CITY OF DORAL

INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE

PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP (P3)

DORAL 10

Submission Due Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2026, at 2:00 pm

ITN No. ITN - 2026-05

Procurement and Asset Management Director:

ROMAN MARTINEZ, MPA, CPPO, CPPB

City of Doral Invitation to Negotiate

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

PARTNERSHIP (P3) DORAL 10

ITN - 2026-05

Table Of Contents

1. Overview & Submission Instructions

1.1. Executive Opportunity Summary

2. Project Opportunity, Public Purpose, and Diligence Package

2.1. Project Outline

2.2. Business Terms and Transaction Framework

3. Proposal Submission Requirements and Evaluation Process

3.1. Minimum qualifications

3.2. Threshold review before comparative scoring

3.3. Proposal format

3.4. Public Benefit Matrix Requirement

3.5. Financial capacity requirements

3.6. Evaluation Process and Criteria

4. Special Conditions and Legal / Administrative Terms

4.1. Special Conditions

4.2. Special Contract Provisions

5. GENERAL DEFINITIONS & SOLICITATION TERMS & CONDITIONS

5.1. General Terms and Conditions

6. VENDOR RESPONSE

6.1. Vendor Questionnaire

Attachments:

A - ITN_-_P3_Project_-_drawings (1)

B - Appraisal-_Vacant_Lot_06.01.2024 (1)

C - 7.25.2022_Schmaltz_(Nova)_Expert_Report

1. Overview & Submission Instructions

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

1.1. Executive Opportunity Summary

1.1.1. Overview

The City of Doral invites proposals from qualified development teams for a public-private partnership to redevelop approximately 10 acres of City-owned land known as DORAL 10. The City seeks a high-quality, professionally managed, master-planned project centered on an age-restricted 55+ residential component and a complementary commercial component that together advance a clear public purpose, preserve long-term public ownership, and create durable municipal value.

The City intends to structure the transaction through a single 99-year land lease. The City will retain fee simple ownership of the land throughout the term. The selected proposer will be expected to finance, design, permit, construct, operate, maintain, and reinvest in the project throughout the lease term, subject to negotiated development milestones, operating standards, reporting obligations, revenue participation, credit support, and reversion requirements.

The City deliberately seeks proposals that are disciplined yet creative. The City is open to residential models that include 55+ rental multifamily, independent living, assisted living, or an integrated combination, provided the proposal demonstrates a coherent development concept, realistic economics, professional operations, meaningful community benefit, and long-term lifecycle stewardship. The City may consider a reasonable adjustment to the 55+ requirement at a later time within the Land Lease, based on a demographic review, and based on the City’s reasonable review of the at-that-time conditions. The review can be triggered by a written request by the Developer to review the restriction after notification by the City that a review might be considered.

Why this opportunity

• City-owned site in Doral that can support a unified master-planned development.

• Public-purpose-driven opportunity emphasizing 55+ housing, neighborhood compatibility, quality design, long-term stewardship of public land, and financeable municipal value creation.

• Flexible ITN format designed to invite multiple solution pathways while preserving clear non-negotiable principles.

• Transaction framework intended to be bankable, auditable, and adaptable through negotiations.

What success looks like

• A financeable project with a credible capital stack, realistic phasing, and a disciplined delivery schedule.

• A residential program that addresses the needs of residents aged 55 and older while allowing the market to demonstrate the most viable operating model.

• A complementary commercial program that supports the residential use, the surrounding neighborhood, and the City's long-term value objectives.

• A business structure that balances base rent, percentage rent, Equity Participation and/or transfer participation, and durable lifecycle stewardship over the full lease term.

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

• A final transaction that is attractive to the market, protectable by the City, and explainable to the public as an intelligent long-term use of City-owned land.

Key submission information

Pre-Submittal Conference June 2, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., City Hall Third Floor

Training Room

Deadline for Written Questions June 9, 2026 at 5:00 p.m.

Proposal Due Date June 23, 2026 at 2:00 p.m.

Submission Platform OpenGov Procurement Portal

Shortlist / Presentations / Negotiations To be scheduled and noticed as set forth in this ITN

City non-negotiable principles and negotiable business variables

City non-negotiable principles Negotiable business variables

The City retains fee simple ownership of the premises throughout the lease term.

Residential product mix and operating model within the permitted 55+ framework.

The land lease term is 99-years. Commercial mix, phasing, and integration with the residential program.

The project must include a 55+ residential component and a complementary commercial component at the Project's Outset.

Rent commencement structure, reserve mechanics, and phasing of economic obligations.

Any financing or encumbrance is limited to the leasehold estate and may not attach to the

City's fee interest.

Development milestones and sequencing, subject to

City approval and lender-recognition standards.

All improvements revert to the City at lease expiration or other negotiated reversion event.

Additional public-benefit commitments, services, amenities, sustainability features, and lifecycle reinvestment structures.

Other core City ownership, reversion, and public-purpose protections reflected in this ITN.

Other financeable business terms that enhance value to the City while preserving the City's non-negotiable principles.

1.1.2. Instructions to Proposers

A. Procurement method and general intent

This solicitation is issued as an Invitation to Negotiate. The City knows the public outcome and transaction principles it seeks, but it is intentionally not prescribing a single private-sector solution. The ITN process is therefore designed to allow comparative evaluation, presentations, discussions, negotiation rounds, potential

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

Best and Final Offers (BAFOs), and refinement of project requirements and business terms before final recommendation.

The City may shortlist one or more proposers and may negotiate concurrently or sequentially, as determined to be in the City's best interest. The City reserves the right to refine project requirements during negotiations, request clarifications, invite revised business terms, and seek additional detail regarding development, finance, operations, public benefit, and risk allocation.

Unless expressly stated otherwise in a written instruction of the City, scores from one phase do not automatically carry forward into later phases. Each phase is intended to evaluate the matters most relevant to that stage of the process. The final recommendation will prioritize overall best value, finance ability, deliverability, public purpose, and risk-adjusted long-term value to the City, and not merely the highest nominal rent number.

B. Teaming structure and eligible proposer profiles

The City will accept proposals from developer-led teams, operator-led teams with an identified development partner, or integrated development/operator teams, provided the proposal demonstrates a clear lead entity, coherent team structure, and sufficient collective qualifications to finance, entitle, develop, operate, and maintain the project.

• The lead proposer must identify the proposed development entity structure and the role of each key participant.

• If the proposer is not itself the intended operating entity, the proposal must identify the expected operating model and the relationship between the developer, operator, and capital partners.

• The City encourages teams to include the disciplines necessary to move efficiently from award through closing, including development, operations, design, entitlement, finance, legal, and property management capability.

1.1.3. Procurement Schedule

All dates and times in this Solicitation may be changed by a written addendum issued by the City. The City’s tentative schedule for this Solicitation is as follows:

Issuance/Advertisement Date: May 15, 2026

Pre-Submittal Conference/Site Visit (Non-

Mandatory):

June 2, 2026, 10:00am

City of Doral Government Center 8401 NW 53 Terrace 3rd floor training room Doral, FL 33166

Deadline for Written Questions: June 9, 2026, 5:00pm

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

Deadline for Proposals (Submit

Electronically via OpenGov):

June 23, 2026, 2:00pm

Microsoft Teams meeting Join:

https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/27885507

8932913?p=VwcEqS1bMWe6dRHgF3 Meeting ID: 278 855 078 932 913 Passcode: W8sn2qB6

Phase I Evaluation Committee Meeting

(Open to Public):

TBD by notice

Phase II Presentation and Q&A Sessions

(Closed to the Public):

TBD by notice

Phase III Negotiations / BAFO (if requested):

TBD by notice

Phase IV Final Evaluation Committee

Meeting (Open to Public):

TBD by notice

Target period for final transaction documents after selection:

Ninety (90) days, subject to City-approved extension

The above schedule may be amended as required. All scheduled meetings will be announced with sufficient time to allow the public full access to the scheduled meetings as per the State of Florida Sunshine Law.

1.1.4. Pre-Submittal Conference

Conference Type: Non-Mandatory

A Pre-Submittal Conference will be held on the date and time specified in the Procurement Schedule. During this meeting, the requirements of this Solicitation will be reviewed and discussed. If Mandatory: Prospective

Proposer(s) must attend. Those who do not attend will be ineligible to submit a Proposal. Any Proposal submitted by a non-attendee will be deemed non-responsive. If Non-Mandatory: Prospective Proposer(s) are encouraged to attend, but attendance is not required to submit a Proposal.

Any changes to this Solicitation discussed during the conference or site visit are not binding unless included in a written addendum issued by the City. Any questions regarding the Solicitation must be submitted in writing to the Procurement Division on or before the question deadline.

Proposers are responsible for reviewing all information related to this Solicitation, including information presented at the conference. By submitting a proposal, the Proposer certifies that it is sufficiently familiar with the facilities, work requirements, and all conditions that may affect contract performance.

https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/278855078932913?p=VwcEqS1bMWe6dRHgF3 https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/278855078932913?p=VwcEqS1bMWe6dRHgF3

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

1.1.5. Cone of Silence Policy and Inquiries

This Solicitation is subject to the City “Cone of Silence” policy. Accordingly, all questions and/or comments regarding this Solicitation must be made in writing through the OpenGov portal. No phone calls will be accepted in reference to this solicitation. If it becomes necessary to provide additional clarifying information that revises any part of this solicitation, supplements or revisions will be made available via a written addendum. Oral statements, informal proposals, and conference discussions are not binding unless incorporated into a written addendum.

1.1.6. Method and Deadline for Submittal

Proposals must be submitted electronically through the OpenGov Procurement Portal https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/cityofdoral/projects/253794 by the date and time stated above. The responsibility for submitting a Proposal before the stated time and date is solely and strictly that of the

Proposer. The City is not responsible for any delayed, lost, late, misdelivered, or non-delivered Proposals, no matter the cause. Any Proposals received after the due date and time specified will not be considered. The

City will open all Proposals received by the stated deadline in a public forum and announce the name of each

Proposer that submitted a response to this ITN.

Solicitations, addenda, and related notices can be downloaded from OpenGov. Interested parties must register with OpenGov to receive notifications of addenda or notices issued in connection with this ITN.

The City reserves the right to accept any proposal deemed to be in the best interest of the City, to waive any minor irregularities, scrivener’s errors, minor omissions, minor deviations, and/or technicalities in any Proposal, or to reject any or all Proposals and to re-advertise for new Proposals, in accordance with the applicable sections of the Florida Statutes, the City Charter and Code, and this Solicitation. Minor issues may be corrected at the City’s discretion; however, material deficiencies, missing mandatory information, or failure to meet basic requirements may result in disqualification.

1.1.7. Method of Award

The City will review all submittals received by the Deadline for Submittal for compliance with the requirements set forth in this ITN. To be deemed responsive, the submittal must meet or exceed the minimum requirements established herein and include all required forms. The City will be the sole judge in determining the Proposers' qualifications. The City anticipates selecting one proposer with whom it will negotiate a final land lease agreement under this ITN competitive selection process.

A response to this solicitation does not constitute an offer or an agreement with the City. An agreement will not exist and is not binding until Proposals are reviewed and ranked by an evaluation committee, finalists are selected, negotiations are conducted, Best and Final Offer(s) (BAFOs) are requested, the best Proposal is identified, an agreement has been executed by the parties, and approved by the appropriate level of authority within the City. The City’s decisions will be final.

In the event the awarded firm fails to execute the agreement or perform services after award, the City of Doral reserves the right to negotiate and execute an agreement with the next most qualified firm, as determined during the original selection process, without further solicitation.

1.1.8. Reservation of rights

• The City may reject any or all proposals, discontinue negotiations with any proposer, request revised proposals, request BAFOs, or elect not to proceed with the project.

https://procurement.opengov.com/portal/cityofdoral/projects/253794

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

• The City may negotiate with one proposer or more than one proposer and is not required to continue negotiations with all shortlisted proposers on identical schedules or terms.

• No agreement or land lease shall exist unless and until final transaction documents are approved and executed by the City.

2. Project Opportunity, Public Purpose, and Diligence Package

2.1. Project Outline

A. Project overview

The project involves two City-owned parcels totaling approximately 10 acres, generally located between NW

102nd Avenue and NW 104th Avenue near NW 69th Street in Doral, Florida. The City seeks a unified but functionally distinct development consisting of an age-restricted 55+ residential component on the residential parcel and a complementary commercial component on the commercial parcel.

The site is uniquely feasible because it is City-controlled, strategically located within an established community, and immediately adjacent to commercial, medical, recreational, and mobility resources that support a resident-serving 55+ environment. The City believes the combination of land control, locational advantages, and a flexible senior-housing concept creates a realistic opportunity for an executable transaction rather than a purely aspirational solicitation.

The City is not prescribing a single senior housing format. Instead, the City seeks proposals that demonstrate why the proposed model is feasible, financeable, and beneficial. Proposers should explain how their concept addresses market demand, community compatibility, resident experience, operational sustainability, and long-term asset quality.

B. Public purpose

The public purpose of this ITN is to expand high-quality housing options for residents aged 55 and older, encourage development that supports aging in place and community continuity, preserve long-term public ownership of strategically located City land, generate ongoing municipal value, and deliver a professionally operated development that is compatible with the surrounding area and responsive to the City's long-term planning objectives.

The City intentionally is not imposing a fixed minimum attainable-unit requirement at this stage. The City wants to evaluate what the market is prepared to offer across different 55+ models, including proposals that emphasize rental multifamily, independent living, assisted living, or blended approaches. To preserve flexibility while minimizing evaluation inconsistency, each proposer must provide a clear Public Benefit Narrative and

Public Benefit Matrix identifying measurable commitments, target resident profile, affordability or attainability commitments if any, resident services, operational commitments, and other community benefits. The City expects public benefit to be a substantive selection factor rather than a narrative afterthought. Accordingly, proposers should present public-benefit commitments in specific, durable, and enforceable terms, and the City will evaluate such commitments based on their measurability, operational credibility, duration, and compatibility with the proposer’s selected housing model.

C. Standardized public-benefit comparison framework

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

For comparative evaluation, the City will assess each proposal across standardized public-value categories.

The City may use a supplemental comparison worksheet during review, provided that the published evaluation criteria and point structure remain controlling.

Category Illustrative content Evaluation focus

Resident affordability / attainability Rent or pricing commitments, target income bands, duration, and enforcement structure

Measurability, durability, and credibility

Resident services and programming

Service package, social programming, wellness features, transportation, or care-related supports

Resident relevance and operational realism

55+ operating protections Age-restricted compliance model, tenant profile, and operational safeguards

Compatibility with proposed housing model

Neighborhood-serving commercial value

Commercial mix, convenience, compatibility, and benefit to surrounding area

Public usefulness and project coherence

Mobility and access Site circulation, walkability, multimodal access, drop-off, and parking strategy

Practicality and community integration

Sustainability and resilience Energy, water, resiliency, and long-term operating-efficiency features

Lifecycle value and durability

Local economic and community benefits

Jobs, local participation, public-facing amenities, or other community commitments

Specificity and public value

D. Entitlement and regulatory pathway assumptions

Proposers shall assume that they are responsible for evaluating and pursuing all required zoning, land use, site plan, development agreement, platting, concurrency, permitting, licensing, and other governmental approvals necessary for their proposed development program, unless expressly stated otherwise by the City.

The City, at its sole discretion, may opt to be a co-applicant in any application for any such entitlements in which the Proposer may seek.

The western parcel, consisting of approximately 8 acres currently has a land use designation of Low Density

Residential and a zoning classification of MF-1 (Multi Family Residential). The eastern parcel, consisting of approximately 1.7 acres, currently has a land use designation of Business and a zoning classification of CC

(Commercial Corridor). Nothing in this ITN constitutes a representation that any particular density, height, parking reduction, site configuration, land use change, zoning change, or development approval has been granted. Proposals should be grounded in a realistic regulatory pathway and should identify any approvals, PUBLIC/PRIVATE deviations, variances, waivers, legislative actions, land use changes, or zoning changes assumed by the proposer.

The City may be open to considering land use and zoning amendments necessary to accommodate a financially feasible project, if the proposed amendments are compatible with the Future Land Use Map, the

Land Development Code and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Any proposer seeking such changes shall submit with its proposal a specific recommendation package identifying the requested amendments, the parcel or parcels affected, the planning and market rationale, the connection between the requested changes and project feasibility, and the proposer’s proposed approval pathway and sequencing assumptions. The City, at its sole discretion, may approve or deny any requested land use or zoning amendment, and the proposer assumes the risk that such approvals may not be granted, and shall have no recourse against the City.

E. Diligence package and data room index

The City has assembled and will make available through the procurement portal a diligence and deal package intended to help proposers underwrite the opportunity with greater confidence and reduce avoidable pursuit risk. The package is informational and does not relieve proposers of the duty to perform their own investigations; however, the City intends the data room to include the principal reference materials in the City’s possession that are most relevant to site identification, title, survey, zoning, environmental condition, and prior site history, including the survey and title materials attached or otherwise posted with this ITN.

Ref. Diligence item Purpose / description Status

A Reference drawings and conceptual site materials

Current understanding of parcel configuration, site context, and conceptual planning reference points.

Available

B 2024 appraisal materials Land value context and business-term evaluation.

Available

C 2022 market / expert report Background demographic and market context.

Available

D Folio, legal description, and parcel identification summary

Confirms the land description, parcel identity, and reference legal description.

Available in data room

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

E Zoning and land-use summary

Current land use and zoning framework, including the residential parcel's Low

Density Multi-Family

Residential designation and zoning, the commercial parcel's Commercial Corridor land use designation and

Commercial zoning, known development standards, and approval-path assumptions.

Available in data room

F Utility, access, and off-site context summary

Known utility, access, circulation, and infrastructure context, including available

City reference materials.

Available in data room

G ALTA / boundary survey and title commitment materials

Reference survey and title information for underwriting, legal review, and lease exhibit preparation.

Attached and available in data room

H Environmental study and environmental information in the City's possession

Phase I environmental and other available environmental reference materials for preliminary diligence.

Available in data room

I Known site history / prior entitlement background

Historical site context, prior planning or entitlement background, and other feasibility-related reference materials known to the City.

Available in data room

J Draft term sheet and draft land lease form

Anchors negotiations and reduces transaction uncertainty.

Included

K Data room index and update log

Identifies diligence materials made available and tracks any supplemental postings or addenda before the proposal due date.

Included

F. Confidence-building transaction story

The City is deliberately presenting this opportunity as a structured but adaptable transaction. Sophisticated development teams evaluate opportunities based on more than policy language. For that reason, this ITN is

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

designed to give proposers a clearer line of sight into the legal framework, business terms, diligence package, evaluation priorities, and draft lease structure that the City expects to carry into negotiations.

A successful project from the City's perspective is one that is not merely conceptually appealing, but one that can close, obtain approvals, secure financing, get built, operate well, maintain quality for decades, and return continuing value to the City without compromising long-term public ownership.

2.2. Business Terms and Transaction Framework

A. Land lease structure

• Lease term of ninety-nine (99) years.

• Leasehold financing permitted only to the extent expressly approved in the final transaction documents, and as approved or conditioned by the first debt provider, limited to the leasehold estate.

• There shall be no transfer, assignment, sale of controlling interests, Change in Control, replacement of the lead developer or controlling development principal, or sublease of substantially all of the leasehold estate must have prior written without first having obtained the written consent of the City, which will be evaluated at the City’s sole discretion. In addition, any transfer must conform to any and all language within the First Debt documents, and any approvals needed by the First Debt need to be obtained prior to the City’s Approval. If the

First Debt has approved, the City will potentially add in language that such transfer will be within reasonable standards. Said Lender approvals should comport with the Development-Continuity Milestones identified in the final transaction documents, and any transactions shall be conditional upon the Developer’s and the Lenders agreed-upon loan documents. After satisfaction of the Development-Continuity Milestones, and the above approvals, a transaction shall have be reasonably approved with the City’s written consent and subject to the

City’s and Lenders Transfer Participation rights along with any other legal, and/or lender’s conditions provided for within the final transaction documents.

• If the winning bidder fails to perform under any of the Conditions provided for in the final Documents, inclusive of any critical path/timing milestones, the City shall maintain the rights to Reversion of the leasehold estate and improvements. If the Project is completed as required, any future Reversion shall be conditioned on the Developer or subsequent owners maintaining all capital and improvement milestones. The City, upon any defined Reversion Event, may exercise that right without compensation to tenant and subject to release of all non-permitted leasehold liens after applicable lender notice and cure opportunities.

B. Revenue participation

The City expects proposals to include a fixed annual base land rent together with a revenue and/or equity participation component. The City's objective is to capture long-term value from the site while maintaining project finance ability and allowing commercially realistic lease-up and stabilization assumptions.

Participation shall be based upon the Land Value at the time of Lease execution, and the amount of actual equity placed into the Project by the Developer. The City may consider either a participation as a percentage/portion of the Developer’s actual distributions, to be monitored by the City through any industry standard commercial financial reporting software (i.e., Juniper Square), provided that the City has full and absolute direct access to all financials, and/or may participate in the Gross Revenues. Participation, Gross

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

Revenues, or any Financial Term to be used as defined and as provided throughout this ITN, the draft term sheet, and the draft land lease. Unless otherwise expressly approved in the final transaction documents, Distributions shall be understood to include any amounts received by the Developer, in any form as a direct payment to the Developer, in any form or substance. Gross Revenues shall be understood as including all revenues generated from the operation, use, occupancy, or monetization of the Project or the Premises, including residential rents, commercial rents, parking, amenities, fees, concessions, service income, and other project-derived income, without reduction for operating expenses, debt service, or capital expenditures.

The City expects transfer participation to apply to any capital event, any approved direct and indirect monetization events involving the leasehold estate or controlling interests in the tenant or its parent structure, including assignments, sales, recapitalizations, refinancing-related monetization, and comparable value-realization events. Proposers may comment on structure and methodology, but should not assume that such events are included in the City's economic participation, but whose baseline shall be readjusted for any capital event and/or transaction as defined above.

C. Suggested financial placeholder values for review

Item Suggested value Drafting rationale

Negotiation Deposit $50,000 Meaningful good-faith amount without being disproportionately punitive at selection stage.

City Transaction Cost

Reimbursement Cap

$100,000 Covers outside counsel, real estate, financial, planning, title, and technical review expenses on a complex land transaction.

Target Execution Window After

Selection

90 days More realistic than a compressed post-selection period if the City is packaging form documents and diligence materials for closing negotiations.

D. Commercial comparability definitions

Term Draft interpretation for proposal comparability

Base rent commencement Proposers shall identify the proposed commencement date, any approved deferral period, ramp-up schedule, and the minimum annual base-rent floor applicable after stabilization.

Minimum protections Any proposal with delayed, graduated, or percentage-heavy rent must identify the long-term minimum annual base-rent protections and any proposed floors, resets, or periodic adjustments.

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

Transfer participation The City’s baseline expectation is participation in approved direct and indirect transfers, assignments, recapitalizations, refinancing-related monetization, and similar value-realization events involving the leasehold estate or controlling interests.

Permitted transfers A Permitted transfer may be considered, as above, after the first full iteration and construction

Completion of the initial Project. After that initial

Completion, proposers shall identify any transfers proposed to be permitted without consent and explain why such flexibility is necessary for finance ability or customary structuring. Any proposed

Permitted Transfer, after construction completion of the initial Project, must preserve continuity of the

Selected Proposer's lead developer, controlling development principal, and required guarantor support through the Development-Continuity

Milestones unless the City expressly approves otherwise. After satisfaction of the Development-

Continuity Milestones, transfers, assignments, sales, recapitalizations, and Changes in Control may be considered only with the City's prior written consent, subject to the City's Transfer Participation rights, and conditioned on the proposed transferee's written assumption of applicable obligations and demonstration of financial, operational, and ownership qualifications reasonably acceptable to the City.

Reserve / lifecycle mechanism Proposers shall identify whether lifecycle obligations are supported by a dedicated reserve, capital plan, periodic condition testing, replacement schedule, or another equivalent mechanism acceptable to the City.

Reversion events In addition to expiration, proposers shall comment on reversion mechanics in the event of uncured failure to timely commence or complete development, abandonment, permanent cessation of approved use, or other material defaults designated as Reversion Events in the final transaction documents.

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

Lender recognition Proposers shall identify any requested lender notice, cure, step-in, collateral assignment, or recognition rights and explain why such rights are commercially necessary without impairing the City's fee ownership, milestone enforcement, or core reversion rights.

Audit rights and reporting Proposers shall identify (1) the acceptable market financial reporting software providing full financial access to financials and construction to be used for the project, and (2) the proposed frequency and format of project-level operating reports, annual audited financial statements, rent statements, and any proposed materiality thresholds for audit cost shifting.

End-of-term standard Proposers shall identify the physical and operational conditions in which improvements would be delivered at expiration or reversion, accounting for age, permitted wear, required lifecycle maintenance, and transition cooperation obligations.

E. Selected-proposer financial refresh and cost obligations

Within seven (7) business days after written notice of selection, the selected proposer shall provide updated evidence of continued financial capacity and readiness to proceed, including updated capital source letters, interim financial information if requested, evidence of predevelopment funding capacity, and confirmation of the proposed development entity and ownership structure. The selected proposer shall also confirm the identity of the proposed lead developer, controlling development principal, key delivery parties, and any required guarantor support that will remain responsible through the Development-Continuity Milestones identified in the final transaction documents.

As a condition precedent to priority negotiations, the selected proposer shall execute a reimbursement agreement acceptable to the City and deliver a good-faith negotiation deposit of Fifty Thousand Dollars

($50,000). The selected proposer shall reimburse the City for its reasonable out-of-pocket third-party transaction costs, subject to a cap of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) unless otherwise approved in writing by the selected proposer or authorized by City Council.

F. Construction-stage security

Construction-stage security is not required with the initial proposal. Prior to closing and/or commencement of material construction, the selected proposer shall identify and provide construction-stage security required by the wining bidders First Debt Provider in a form acceptable to the City, which may include payment and performance bonds, a letter of credit, construction completion guaranty, parent guaranty, and/or another approved credit support package as required by any First Debt or Secondary Debt provider.

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

G. Operations, maintenance, and reinvestment

The selected proposer will be solely responsible for operation, management, maintenance, repair, replacement, and lifecycle reinvestment in the project throughout the lease term. The City does not intend to direct daily operations. Instead, the City intends to govern through negotiated standards, reporting, inspection rights, audit rights, reserve requirements if any, and end-of-term reversion standards.

Proposals must identify the proposer's operating model, property management approach, maintenance standards, staffing assumptions, lifecycle capital strategy, and method for keeping the asset competitive and code compliant over the full term.

H. Reversion and end-of-term standards

The City’s baseline expectation is that the final transaction documents will address reversion with greater specificity than a general ground-lease summary. At a minimum, the final documents should address:

reversion at expiration and upon any Reversion Event; termination of the leasehold estate; vesting of title to improvements in the City without compensation to tenant; required release of all non-permitted leasehold liens after applicable lender notice and cure opportunities; delivery condition and transition cooperation; books, records, plans, warranties, service contracts, and permits to be assigned or transferred to the extent applicable; and lender-recognition provisions that do not impair the City’s fee ownership or core reversion rights.

For proposal comparability, proposers should comment on the City’s expectation that Reversion Events may include, subject to negotiated force majeure, cure rights, and lender-recognition provisions: (i) expiration of the lease term; (ii) uncured failure to timely commence or complete required development; (iii) abandonment; (iv) permanent cessation of the approved use for the period stated in the final transaction documents; and (v) other material defaults expressly designated as reversion-triggering in the final transaction documents. The City’s baseline expectation for end-of-term delivery is that the Project will be surrendered in safe, operable, structurally sound, weather-tight, code-compliant, and professionally maintained condition, ordinary wear and approved lifecycle standards excepted, together with reasonable transition cooperation.

3. Proposal Submission Requirements and Evaluation Process

3.1. Minimum qualifications

A. Active legal entity authorized to do business in Florida at the time required by law or prior to award.

B. Demonstrated experience with development projects of similar scale or complexity, including mixed-use, senior housing, public-private partnership, land lease, or comparable long-term real estate transactions.

C. Ability to comply with all required certifications, statutory eligibility requirements, and conflict-of-interest disclosures.

D. Financial Capacity ThresholdsProposer (or its controlling sponsor or guarantor entity) shall demonstrate:

▪ Liquidity ≥ 15% of total estimated development cost

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

▪ Net worth ≥ 35% of total estimated development cost

E. Development Experience

Proposer shall demonstrate completion, as a principal developer, of at least two (2) projects of similar scale and complexity.

F. Execution Capacity

Proposer shall demonstrate organizational capacity to execute the Project, including current pipeline and resource allocation.

G. Guarantor Identification

Proposer shall identify the entity(ies) expected to provide completion guarantees and financial backing.

3.2. Threshold review before comparative scoring

Before comparative scoring, the City will review each proposal for responsiveness, satisfaction of minimum qualifications, and material conformity with the City's non-negotiable principles. The City may request clarifications or cure of immaterial irregularities, but may reject a proposal as non-responsive if it omits required submissions, materially departs from non-negotiable principles, or fails to demonstrate minimum qualifications.

• Responsiveness review addresses required submissions, certifications, timeliness, and material conformity with the ITN.

• Responsibility review may include evaluation of legal capacity, financial capacity, past performance, and other matters bearing on the proposer's ability to perform.

• Only proposals that pass threshold review will advance to comparative scoring.

3.3. Proposal format

3.3.1. Submission Matrix

Section Required submission item

Form Threshold / scoring treatment

Evaluation use

A Cover letter and executive summary

Narrative Required for responsiveness

Threshold / context

B Development concept package, including site plan, massing, uses, and design narrative

Narrative + graphics Required for responsiveness and scoring

Phase I

C Public Benefit Narrative and Public Benefit Matrix

Narrative + matrix Required for responsiveness and scoring

Phase I / II

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

D Development program, phasing, and entitlement / regulatory narrative, including any recommended land use or zoning changes

Narrative + entitlement summary

Required for responsiveness and scoring

Phase I

E Identify Development

Team and Execution

Structure including: Lead developer, General contractor, Key consultants and operator

Narrative Required for responsiveness and scoring

Phase I

F Development schedule including: Financial closing, Construction commencement, Substantial completion

*The final agreement will include enforceable milestones.

Narrative Required for responsiveness and scoring

Phase I

G Financial capacity package including:

Audited /Unaudited financial statements (last three fiscal years), Current financial statements for key principals, Evidence of liquidity, Disclosure of contingent liabilities and guarantees, Identification of capital partners and ownership structure

Documentation Required for responsiveness and scoring

Phase I

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

H Capitalization Package including: Debt and equity sources, Prior relationships with capital providers, Comparable executed transactions.

* Conceptual or unidentified capital sources may be deemed non-responsive.

Documentation Required for responsiveness and scoring

Phase I

I Conceptual sources and uses, capitalization approach, and economic structure

Narrative + table Required for responsiveness and scoring

Phase I / II / IV

J Operations, maintenance, and lifecycle strategy

Narrative Required for responsiveness and scoring

Phase I

K Risk matrix and implementation schedule

Matrix + schedule Required for responsiveness and scoring

Phase I

L Experience, comparable projects, references, and key personnel

Narrative + resumes Required for responsiveness and scoring

Phase I / II

M Exceptions / comments to draft term sheet and draft land lease

Redline or matrix Required; material departures may affect responsiveness or scoring

Phase I / III

N Required forms, certifications, and portal questionnaires

Forms Required for responsiveness

Threshold

O Alternative value-added concepts or enhanced financial structures

Optional narrative Optional Phase I / II / IV

Proposals should be well organized and clearly labeled in the order shown in the submission matrix. The City prefers concise, decision-useful submissions. Repetition should be minimized. Proposers should clearly identify assumptions, requested approvals, business terms, and any exceptions to the draft term sheet or draft land lease. If a proposal depends in whole or in part on requested land use or zoning changes, the proposal

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

shall clearly identify those requested changes in the development program materials and entitlement / regulatory narrative and shall include the proposer’s recommendation package for such changes. The City will evaluate the realism, coherence, and risk profile of any requested land use or zoning amendments as part of its review of development concept, approvals path, schedule, and overall deliverability.

3.4. Public Benefit Matrix Requirement

To preserve flexibility while minimizing evaluation inconsistency, each proposer shall include a Public Benefit

Matrix summarizing the measurable public-value commitments included in the proposal. The matrix must separately identify, to the extent applicable: attainability commitments, resident services, age-restricted compliance model, neighborhood-serving commercial features, mobility or access improvements, sustainability features, local economic benefits, community amenities, and any other public-value commitments.

Commitments should be described in specific and comparable terms and should identify duration, enforcement concept, operational responsibility, and any assumptions required for implementation. The City expects the matrix to function as a decision-useful comparison tool for the evaluation committee, not merely as narrative support material.

3.5. Financial capacity requirements

• Three most recent fiscal years of audited/unaudited financial statements, or if unavailable, reviewed or compiled statements with explanation.

• Summary of liquidity, credit facilities, and working capital.

• Description of anticipated capital structure, including equity, debt, and any contemplated public or quasi-public financing tools.

• Letters of support or capacity from lenders, equity providers, or capital partners, which may be non-binding at Phase I.

• Disclosure of material litigation, defaults, restructurings, or regulatory matters that may affect capacity or responsibility.

• Description of corporate structure, development entity, and proposed parent or affiliate support.

3.6. Evaluation Process and Criteria

A. Evaluation philosophy

The City will evaluate proposals based on overall best value, finance ability, deliverability, quality of the development concept, strength of the team, clarity of public benefit, and alignment with the City’s public-purpose objectives. Public benefit is an important substantive consideration in this ITN and will be discussed and scored as an integral part of proposal quality, not as a secondary policy overlay. The City is not obligated to select the proposer offering the highest nominal rent or the proposal with the greatest number of theoretical benefits if the City concludes that such proposal is less realistic, less bankable, less deliverable, less enforceable, or less aligned with long-term municipal interests.

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

Because this is an ITN, the City may refine project requirements during negotiations. Evaluation committee scoring is intended to guide selection and recommendation, not to freeze the business deal before meaningful discussions occur.

B. Phase structure and recommendation standard

Phase Primary purpose Recommendation standard

Phase I - Written proposal evaluation

Review written submissions and establish shortlist eligibility

Recommend highest-ranked proposer(s) for shortlist based on written proposals and threshold review

Phase II - Presentations / Q&A Test project understanding, team depth, responsiveness, and comparative value

Recommend proposer(s) to advance to active negotiations

Phase III - Negotiations / revised submissions / BAFO

Refine business, legal, technical, and public-benefit commitments

No fixed-point award required unless directed by the City

Phase IV - Final evaluation and recommendation

Evaluate final negotiated or

BAFO-positioned offers for best value

Support a final best-value recommendation based on the proposal as clarified, negotiated, and, if applicable, revised

C. Scoring treatment across phases

Unless the City expressly states otherwise in a written instruction, scores from one phase do not automatically carry forward to later phases. The City may decide to carry forward, reset, or separately evaluate phase results depending on the needs of the process. The purpose of this approach is to preserve the flexibility of the ITN while ensuring that final recommendations reflect the most current and complete understanding of the competing proposals.

D. Phase I evaluation criteria

Criterion Points Key considerations

Developer experience, comparable projects, and past performance

20 Mixed-use, senior housing, P3 / long-term land lease, financing and execution record.

Development concept and land use compatibility

15 Quality of site plan, functional fit, neighborhood compatibility, realism of approvals path, and quality of any requested land use or zoning change recommendation.

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

Financial capacity and conceptual financial approach

20 Balance sheet strength, liquidity, capital access, conceptual sources and uses, finance ability.

Development approach, schedule, and implementation plan

10 Phasing, milestones, realism of schedule, entitlement sequencing, and practicality of any requested land use or zoning amendment pathway.

Operations, maintenance, and lifecycle strategy

5 Management, maintenance standards, reserve philosophy, end-of-term stewardship.

Risk identification and allocation approach

5 Recognition of major risks and disciplined allocation strategy.

Public benefit, resident value, and community impact

10 Quality, measurability, durability, and feasibility of public-value commitments.

Land lease, commercial terms, and long-term alignment

15 Base rent, Participation and/or percentage rent, transfer participation, auditability, and overall alignment with City interests.

E. Public-benefit evaluation without a fixed minimum threshold

The City is intentionally not imposing a minimum attainable-unit percentage or a single mandatory public-benefit formula at this stage. Instead, the City will comparatively evaluate the public benefit offered by each proposal using a structured framework that focuses on measurability, resident relevance, durability over time, operational credibility, enforceability, compatibility with the proposed housing model, and overall consistency with the City’s stated public purpose. To support consistent evaluation, the committee may use a supplemental comparison worksheet during review that normalizes each proposer’s identified public-benefit commitments across common categories. That comparative worksheet need not alter the published point structure but may inform the committee’s scoring within the published criteria. Any such supplemental comparison worksheet shall be used only to normalize comparison of published categories and commitments and shall not create unpublished criteria, hidden sub criteria, or additional weighting beyond the evaluation structure stated in this

ITN.

F. Phase II evaluation criteria

In Phase II, the committee’s qualitative discussion should expressly test the proposer’s public-benefit offering through the same structured categories identified elsewhere in this ITN, including resident affordability or attainability, resident services and programming, 55+ operating protections, neighborhood-serving commercial value, mobility and access, sustainability and resilience, and local economic or community benefits.

Accordingly, qualitative strengths or weaknesses discussed under presentations, Q&A, and value-added commitments should be tied back to those categories rather than treated as free-form or purely aesthetic considerations.

PUBLIC/PRIVATE

Oral presentation and project understanding

20 Command of concept, site, entitlements, public purpose, transaction structure, and the proposer’s understanding of its stated public-benefit commitments.

Team capability and key personnel

15 Depth, role clarity, and credibility of the proposed execution team.

Responsiveness during Q&A 20 Transparency, consistency, and ability to address assumptions, risks, and questions…