Technomarine was supposed to reallocate to Ronautica Marinas. When contacted on Monday, Oct. 29, Ronautica Managing Director Oscar Fontan said Technomarine has not yet paid Ronautica for the Bradenton Beach dock sections and Ronautica plans to file a $51,000 lawsuit against Technomarine. Perry's letter concluded by saying, "It appears that the actions of Technomarine are akin to defrauding taxpayer monies and civil theft. You have 10 days from the receipt of this correspondence to make appropriate arrangements to resolve the delivery of the dock materials. Failure to do so wits result in my client exercising any and all of its legal rights to protect its public funds and this current project. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to work out an amicable solution." Perry recently told the CRA members it would be a waste of time and money to file a lawsuit against the financially -strapped company. As of Friday, Nov. 2, neither Sanderson nor Stanton had replied to the certified letter or Speciale's email. Company representative Anna Bennett did inform Speciale that she is no longer associated with Technomarine. Submitted into the public record f r itey;(s) �\ , C on �/7 cj/ 1 . City Clerk iittps://www.amisun.corn(2018/11 /02/cra-declaring-technomarine-in-defa ult-of-dock-contracV 2/4 1 /30/2019 CRA declaring Technomarine in default of dock contract I Anna Maria Island Sun The Bradenton Beach CRA members are now considering mstarfing a wooden fixed dock alongside the historic Bridge Street Pier, - Joe Hendricks 'Sun Karch v. Sanderson The Karch v. Sanderson lawsuit Perry referenced pertains to Sanderson's Aug, 8 deposition as part of the ongoing legal actions stemming from a 2017 lawsuit in which Christopher Karch sought $3.87 million from Sanderson and Technomarine. In April, Karch was awarded $1.7 million, which he is now trying to collect. In 2014, Karch agreed to serve as Technomarine's qualifying contractor: The lawsuit alleges Sanderson and Technomarine wrongfully converted the proceeds of two multi -million -dollar marina projects and entered into those contracts without Karch's knowledge or consent. "Sanderson owns, controls and employs Technomarine Group as a sham entity to defraud creditors," Karch claimed In the lawsuit complaint. According to the written transcript of Sanderson's August deposition, Technomarine Construction has not accepted any contracts In 2018 and is "unwinding as a company because It's a loss leader." Sanderson also said Technomarine did not plan to renew the lease on its North Palm Beach office space and he was not sure if he planned to file bankruptcy, according to the deposition transcript. joe Hendricks h t tp: //mv w, d m+s tm. r om Correspondent lee Hendricks covers Anna Maria and Bradenton Beach. Em u h I tps:/iwww.amisun.com/20113/11102/cra-declaring-technomarine-in-default-of-dock-conliactl Submitted into the public record on 21 ��i ��ts) �� ► City Ci Clerk 3/4 CAA ceclaring Technomarine in default of dock contract By Joe Hendricks • November 2, MS la September, this photograph of Bradenton Beach's floating dock components was sent to Police Chief Sam Specialo. - City of Bradenton Beach I Submitted BRADENTON BEACH — Technomarine's failure to install a floating public dock alongside the Bridge Street Pier has resulted in the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) initiating contractual default proceedings. The CRA members remain open to taking possession of the manufactured dock sections and finishing the floating dock project with another contractor. They've also discussed installing a fixed wooden dock instead. The previous storm -damaged floating dock was removed in August 2017. The CRA members are considering partnering with the city of Pahokee and seeking a Florida Attorney General Office investigation of Technomarine's business practices. In April, the city of Pahokee terminated its contract with Technomarine for a stalled city marina and campground renovation project and filed a lawsuit seeking to recoup $125,000 paid to Technomarine. The Bradenton Beach dock sections were manufactured by Ronautica Marinas in Spain and shipped to Port Everglades in August. On Sept. 25, Technomarine CEO Erik Sanderson emailed Police Chief and Pier Team Submitted into the public record fir it s) on facilitator Sam Spectate and informed him the dock sections were trucked to a Tampa boat yard pending future barge delivery to Bradenton Beach. To date, Sanderson has not provided an address for the undisclosed storage location and City Attorney Ricinda Perry said the dock sections remain Technomarine's property until delivered to Bradenton Beach. Default letter On Oct. 18, the CRA directed Perry to draft a letter putting Technomarine and Sanderson on notice of being in default of the $119,980 contract the CRA and Technomarine executed in January 2017 and finalized in March 2017. On Friday, Oct. 26, Perry sent the requested letter to City Clerk Terri Sanclemente and asked that it be reviewed by CRA chair Ralph Cole before being sent by certified mail to attorney Roger Stanton at Technomarine's North Palm Beach office. Perry also requested that Speciale email the default letter to Sanderson. "it appears that the actions of Technomarine are akin to defrauding taxpayer monies and civii theft_" — Ricinda Perry, City Attorney "To date, you have failed to provide a proper set of engineered plans In accordance with the request for proposal submission by Technomarine, failed to provide the dock materials paid for by the CRA on July 31 and failed to timely install the floating dock. Technomarine has been largely unresponsive and has provided little to no communication or reasonable assurances as to when your legal obligations will be performed," Perry's letter states. "Despite reassurances from Technomarine that the materials would be delivered to the CRA— to date no such delivery has occurred. Significantly disconcerting is the testimony under oath provided by Erik Sanderson on Aug. 8 in his deposition from Karch v. Sanderson, wherein he stated 'the city of Bradenton Beach project, to my knowledge is paid in full and 100 percent complete.' Mr. Sanderson also testified the 'city of Bradenton Beach doesn't make payments to Technomarine Construction. They make Submitted into the public record f r ite s) '�� Z. on 9 City Clerk payments direct to the factory and to the contractor.' These statements were patently false testimony," Perry's letter states. According to City Treasurer Shayne Thompson, the city has made three payments to Technomarine Construction Inc. totaling $83,682 — including the $29,961 July payment Technomarine was supposed to reallocate to Ronautica Marinas. When contacted on Monday, Oct. 29, Ronautica Managing Director Oscar Fontan said Technomarine has not yet paid Ronautica for the Bradenton Beach dock sections and Ronautica plans to file a $51,000 lawsuit against Technomarine. Perry's letter concluded by saying, "It appears that the actions of Technomarine are akin to defrauding taxpayer monies and civil theft. You have 10 days from the receipt of this correspondence to make appropriate arrangements to resolve the delivery of the dock materials. Failure to do so will result in my client exercising any and all of its legal rights to protect its public funds and this current project. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to work out an amicable solution." Perry recently told the CRA members it would be a waste of time and money to file a lawsuit against the financially -strapped company. As of Friday, Nov. 2, neither Sanderson nor Stanton had replied to the certified letter or Speciale's email. Company representative Anna Bennett did inform Speciale that she is no longer associated with Technomarine. Submitted into the public record r it m(s) '(\, 1_ on City Clerk The Bradenton Deach ERA members are now considering installing a wooden fixed dock aton_nsrde the historib Bridge Street Pier. - Joe Hendricks I Sun Karch v. Sanderson The Karch v. Sanderson lawsuit Perry referenced pertains to Sanderson's Aug. 8 deposition as part of the ongoing legal actions stemming from a 2017 lawsuit in which Christopher Karch sought $3.87 million from Sanderson and Technomarine. In April, Karch was awarded $1.7 million, which he is now trying to collect. In 2014, Karch agreed to serve as Technomarine's qualifying contractor. The lawsuit alleges Sanderson and Technomarine wrongfully converted the proceeds of two multi -million -dollar marina projects and entered into those contracts without Karch's knowledge or consent. "Sanderson owns, controls and employs Technomarine Group as a sham entity to defraud creditors," Karch claimed in the lawsuit complaint. According to the written transcript of Sanderson's August deposition, Technomarine Construction has not accepted any contracts in 2018 and is "unwinding as a company because it's a loss leader." Sanderson also said Technomarine did not plan to renew the lease on its North Palm Beach office space and he was not sure if he planned to file bankruptcy, according to the deposition transcript. Joe Hendricks hitp'(/www. amisu,L corn Correspondent Joe Hendricks covers Anna Maria and Bradenton Beach. Email Submitted into the public record f r ite (s) , Z on City Clerk Submitted into the public record f r it (s) W‘. i, on (, City Clerk 13 MEMO Date February 7, 2019 From: Javier Yarns Re: Technomarine Group, Inc. CURIREXT STATUS OF TECHNOMARINE GROUP, IN We have conducted the following investigation into the current status of Technomarine Group, Inc. Our findings are as follows: c. me 0 ,GRQz „GiC,ORPO According to the Florida Division of Corporations, Technomarine Group, Inc. was incorporated on 04/13/2015 and was declared inactive by the State of Florida on 09/28/2018 for failure to file its annual report. menNo „ 'LGR _ES03-ifoNE:STATO4 We called the listed business numbers for Technomarine Group, Inc. 888-418-3625 & 833-639-3625. Both numbers are answered by the same prerecorded answering service. No live persons on any of the extensions, such as #2 for sales and 43 for new dock construction, Both departments end with "leave a voice mail." We have left voice mails for both the sales and new dock construction departments and no one has returned our calls as of the date of this report. Submitted into the public record for itFm(s) t. on 7, / . City Clerk 'ECI3NQMr RII\SGROUP,•INC.:BUSINESS ENTAIL STATUS C O 1a GROUP, INC'' a1 SINESS _ ®PRES According to the Technomarine Group, Inc. website, their global headquarters is currently located at: 1208 US Highway 1 Suite C N. Palm Beach, Fl 33408 • On Wednesday February 6, 2019 we traveled to the Technomarine Group, Inc. global headquarters listed above and learned the following: • Technomarine Group Inc. and any of its affiliations are no longer operating out of this location. • A Google photo of the front of the business, taken in 2018, shows the Technomarine si up. • On February 6, 2019 the sign was gone. Submitted into the public record for it s) Q\ , City Clerk 3 Technomarine is currently being evicted from the premises in question. • We canvassed area businesses and no one knows of the current whereabouts of Technomarine or its representative Erik Sanderson. "Not a hole lot of movement in the past few months. Lots of people looking for them," one person stated. • The office in question appears to have been emptied out. • We also traveled to another office rented by Technomarine located at 1220 US Highway 1, Suite K, North Palm Beach, Florida and that office has also been vacated by Technomarine. Submitted into the public record �grit�er�) '�jJJ, � Z on /J l� `� City Clerk TECHNOMAR NE GROUP, INC. INTERNET STATUS Submitted into the public record f9r iterp (s) on t/ f i City Clerk TEC -7 N- e=TE GROUP, IC. VILLAGE: OF NORTH, PALM BE .'C BUSINESS TAX/OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE,ST44TUS We traveled to the Village of North Palm Beach Business Tax/Occupational License Department and they advised that they do not have a Business Tax License for Technomarine Group, Inc. That the only licenses they have on file are for Technomarine Construction, Inc., Technomarine Building Systems, Inc, and Technomarine USA. However, licenses for all 3 entities expired on September 30, 2018 and are currently delinquent. kJSINBSS2 a lGESSE ;rr U We contacted the Palm Beach County Business Tax Department and they advised that they do not have a Business Tax License for Technomarine Group, Inc. That the only licenses they have on file are for Technomarine Construction, Inc. and Technomarine, Inc. D.B.A. Technomarine USA, Inc. However, licenses for both entities expired on September 30, 2018 and are currently delinquent. Thank you. Javier Yanes Submitted into the public record frr iter s) \e'L on 1 , City Clerk Submitted into the public record fpr it m(s) �\ , on 2%?1/sq City Clerk 14 Unpermitted Miami Beach seawall will cost city more I Miami Herald Page 1 of 12 MIAMI BEACH Submitted into the public record for it m(s) ` , 2� on l,��,V�eq City Clerk Qops. Miami Beach built a seawall without a permit and may have to tear it down BY JOEY FLECHAS AND ALEX HARRIS v f u l JANUARY 16, 2018 07:52 PM, UPDATED JANUARY 17, 201810:33 AM Miami Beach will have to replace parts of its Indian Creek Drive seawall after it was discovered certain sections were unpermitted and noncompliant with county and state regulations. ALEX HARRIS AHARRIS@MIAMIHERALO.COM Miami Beach has run afoul of environmental regulations by building an unpermitted seawall, prompting the firing of the engineer who has overseen other city projects to prepare for sea level rise. The seawall may have to be torn down and rebuilt, further boosting the cost of a sea level rise project that is expected to be $5 million over budget. Work on the seawall along Indian Creek Drive has been halted while the city sorts through regulatory problems on a project originally pegged at $25 million. The https://www.m iarniherald. cominews/local/community/m iam i-dade/rn iami-beachiarticl el 95... 2/20/20I 9 Urrperrnitted Miami Beach seawall will cost city niore ( Miami Herald Page 2 of 12 project is key to the city's plans to adapt infrastructure in the face of worsening flooding as the sea levels rise and climate changes. ADVERTISING C) Replay inRead invented by Teads In 2016, the state agreed to pay for $19.5 million of the improvements to the state -owl road, and the city would pay the rest. Now, a portion of unpermitted seawall built unde direction of the city engineer could cost the city more. It's unclear at this point how mu more, said city spokeswoman Melissa Berthier. YOUR ALL ACCESS SUBSCRIPTION IS WAITING! Enjoy 92% off your first month of digital access when you finish signing up today. SUBSCRIBE NOW #READLOCAL Submitted into the public recordfop-it�es) �1 \ , "e on . City Clerk https://www.rniamiherald.co /news/local/community/miami-dude/miami-beach/art cic 195... 2/20/2019 Unpermitted Miami Beach seawall will cost city more I Miami Herald Page 3 of 12 VIDEOS Mimi Muir lisavall 1hoed OwnOa D K 2017 co �iratni LOriginaf GREEK FESTIVAL March 1st —3rd,2019 ST. SOPHIA GREEK ORTHODOX CATHEDRAL Q401 S.W. 3rd Ave. (Coral Way & 94th Road) l‘vo Blocks West of I-9S, Exit e1 303. 34.4974 a www.stsooleariUamlfe$t.ors MREE ADMISSION FRIDAY AdultAdmission 37 - ChIldnct under 12 Neel Come Eeptetenee Greek Food a Coming Festival Hours: Friday & Saturday, 11 a.m. - 11 p.m. Sunday, 11 a.m. - 9 p.m. tt.: Rda'S4t7D'q to •ctry mai/it-guy c 1 orr al ano .r m.' fonoonderOn adel' ar,f'rt1g!•tarsandtnsrsc.=.cy L' eeNteapajtennei presancaj.can or proper iD. The problem is a short section of a 75-foot stretch of the wall north of 26th Street, whe Bruce Mowry, the former city engineer who was put on administrative leave Friday whi termination is finalized, admitted he proceeded without a necessary permit from the U. Army Corps of Engineers and instructed the contractor to flout regulatory agencies in it design. Mowry said in an interview Tuesday that he instructed the contractor to build a straight The wall it replaced had a portion that jutted inland five to six feet before jutting back ( angle that had to be replicated under state and local permits. Submitted into the public record or it)1(s) 01, on i. i i.>, i 1-1 City Clerk https://www.m iamiherald.con7/news/local/communi ty/mianii-dade/mi ami-beach/article 195... 2/20/2019 Unpermitted Miami Beach seawall will cost city more Miami Herald Page 4 of 12 "I don't build crooked walls," said Mowry. "The contractor did not take discretion. The contractor did what they were told." He added that he takes pride in his workmanship and was not aware of any environmer impact the straight wall would have. SM ftk ArraS SATURDAY, MARCH 2ND 8:30AM - :12:00PM BAYFRONT PARK Submitted into the public record grr `ep(s) f\, on � 1 . City Clerk Miami Beach has put into action an aggressive and expensive plan to combat the effects of sea level rise. The city is rolling out its plan of attack and will spend between $400-$500 million over the next five years doing so. https://www.riamiherald.cam/news/1oca1/co.mm unity/miami-dade/n7iam i-beach/article 195... 2/20/2019 Unpermitted Miami Beach seawall will cost city more ( Miami Herald Page 5 of 12 By In fact, Mowry also said that none of that 75 feet of wall that was completed has been permitted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps pointed out the unper work during a field inspection in mid -December, but John Ricisak, Miami -Dade County environmental resource project supervisor, said his department first noticed the noncon areas in August. That included the two spots where contractors straightened the seawalls meandering p; removing potential wildlife habitat in the process, Ricisak said. They inspectors also noted rubble piled near the waterway that wasn't properly contain( could be washed into the water by a heavy rain, polluting the water. In addition, mangr were removed fromprivate property without a permit. Submitted into the public. record f ite (s \ , L on City Clerk https ://www.miam i herald. com/news/localicommuni ty/miarn i-dade/m iami-beach/article 195... 2/20/201 9 Unpermitted Miami Beach seawall will cost city more I Miami Herald Page 6 of I2 These dead mangroves were removed before Miami Beach had proper permits. The city will have to r( of its Indian Creek Drive seawall after it was discovered certain sections were unpermitted and noncor county and state regulations. Alex Harris aharrissamiam/hera/dcom Lisa Spadafina, head of the Natural Resources Division of the county Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, said her department is willing to bend on a few in difference in permitted plans. But not a few feet. "A deviation of four to six feet is certainly not something we can administratively chap€ she said. Mowry is one of the principal minds behind the city's approach to raising roads, lifting seawalls and installing electric anti -flooding pumps. He said he accepts the blame for tl- city's issues with regulatory agencies while criticizing the slow bureaucracy associated v approvals of such projects — a process that he believes unnecessarily lags behind while city blazes a trail in adapting public infrastructure to sea level rise. Submitted into the pubjjc recorl f r ite s) 1)� https.//www.miamiheiald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beat rti /20/2 ity Cierk Unpermitted Miami Beach seawall will cost city more i Miami Herald Page 7 of 12 "We waited 18 months on a seawall approval" but still never got it, he said, taking aim Army Corps. The contractor, Shoreline Foundation Inc., and the Army Corps could not be reached fc comment Tuesday. The project is a high priority for Miami Beach. Indian Creek Drive was previously a hot. for seasonal tidal flooding and had to be shut down to vehicle traffic because the water high. It was famously a setting for a scene in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Sequel" where and former Mayor Philip Levine, who championed the city's aggressive approach to completing drainage projects, waded in rubber boots through several inches of water ale the street. Now, part of the roadway has been raised and a new seawall has been constructed, incl section south of 26th Street that received all necessary approvals. The problematic stret seawall might need to be ripped out and replaced. Spadafina said her department has no plans to fine the city because Miami Beach has indicated it plans to fix the problems. Submitted into the public record f r ite (s) ' j\ , (. on Z/l / �. City Clerk https://www.miamiherald,coninews/local/community/miami-dale%miami-beach/article 195... 2/2Q12019 Unpernnittcd Miami Beach seawall will cost city more f Miami Herald Page 8 of 12 In a memo to city commissioners Friday, City Manager Jimmy Morales wrote the issues to light during a field inspection in arid -December where representatives from the city other regulatory agencies were present. "I am troubled by the findings and the lack of adherence to the environmental polices a regulations," Morales wrote. "I am therefore closely studying the operations and practic the engineering division, as well as the contractual responsibilities of our environmental consultant, Stantec, and construction contractor, Shoreline Foundation. I expect to mak changes to ensure that this does not occur again in other projects and that all parties an responsible." Morales put Shoreline on notice and directed the contractor to stop all work. As a precaution, the city is reviewing all of its recent seawall projects for compliance, said Berthier, the city spokeswoman. The Indian Creek improvements were already getting complicated before the regulatory issues were discovered, leading the city to break the project into phases that might not be finished for another 12 to 16 months. The city is asking the state for additional money to help cover the expected $5 million shortfall on the work. If that money doesn't come through, the city will reduce the scop the job. Submitted into the public recordfq� i�te�ns) �` , on // 7. JJ 11 City Clerk Mips://www.miamiherald.comlnews/local/coinm unityfmiami-lode/miami-heacla/article195... 2/20/2019 Unperrnitted Miami Beach seawall will cost city more Miami Herald Page 9 of 12 A student waits for the school bus in front of his condo on Indian Creek Drive during high tide on Mian Oct. 9, 2015. Miami Herald file In Miami Beach's widely publicized effort to combat impacts of sea level rise, Indian Cr Drive is one of the most highly trafficked and visible flooding hotspots. It is one in a nu of low-lying areas in the city where water streams upward through storm drains and ovt seawalls when the tides are high, even on sunny days. This has become typical during t. king tide in the fall. The Beach is in the midst of a $500 million program to install anti -flooding pumps, rai; roads and upgrade drainage systems across the city. An opening salvo of completed improvement projects include Sunset Harbour and West Avenue in South Beach and on Crespi Boulevard in North Beach, where floodwaters have been largely kept at bay. The city has pushed projects forward at a faster -than -usual pace by waiving bidding will awarding contracts, declaring emergencies to expedite work, and now, flouting the fede permitting process. The pace of the Beach's work has been informed by a "just get it do attitude that was espoused by former mayor and current gubernatorial candidate Levin( Submitted into the public recor fir ite s) Q} t https://www.miarniheralci.com/news/local/community/tniami-Glade/tniami-beac _ ar is on / 2I2Q b 9Clerk Unpermitted Miami Beach seawall will cost city more Miami Herald Page 10 of 12 Joey Flechas: 305-376-3602,, 1joeflech Alex Harris: 305-376-5005, �?a harrisalexc fl Comments v MIAMI BEACH South Beach urgently needs a new fire station. The problem is finding a place to put it BY KYRA GURNEY f u FEBRUARY 20, 2019 06:30 AM, Submitted into the public record f9 r ite (s) on t I Lc4 / . City Clerk Miami Beach has $10 million to replace Fire Station No.1, which serves South Beach, but finding a suitable location is a challenge. Opposition from residents delayed the city's last effort to replace the station. httpsa/www.miamiherald.com/news/localicommunitylmiami-dale/miami-heath/article 195... 2/20/2019 Unperrnitted Miami Beach seawall will cost city more ( Miami Herald Page 11 of 12 KEEP READING —. MIAMI ' . BUYADAY s QtlAR UM' CET 2O19 FREE v4t1EN�'� fOR UFI TAKE US WITH YOU Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand. MIAM1 HERALD APP —* VIEW NEWSLETTERS —+ f r You SUBSCRIPTIONS Start a Subscription Customer Service eEdition Vacation Hold Pay Your Bill Rewards LEARN MORE About Us Contact Us Newsletters Submitted into the public record fpr iter (s) Q� Z on UN / ij . City Clerk https://www.miam herald.com/ne ws/local/commtmity/miami-dade/miam i-beach/article 195... 2/20/2019 Unperritted Miami Beach seawall will cost city more ! Miami Herald Page 12 of 12 COPYRIGHT COMMENTING POLICY PRIVACY POLICY TERMS OF SERVICE Submitted into the public record fo ite s) '‘ , ;J on t i' � � City Clerk https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beachJarticle 195... 2/20/2019 Submitted into the public record f r ite (s) `n} , on 7,�;,?k{ City Clerk 15 iayoso lcDowell Disc. Amt: $250.00/hr Disc. Amt: $250.00/hr Disc. Amt: $250.00/hr Carter N McDowell Disc. Amt: $425.00 hourly Disc. Amt: $625.00 hourly 2018-04-11 2018-06-26 2018-09-25 Colmenero) 300 17th Street Investment, LLC SOBE Center, LLC (Ronald Finvarb) 4354 Alton Homes, LLC Status: Active Registration Date Principal 2005-09-15 Savoy Hotel Partners, LLC 2012-02-10 Disc. Amt: $625.00 hourly 2012-05-02 Disc. Amt: $625.00 hourly 2012-11-05 Disc. Amt: $650,00 hourly Disc. Amt: $690 / HR. Disc. Amt: 690 HR 2013-03-07 2377 Collins Resort, L.P.; West Collins Land Investors, L.P.; Sandy Lane Master Association Inc. Stuart Miller Brian L, Bilzin, Trustee Stuart Miller c/o Brian Bilzin 2015-03-19 Carina San Marino, LLC. issues; 803 5th Street Development approvals and permitting issues; 300 17th Street Development approvals and permitting issues; 1685 Washington Ave Development approvals and permitting issues; 4354 Alton Road Annual Fee Paid on: 2018-10-01 Item Savoy/Arlington Hotels- Historic Preservation Board, certificates for demolition and appropriateness issue to be lobbied (Amended 9/10/15-400, 410, 420 Collins Avenue and 221 4th Street do pertain to the Savoy/Arlington Hotels Governmental, land use and permitting issues for The Perry South Beach and the properties located at 2301 Collins Avenue; 2377 Collins Avenue, 2340 Collins Avenue and 2322 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, FL All zoning, land use, and permitting matters related to Lots 10, 11-12 Star Island Drive, MB All zoning, land use, and permitting matters related to Lot 6 (6 Star Island Drive) All Zoning, land use, and permitting matters related to Lot 7 Star Island Dispute regarding proposed construction of storm water lift station 2015-07-01 Jeffrey Miller 67 of 96 All matters regarding land use/zoning/development of property located at 125 E. San Marion Drive, Miami Beach, FL permitting issues; 803 5th Street Development approvals and permitting issues; 300 17th Street Development approvals and permitting issues; 1685 Washington Ave Development approvals and permitting issues; 4354 Alton Road Issue Certificate for Demolition and appropriateness Land Use permitting issues -The Perry So. Beach Lots 10, 11-12 Star Island Drive Lot 6 -6 Star Island Drive lot 7 Star Island Dispute regarding proposed construction of storm water lift station 125 E. San Marion Drive, Miami Beach, FL Submitted into the public record or it9m(s)on // City Clerk Disc. Amt: $690/hr 2015-12-15 Disc. Amt: $690.00/hr 2016-04-19 . _ Disc. Amt: $690.00/hr 2016-04-25 Disc. Amt: $690.00/hr 2016-08-23 Disc. Amt: $690.00/hr 2016-10-13 Disc. Amt: $725.00/hr 2017-01-05 Disc. Amt: $725.00/hr 2017-08-01 Disc. Amt: $725.00/hr 2017-08-15 Disc. Amt: $740.00/hr 2018-03-12 LLC Dominion Partners, LP. (c/o The Trump Group, Mark Todes) propertylocated at 914 Marseille Drive, Miami Beach, FL Ordinance related to alcoholic beverage establishment and neighborhood impact establishment for property at 404 Collins Avenue - Beach, FL MBM Marina Manager, LLC (Robert All zoning and land use matters related W. Christoph) to the Miami Beach Marina Lease with the City of Miami Beach regarding property at 300 Alton Road Monad Terrace Property Owner, LLC All land use/zoning matters regarding properties on Monad Terrace. Di Lido Beach Resort, LLC c/o Javier All zoning and land use.issues Granda, Esq. regarding property located at 1669 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, FL Miami Beach Community Health Permit issues regarding property at Center, Inc. 710 and 720 Alton Road, Miami Beach, FL RP Hotel Holdings, LLC Code Enforcement matters regarding 1545 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, FL V "V, r vV. V v.,: r •. r V• Vr• Sunset Aqua 1736, LLC Land use/permit matters regarding property located at 1736 W 28 St, Miami Beach, FL KVC Constructors, Inc. All matters relating to City of Miami Shoreline Foundation, Inc, Disc. Amt: $740.00/hr 2018-04-10 GCEA LLC (Gerardo Cea) Disc. Amt: $740.00/hr Disc. Amt: $740.00/hr 2018-11-13 2018-11-27 Beach RFP# 2016-204-KB • __ • •• Indian Creek Drive Seawall Replacement Contract Proposed land swap between City of Miami Beach and North Beach Town Center Development, LLC Able Business Services, Inc, (William Janitorial Services - RFP 2017-070-3C L. Berry) _ . North Bay Owner, LLC Development of property located at 2318-2340 Collins Avenue 404 Collins Avenue All zoning and land use matters; Miami Beach Marina Lease; 300 Alton Road 1305, 1315, 1325, 1335, 1345, 1355, 1365, 1375, 1300, 1310, 1320, 1340, 1360, 1370; Monad Terrace, Miami Beach, FL 1669 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, FL Permit issues regarding property at 710 and 720 Alton Road, Miami Beach, FL Code Enforcement matters regarding 1545 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, FL Land use/permit matters regarding property located at 1736 W 28 St, Miami Beach, FL All matters relating to City of Miami Beach RFP# 16-204-KB Indian Creek Drive Seawall Replacement Contract Proposed land swap between City of Miami Beach and North Beach Town Center Development, LLC Janitorial Services - RFP 2017- 070-JC Development of property located at 2318-2340 Collins Avenue Submitted into the public record fpor it9m(s) t on tn,c111i . City Clerk 68 of 96