Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEOPW-CRA-2001-05-21-Discussion Item 1D
iJ L I pp Rd"tLvf" Age" CITY OF MIAMI SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN PARK WEST (SEO/PW) COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) 0 MARLINS BALLPARK STUDY ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED SITES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA ROMCxA 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way • Suite 430 • Miami, Florida 33131 • Phone (305) 579-3324 • FV jjnj4iiv iTABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary II. Exhibit "A" - Site maps III. Exhibit "B" - Summary of recommendation for each site IV. Exhibit "C" - Financial Report — Dain Rauscher V. Exhibit "D" - DRI Analysis — Bercow & Redell, P.A. VI. Exhibit "E" Alternative Stadium Location Options — Bermello Ajamil & Partners Inc. VII. Exhibit "F" - Engineering Report — Civil — CADD Engineering SWPW/CRk i • • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT ON IMPACT OF BASEBALL STADIUM PROPOSALS ON COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The CRA Board of Directors directed that the CRA staff and its consultants analyze the impact of various proposed baseball stadium locations on the CRA and requested that the CRA staff provide recommendations. The CRA staff and its consultants did not analyze any potential sites outside the CRA boundaries. The CRA staff and its consultants analyzed the following potential baseball stadium locations within the CRA boundaries: Proposal A - Biscayne Boulevard West Proposal B-1 - Biscayne Boulevard East Proposal B-2 - Biscayne Boulevard East (Modified) Proposal C - Miami Arena East Proposal D - Miami Arena West Proposal E - Northeast 9th Street Site Proposal F - Northeast 2nd Avenue Site Site location maps with respect to each site are attached hereto as Exhibit "A". In connection with its analysis, the CRA staff retained the firm of Dain Rauscher to perform an analysis of the financial impact of the various stadium proposals on the tax increment district of the CRA, the firm of Civil-CADD Engineering, Inc. to review traffic, utility and road issues, the law firm of Bercow and Radell, P.A. to analyze DRI issues, and the law firm of Holland 8s Knight LLP to review overall legal issues. A summary of the analysis prepared by the CRA staff and its consultants with respect to each proposed site is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Proposal A (Biscayne Boulevard West), Proposal B-2 (Biscayne Boulevard East- Modified) and Proposal F (Northeast 2nd Avenue site) would each have a severe negative financial impact on the CRA and will impede any future economic progress within the redevelopment area. Proposal C was rejected as being impractical as a result of problems relocating the FEC Railway line and the AT&T switching station. Based upon the analysis of the CRA staff and its consultants, Proposal D (Miami Arena West) would appear to have the least negative financial impact on the CRA and would be the least expensive site to acquire. Notwithstanding this fact, for policy reasons the CRA staff has rejected this site as being inconsistent 1 SEOPW/CRA `1� 91se bsca • • is • with the redevelopment plan and contrary to the goals of the CRA. Furthermore, this proposal would damage the urban fabric of the Overtown community. Based upon the analysis of the CRA staff and its consultants, the CRA staff believes that Proposal B-1 (Biscayne Boulevard East) and Proposal E (Northeast 9th Street site) are practical proposals that will have the least negative financial impact on the CRA and will permit the CRA to continue its redevelopment plan. In addition to the above analysis, the CRA recommends that the owner of any proposed baseball stadium and related facilities agree to make payments in lieu of taxes to the CRA to offset the lost Tax Increment Revenue resulting from the development of the proposed stadium and related facilities. 2 PSI/CRA �- a�souss�� Proposal A • • • • MARLINS BALLPARK SPILLIS CANDELA DMJM 'DISLOSSs3) i Proposal Bl • S lift f ..Iy,�OMlIMAY I a i �.. r ;'flCIJBLU%c u..� I�,'t ice,.. •..�• � '� n �. �l'': '7t tY `.T""" — ��'� 1 .. �. tom. -� � .«•.....: �„1 IT 141 IV It zi S Tr. r t P x rA w \ I RL A J �Jr• •- a�sa�sst� 0 0 Proposal B2 .7 • 3)134Ys=c® 0 Ah Motro Rail 3, 0 0 Proposal C opt' I b-M I. 7! 395 ISICENTENNI �ARK SITE > N.W. 10th. St. U, N.W, h ST. MALL I lop U American Airlines QAW Arena SITE 2 Rail" road Tracks o Port of Miami 3 7. Sic E1:l4T-EtA.N,-c, TE. Ameican mi Alrilnes na j Arena ik! I A R E IN t rF=,, pa� > Railroad Tracks rt of M i-ami 2! MY OF MIAM MARLM BALL PARK DOWNTOWN MIAMJV JENA. Sl �17n�M TfiTXTADXF ATT'17DWAM TrWA'ffnNTQ MIATUATInNT POTGNTI A E .--- W—j - ,91 5C-VJ3fD Proposal D 0 ;7 • "mot :. I, �u�. `l.' �, •�", i_ -c I ; -n.--"•,•" �,•, •� �. , y_ .Y. 'Wi.fs... �� � ?f ~ n�'• � "yam-", i!�'� • �`� 7,. 1 K.i.. L 1. GF 1 lik YAW . , Lill• �• f � ' � _ �' . ------------ ceraDpiaw �. (g �, � 't ��;„-ail►?:, fA "IIII' •` 1� {i R •, �i t. ��. 1..'1� ��i� -Aria, '•�•-�I„ I -�—._ -i �FRw - I.• �}�._�'Y. 4jf f !F acm" `� � � I •% �—L� J1 it Aw 73 Ow I "r' r.�fy - I �• 7 .• `� 'ti � i e c d- _.. (( .`may.. r.. - 3 ..'. - 1 :i :� may. ,� •s �• Zoe be. usSep Proposal E • • MARLINS BALLPARK SPILLIS CA DEW Jm 9tse.usSED • Proposal A Biscayne Boulevard West Description: Biscayne Boulevard relocated West one block to Northwest 2nd Avenue creating approximately 13 acres for the development of the baseball stadium. Land Acquisition Costs: $35,154,368 based upon the total assessed values for the year 2000 $64,847,863 based upon recent sale of approximately $190/sq. ft. Lost Revenue to CRA: $492,467 annually or 52% of Tax Increment Revenues based upon 2000 Tax Rolls without taking into account properties in question assessed for an average of $103/sq. ft. when current sales prices are between $175-$200 which could increase lost revenue to $800,0004900,000 annually. Land Acquisition: Property to be acquired is owned by only a handful of property owners which would simplify site acquisition. Biscayne Boulevard Realignment: $7,092,000 per Civil-CADD estimate. With exchange of Federal dollars currently allocated for improvement to Biscayne Boulevard for an equal amount of County/State road funds this cost may be reduced to zero. Relocate Pump Station: Not required to accommodate Stadium Relocate Utilities: $8,280,525 per Civil—CADD estimate Projected Total Cost: $73,128,388 Land acquisition, road relocation, utility relocation (excluding cost of stadium) DRI Issues: Stadium would appear to be within the SEOPW DRI. Preliminary analysis is that adequate capacity exists within SEOPW DRI to accommodate the stadium without significant problems. Traffic Issues: Relocation of Port truck traffic on Northeast 2nd Avenue. Traffic congestion around Port of Miami and American Airlines Arena • * Assumes relocation costs for Biscayne Boulevard are zero. 1 SEOPW/CM e��evas�D Effect on CRA: Boundaries by moving Biscayne Boulevard Timing Issues: Environmental Issues: Potential for Generating Development: • Relocation of Biscayne Boulevard will not change district boundaries of CRA — Holland & Knight LLP Relocation of Biscayne Boulevard and relocation of utilities Property previously used for gas stations and other commercial uses. Phase II environmental study required. Numerous synergies with surrounding developments such as Performing Arts Center and American Airlines Arena. 2 Sol Se US%LPD 0 • '• • Proposal B-1 Biscayne Boulevard East Description: Biscayne Boulevard relocated East into Bicentennial Park; requires taking of land bounded on East by Biscayne Boulevard, West by Northeast 2"d Avenue, on South by N.E. I0'h Street and bounded on the North by I-395. Land Acquisition Costs: $10,574,477 based upon the total assessed values for the year 2000. $19,506,316 based upon recent sales of approximately $190/sq. ft. Lost Revenue to CRA: $1481,135.00 annually or 16% of Tax Increment Revenues based upon 2000 Tax Rolls, without taking into account current sales prices between $175-$200/sq. ft. which could increase lost revenue to $225,000-$300,000 annually. The loss of revenue would be totally offset by the additional land to be created having an estimated assessed value of $14,483,700 or $202,897.80 in tax increment revenues per annum. Land Acquisition: Biscayne Boulevard Realignment: Relocate Pump Station: Relocation of Metro Mover Underpass Relocate Utilities: Impact on American Airlines Arena: Port Slip: Projected Total Cost: land acquisition, road relocation utility relocation (excluding cost of stadium)* Property to be acquired is owned only by a handful of property owners which would simplify site acquisition. $7,092,000 per Civil -CARD estimate. With exchange of Federal dollars currently allocated for improvements to Biscayne Boulevard for an equal amount of County/State road funds this cost may be reduced to zero. Not required to accommodate stadium. $7,875,000 per Civil-CADD estimate $8,280,525 per Civil-CADD estimate Would require modification of pedestrian plaza area and steps to arena. Costs Unknown. Approximately .75 acres of the FEC slip would have to be filled. $21,178,141 ($35,661,841 less $14,483,700 value of the additional land created). • ` Does not include the cost to relocate Biscayne Boulevard. SE®PW/ CRA 3 ad -10 -- Q j�e�tVss" • 11 .7 • DRI Issues: Stadium would appear to be within the SEOPW DRI. Preliminary analysis is that adequate capacity exists within SEOPW DRI to accommodate stadium without significant problems. Traffic Issues: Truck traffic on Northeast 2'd Avenue. Traffic congestion around Port of Miami and American Airlines Arena. Effect on CRA: Relocation of Biscayne Boulevard will not change district Boundaries by moving Biscayne boundaries of CRA — Holland & Knight LLP Boulevard Timing Issues: Relocation of Biscayne Boulevard, issues associated with utility relocating, issues associated with obtaining State and Federal permits to fill slip. Environmental Issues: Property previously used for gas stations and other commercial uses. Phase II environmental study required. Additional Land Created: 76,230 sq. ft. having a current market value of $14,483,700 at For private development by moving a price of $190/sq ft. Value is based upon CRA boundary Biscayne Boulevard being changed to the Westerly boundary of Biscayne Boulevard as relocated. Potential for Generating Development: Numerous synergies with surrounding developments such as Performing Arts and American Airlines Arena. M ti DO4 t W 112 E0 LJ • • • Proposal B-2 Biscayne Boulevard East Description: Biscayne Boulevard relocated East into Bicentennial Park; requires taking of land bounded on East by Biscayne Boulevard, West by Northeast 2"d Avenue, on South by N.E. 9'h Street and bounded on the North by I-395. Land Acquisition Costs: $18,479,018 based upon the total assessed values for the year 2000. $36,764,430 based upon recent sales of approximately $190/sq. ft. Lost Revenue to CRA: $258,867.00 annually or 28% of Tax Increment Revenues based upon 2000 Tax Rolls, without taking into account current sales prices between $175-$200/sq. ft. which could increase lost revenue to $450,0004500,000 annually. The loss of revenue would be totally offset by the additional land to be created having an estimated assessed value of $2,565,000 or $35,932 in tax increment revenues per annum. Land Acquisition: Biscayne Boulevard Realignment: Relocate Pump Station: Relocation of Metro Mover Underpass Relocate Utilities: Impact on American Airlines Arena: Port Slip: Projected Total Cost: Land acquisition, road relocation utility relocation (excluding cost of stadium)` Property to be acquired owned only by a handful of property owners which would simplify site acquisition. $7,092,000 per Civil-CADD estimate. With exchange of Federal dollars currently allocated for improvements to Biscayne Boulevard for an equal amount of County/State road funds this cost may be reduced to zero. Not required to accommodate stadium. $7,875,000 per Civil-CADD estimate. $8,280,525 per Civil-CADD estimate. Would require modification of pedestrian plaza area and steps to arena. Costs Unknown. Approximately .75 acres .of the FEC slip would have to be filled. Costs Unknown. $50,354,955 ($52,919,955 less $2,565,000 being the value of the additional land created). " Does not include the cost to relocate Biscayne Boulevard. SEOPW/ CRA O�stuSS�� 11 • J• DRI Issues: Stadium would appear to be within the SEOPW DRI. Preliminary analysis is that adequate capacity exists within SEOPW DRI to accommodate stadium without significant problems. Traffic Issues: Truck traffic on Northeast 2"d Avenue. Traffic congestion around Port of Miami and American Airlines Arena. Effect on CRA: Relocation of Biscayne Boulevard will not change district Boundaries by moving Biscayne boundaries of CRA — Holland & Knight LLP. Boulevard Timing Issues: Relocation of Biscayne Boulevard, issues associated with utility relocating, issues associated with obtaining State and Federal permits to fill slip. Environmental Issues: Property previously used for gas stations and other commercial uses. Phase 11 environmental study required. Additional Land Created: 13,500 sq. ft. having a current market value of $2,565,000 at a For private development by moving price of $190/sq ft. Value is based upon CRA boundary being Biscayne Boulevard changed to the Westerly boundary of Biscayne Boulevard as relocated. Potential for Generating Development: Numerous synergies with surrounding developments such as Performing Arts and American Airlines Arena. PST/CIA ��stuts�D • E • • Proposal C Miami Arena East Description: Site of existing Miami Arena; bounded on East by Northeast I" Avenue; on the West by Northwest I" Avenue; on the North by Northeast 81h Street and on the South by Northeast 61h Street. Land Acquisition Costs: $9,901,990 based upon total assessed values for the year 2000 (excludes cost to acquire FEC Railway right-of- way) $24,183,375 based upon recent sales of approximately $75/sq ft. Lost Revenue to CRA: $138,714 annually or 15% of Tax Increment Revenues based upon 2000 Tax Rolls. Land Acquisition: Extremely difficult. The FEC Railway line serving Port of Miami must be relocated which may not be possible. Camillus House would also have to be relocated as well as the AT&T Switching Station. AT&T Switching Station: Unknown whether stadium can be designed around AT&T Switching Station. FEC Railway Line: Relocate FEC Railway Line to Northeast 6'h Street. Cost to Relocate FEC Railway Line: Unknown Cost to Relocate Utilities: Unknown Additional Funds Available from Miami Approximately $35,000,000 will be made available by Arena: demolishing the Miami Arena consisting of $2,000,000 - $3,000,000 annually of Convention Development Tax funds for asset replacement funds and $1,000,000 annually of Convention Development Tax funds for operating subsidy per County Finance Director. These income streams when discounted collectively have a present value of $35,000,000. Projected Total Cost: ($10,816,625) ($24,183,375 less $35,000,000) excluding costs land acquisition, utility relocation to relocate FEC Railway and the cost to relocate utilities. (railway relocation) Generates positive cash flow of $10,816,625 for project. SEOP V/CRA 7 • DRI Issues: Timing Issues: Environmental Issues: Potential for Generating Development: • • Property lies within the SEOPW DRI and 1985 DRI Development Order for Miami Arena. Preliminary analysis is that adequate development rights exist at this location to permit the stadium to be developed without significant problems. Relocation of FEC Railway and the AT&T Switching Station and the demolition of the existing Arena. Property previously used for commercial uses. Phase II environmental report required. Site failed to generate development as Miami Arena. Lacks synergies with surrounding developments and other Downtown uses. SEOPW/CRA 8 c oesa�ss�� • Proposal D Miami Arena West Description: Bounded on the East by the Metrorail Line; Northwest 3`d Avenue on the West; Northwest 81h Street on the North and Northwest 61h Street on the South. Land Acquisition Costs: $15,000,000 to acquire the 64 units of Poinciana Village condominium development, including relocation costs and other legal costs; CRA would convey its land at a fair market value estimated at $30,000,000. Lost Revenue to CRA: $127,857 annually or 14% of Tax Increment Revenues based upon 2000 Tax Rolls. Land Acquisition: Majority of land currently owned by CRA and Miami -Dade County; 64 individual condominium units would have to be acquired. Miami -Dade County is in lease negotiations with developer for County Property. DRI Issues: Stadium would appear to be within the SEOPW DRI. • Preliminary analysis is that adequate capacity exists within SEOPW DRI to accommodate stadium without significant problems. Relocate Utilities: Cost unknown. Closure of Roads: Cost unknown. Projected Total Cost: $45,000,000 land acquisition, road relocation, utility relocation (excluding cost of stadium) Legal Impediments: Existing litigation between CRA, City of Miami and Sawyer's Walk regarding development rights. In addition, deed restrictions imposed by the County would prevent the development of the stadium unless the restrictions were released. County land subject to restriction based upon use of Federal Transportation funds and subject to issues regarding lease negotiations with developer. Timing Issues: None. Traffic Issues: None. • SEOPW/CRA 9 • CRA Issues: Development of stadium on the site would be inconsistent with Redevelopment Plan and would require removal of housing the CRA has supported for last 10 years. Development of site as stadium would divide Overtown community and substantially damage the urban fabric of the Overtown community. Environmental Issues: None. Potential for Generating: Site lacks synergies with surrounding developments and other Development Downtown uses. • SE®PW/CRA \ JL 10 DISaYSSf® • • • • 6 Proposal E Northeast 91h Street Site Description: Bound on the East by Northeast 2°d Avenue, on the West by North Miami Avenue, on the North by Northeast 11 `h Street and on the South by Northeast 91h Street. Land Acquisition Costs: $43,558,800 based the site consisting of 580,784 square feet and an estimated cost of $75/sq:ft. Lost Revenue to CRA: $211,574 annually or 22% of Tax Increment Revenues based upon 2000 Tax Rolls. Land Acquisition: Numerous property owners. Taking by eminent domain would be required. DRI Issues: Stadium would appear to be within the SEOPW DRI. Preliminary analysis is that adequate capacity exists within SEOPW DRI to accommodate stadium without significant problems. Relocate Utilities: Costs unknown. Closure of Roads: Costs unknown. Entertainment District: Would require removal of various clubs from the Entertainment District and limit further development within the Entertainment District. Projected Total Costs: $43,558,800, excluding utility relocation costs and road Land acquisition, road relocation, utility improvement costs relocation (excluding cost of stadium) Legal Impediments: Time required to acquire property by eminent domain. Traffic Issues: None. Environmental Issues: Property previously used for commercial uses. Phase H Environmental Study required. Potential for Generating Development: Numerous synergies with surrounding developments such as Performing Arts Center and American Airlines Arena. SEOPW/ORA 11 � 0 Proposal f Northeast 2°d Avenue Site Description: Bounded on the East by Biscayne Boulevard, on the West by Northeast 0 Avenue, on the North by I-395 and on the South by Northeast 91h Street. Land Acquisition Costs: $62,920,305 based upon $36,764,430 for land fronting Biscayne Boulevard based upon recent sales of approximately $190/sq.ft. and $26,155,875 for balance of the land based upon sales price of $75/sq.ft. Lost Revenue to CRA: $363,182 annually or 39% of Tax Increment Revenues based upon 2000 Tax Rolls without taking into account properties in question fronting Biscayne Boulevard assessed for average of $103/sq.ft. when current sales prices are between $175 - $200 which would increase the lost revenue to $500,000 - $550,000 annually. Land Acquisition: Numerous property owners. Taking by eminent domain would be required. DRI Issues: Stadium would appear to be within the SEOPW DRI. Preliminary analysis is that adequate capacity exists within SEOPW DRI to accommodate stadium without significant problems. Relocate Utilities: Costs unknown. Closure of Roads: Major issue with respect to relocation of tuck traffic from Northeast 2°d Avenue. Entertainment District: Would require removal of various clubs from the Entertainment District and limit further development within the Entertainment District. Projected Total Costs: $62,920,305 excluding utility relocation costs and Northeast Land acquisition, road relocation, utility 2°d Avenue issue which cost is unknown. relocation (excluding cost of stadium) Legal Impediments: Time required to acquire property by eminent domain. Traffic Issues: Northeast 2°d Avenue. Environmental Issues: Property previously used for commercial uses. Phase II Environmental Study required. SEOPW/CRA' 12 �eseussfrp P--� • • Potential for Generating Development: Numerous synergies with surrounding developments such as Performing Arts Center and American Airlines Arena. Relocation of MetroMover Cost unknown but estimate is that it will be extremely expensive and time consuming to relocate 13 SE®PW/C1A 3/12/01 FINANCIAL IMPACT OF STADIUM PROPOSALS lam C0MMUNITY REDEVELDPME.NT A G E N C Y TAXINCREMENT REVENUES tNV8STM8NT 58RVtC85 SEOP BANKING Al is�nisED f 3/ 12/U 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONI................................................................................................................................... I Introduction.................................................................................................................................. I Purposeof Study..........................................................................................................................1 Descriptionof the CRA................................................................................................................ I SEOPWBoundaries.....................................................................................................................I StudyScope and Methods............................................................................................................1 Historical Tax Increment Revenue......................................:........................................................2 SECTIONII..................................................................................................................................3 Variations of Proposed Baseball Stadium.................•.........•..•..,.'.....'..•....•..................................3 Biscayne East Proposal A — Boulevard Site. .3 Opportunity to Increase the Tax Increment Revenues - Proposal A........................................4 Proposal B — Biscayne Boulevard West Site...........................................................................4 Opportunity to Increase the Tax Increment Generation - Proposal B-I...................................5 Opportunity to Increase the Tax Increment Generation - Proposal B-II...................................6 Alternative Computations re: the Increase of the Tax Increment Generation — Proposal B ....6 Proposal C — Miami Arena East...............................................................................................7 Proposal D — Miami Arena West (Poinciana)..........................................................................7 ProposalE — N.E. 9th Street..................................................................................................... 8 ProposalF — N.E. 2nd Avenue.................................................................................................9 Opportunity to Increase the Tax Increment Generation - Proposal F......................................9 Summary....................................................................................................................................10 SECTIONIII..............................................................................................................................11 DebtObligations........................................................................................................................11 SECTIONIV..............................................................................................................................13 EconomicGrowth......................................................................................................................13 Review of Economic Forecasts..................................................................................................13 Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value........................................................................14 SEOPW/ ' . • • INVESTMENT SERVICES INVESTMENT BANKING FINANCIAL IMPACT OF BASEBALL STADIUM PROPOSALS ON CITY OF MIAMI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TAX INCREMENT REVENUES SECTION I INTRODUCTION The Florida Marlins announced they would lose $152 million by 2004 if they cannot build a new ballpark in downtown Miami. The Marlins claim that a major contributor to this loss is the escalating players' salaries and 19 players becoming eligible for salary arbitration next year. In an effort to maintain the Major League Baseball team in Miami -Dade County, and specifically in the City of Miami, several proposals have been presented for a Major League Baseball Stadium in the downtown Miami area. PURPOSE OF STUDY The Community Redevelopment Agency's (the "CRA") primary source of revenue is tax increment funds. The purpose of this study is to develop a report that focuses on the financial impact of the proposed designs for a Major League Baseball Stadium on the CRA's tax increment revenue. The design of this 40,000 seat stadium calls for a retractable roof, with club seats and luxury suites in the downtown Miami area. DESCRIPTION OF THE CRA The CRA is comprised of the City of Miami Omni Redevelopment Agency (the "Omni Area") and the City of Miami Southeast Overtown Park West Redevelopment Agency (the "SEOPW"). These agencies were established in 1986 and 1983, respectively, by the City of Miami, Florida (the "City") under the provisions of Section 163.330, Florida Statutes. The City entered into Interlocal Cooperation Agreements and related ordinances of the City and County whereby tax increment revenue collected by the parties would be paid to the CRA and used in accordance with the approved budgets of the redevelopment plans and terms and conditions of the Interlocal Agreements for the benefit of the respective -areas. SEOPW BOUNDARIES The SEOPW encompasses the area generally bounded by Biscayne Blvd. on the East; I-95 on the West; I-395 on the North; and Northwest 5 h Street on the South. STUDY SCOPE AND METHODS This analysis was largely built upon the data and knowledge gained from various meetings with the CRA, the City of Miami, Miami -Dade County, Office of Community and Economic Development, the Property Appraiser's Office, the Downtown Development Authority and other agencies intimately familiar with the areas. The Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser's office released the 2000 Tax Roll and declared the Southeast Overtown/Park West Tax Increment District's taxable value at $145,489,471. Additional detailed property information, assessed property values and proposed stadium site maps were obtained from the City of Miami's Office of Asset Management Department and the CRA. SEOPW/CRA $Ise VSsr_p 1 ! ® 3/ 12/01 Only the Biscayne Boulevard frontage properties located north of NE 71h Street were utilized to estimate the Opportunity to Increase the Tax Increment Revenues since these are the most ' valuable properties within the CRA boundaries representing over 50% of the SEOPW's Tax Increment Revenues, and are the most likely to result in future assessed property value increases. These properties are the best candidates for development opportunities in the SEOPW and have experienced an average sales value increase of 15% over the past two years without further development. HISTORICAL TAX INCREMENT REVENUE ' The Tax Increment Revenue is computed by applying the operating tax rate for the City and the County, multiplied by the increased value of property located within the boundaries of the redevelopment areas of the CRA, over the Base Property Value, minus 5 percent. Both the City and the County are required to fund this amount annually without regard to tax collections or other obligations. ' The assessed values in 1982 for the SEOPW were $78,305,502. This amount is considered as the Base Property Value. The assessed values had increased to $117,646,024 in 1999. On June 30, 2000 the Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser's office released the 2000 Tax Roll. The ' Southeast Overtown/Park West Tax Increment District had a taxable value of $145,489,471. This represents a 24% increase over the 1999 assessed values. During the 2000 calendar year, several parcels located on the Biscayne Boulevard (the "Boulevard") frontage were purchased for amounts ranging from $150 /sq. ft. to $175 / sq. ft. The most recent sales during the 2001 calendar year have had purchase prices of $200 / sq. ft. These new sales will further increase the assessed values of the properties located in SEOPW. I SE01? W / `BRA 2 alse1#12glo • SECTION II VARIATIONS OF PROPOSED BASEBALL STADIUM Five of the proposed sites are located within the CRA, removing properties currently on the tax roll and affecting the assessed values of the surrounding areas. Proposals A — Bicentennial Park, Proposal B — Biscayne Boulevard West Site, and Proposal F — Northeast 2"d Avenue envision locating the Major League Baseball Stadium fronting the Boulevard. The properties fronting the Boulevard are the most profitable for the CRA, amounting to a significant percentage of the SEOPW's Tax Increment Revenues. Proposals A and B also involve the relocation of a portion of the Boulevard. The other three proposals, Proposal C — Miami Arena East, Proposal D — Miami Arena West, and Proposal E — Northeast 9 h Street offer for the development of the baseball stadium further west within the CRA boundaries. Although the properties that these proposals would be eliminating from the SEOPW's Tax Roll are not as lucrative as the ones located on the Boulevard frontage, these properties represent between 14% and 28% of the SEOPW's Tax Increment Revenues. Proposal A — Biscayne Bon.leva.rd East Site This proposal suggests relocating the Boulevard west one block to Northeast 2"d Avenue creating 13 extra acres for the development of the baseball stadium. This realignment of the Boulevard suggests removing private lands from the tax rolls for the development of a public ballpark. The properties affected are those located from I-395 South to the Freedom Tower and Biscayne Boulevard West to Northeast 2"d Avenue. The 2000 Tax Roll assessed value of these parcels totals $35,154,368 representing an average assessment value of $103 /sq. ft. • Should this proposal move forward, the realignment of the Boulevard alone, not taking into consideration recent land purchases and assuming unchanged assessed values, would reduce the existing tax increment revenues of the SEOPW by an amount ranging from $422,423 to $492,467 representing a loss of 45% to 52% of the CRA's tax increment revenue. Scenario 1: All property Excluded sS11ln 41olls: l) Not taking into consideration recent land hurchases that wnllld increase the assessed i'alne ol'the land Unchan,ed asscsscd values sbice FY 1999- 2f)t)1) Bisc. Blvd. East Site (Move Bisc. Blvd. West) Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 145,489,471 (78,305,502) $ 145,489,471 (35,154,368) (78,305,502) $ 67,183,969 $ 32,029,601 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 63,824,771 30,428,121 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 941.180 448,693 41��2 a�,, % Change • SEOPw/cu 'DISC diilfl • • Proposal A — Riscavite Boidevard Eost Sile (Crnl'd) Scenario 11: Howard Johnson Site Included Although there may be several years during the development of the baseball stadium during which the parcels currently occupied by Howard Johnson's would be off the tax rolls, below is an analysis that assumes this land would be available for redevelopment and not be removed from the tax rolls. 1 �l�lilinnnl ;l.e,�trnrplioils: -- 1) Parcels clirrenlly occupied by llolrar l.lohlison's �votdd be viva lable /iw redevelopnrrrt/ and on /he In.r roll.. Bisc. Blvd. East Site (Move Bisc. Blvd. West) Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 145,489,471 (78,305,502) $ 145,489,471 (30,154,368) (78,305,502) $ 67,183,969 $ 37,029,601 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 63,824,771 35,178,121 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 941,160 518 737 % Change isHoward Johnson Lot Available for Development valued at $103/sq.ft. Opportunity to Increase the Tax Increment Revenues - Proposal A The development of the Howard Johnson .Lot under Proposal A, although it may be off the tax roll during the stadium construction, if further developed, may result in future assessed property value increases. This analysis portrays the increment to the value of the Howard Johnson Lot above the current assessed value of $103 /sq. ft. This development opportunity may be worth between $2,251,.159 and $4,646,009, which would translate into a $31,536 to $65,085 Tax Increment Revenue increase for the CRA. Development Options for Howard Johnson Lot IL 47,897 47,897 47,897 $ $ $ 150 175 200 $ $ $ 47 72 97 $ $ $ 2,251,159 3,448,584 4,646,009 $ $ $ 31,536 48,310 65,085 Proposal. B — Biscayne Boulevard West Sile Several proposals have been suggested that relocate the Boulevard east into Bicentennial Park. The first scenario allows 12 acres for the development of the baseball stadium. This realignment of the Boulevard suggests removing a limited number of private lands from the tax rolls for the development of a public ballpark. The properties affected are those located on the Boulevard frontage from I-395 South to Northeast 10`h street and West to Northeast 2"d Ave. This proposal • however does propose adding depth to the blocks South of Northeast 8th street and creating a unified 5-Acre Development Site, which will be more lucrative and increase significantly the land's assessed value. The assessed value of the parcels being removed from the current tax roll tEOPW/ under Proposal B total $10,574,477. , , 4 DISCUSSeb • Proposal B — Bisc•mvw 13urrlevard li/eel Sitc (Colt/'(/) Should this proposal move forward, the realignment of the Boulevard alone, not taking into consideration recent land purchases and assuming unchanged assessed values, would reduce the existing tax increment revenues of the SEOPW by an amount of $148,135 representing a loss of 16% of the CRA's tax increment revenue. Scenario I: Bisc. Blvd. Realigned East into Bicentennial Park A'N'cnnr o.ons: 1) Not taking irrto comsWeration recent ball ptirchiiscs that would increase the assesse(! rahle ol'the land Z) (lnchaiwc(1 assessed values ,einee F1' 1999-2000 Bisc, Blvd. West Site (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 145,489,471 (78,305,502) $ 145,489,471 (10,574,477) (78,305,502) $ 67,183,969 $ 56,609,492 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 63,824,771 53,779,017 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 941,160 793 Q25 Change • Opportunity to Increase the Tax Increment Generation - Proposal I3-I The optimal scenario under this proposal provides for the consolidation of 5 Acres lying immediately south of the proposed stadium lending itself to be developed into an entertainment complex with restaurants, theatres, shops, etc. The consolidation of these acres provides for greater development opportunity of these properties, by providing additional depth for expanded construction with the realignment of the Boulevard further east. The added assessment value of this site could increase the CRA's tax increment revenue anywhere between $148,603 and $306,691 assuming current real estate prices according to the most recent sales in the area. Development Options for 5 Acre Development Site within Tax Increment Redevelopment Blocks Scenario II: Realignment of Bisc. Blvd. East Less Intrusive onto Bicentennial Park The second scenario under Proposal B suggests a more shallow realignment of the Boulevard which suggests removing an additional number of private lands from the tax rolls in order to allow 12.5 acres for the development of a public ballpark. The properties affected are those fronting the Boulevard located from I-395 south to Northeast 9`h Street. The assessed value of the • parcels being removed from the current tax rolls under Proposal B — Scenario II total $18,479,018. SEOPW/CRA lit _ 2 "71 5 D130ussero • • • 1'rnpo.c(l 13— Biscayne BoulevardWest Site (Cnnt'd) Should this proposal move forward, the realignment of the Boulevard alone, not taking into consideration recent land purchases and assuming unchanged assessed values, would reduce the existing tax increment revenues of the SEOPW by an amount of $258,867 representing a loss of 28% of the CRA's tax increment revenue. Risc. 9l'✓d. West Jito (Move Rise. Blvd. East) Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 145,489,471 (78,305,502) $ 145,489,471 (18,479,018) (78,305,502) $ 67,183,969 $ 48,704,951 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 63,824,771 46,269,703 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 941.160 Change I Opportunity to Increase the Tax Increment Generation - Proposal B-II This proposal may provide an increase in assessed values to the properties lying inunediately south of the proposed stadium. The properties fronting the .Boulevard have experienced a 15% sales value increase over the past two years without further development. The added assessment value of this site could increase the CRA's tax increment revenue anywhere between $95,436 and $196,964 assuming current real estate prices according to the most recent sales in the area. • Opportunity Proposal B-II Development Growth Opportunities for Boulevard Frontage Lots North of NE 7th Street (Blks 41, 40) • of Blacks Price f,:S% Ft- Increment Assessed Value 144,950 $ 150 $ 47 $ 6,812,650 $ 95,436 144,950 $ 175 $ 72 $ 10,436400 $ 146,200 144,950 $ 200 $ 97 $ 14,060:150 $ 196,964 Alternative Computations re: the Increase of the Tax Increment Generation — Proposal B The realignment of the Boulevard will greatly affect the opportunity to increase the tax increment generation. Since various realignments are being proposed, following is a chart that computes alternative development options ranging from one acre, with .5 acre increments, to 4.5 acres. Opportunity Proposal B Development Options for Varying Sq. Ft. of Development Site within Tax Increment Redevelopment Bilks :Price I ScIl. FL 1! increment Incremental Assessed Value Increment 45,140 $ 200 $ 97 $ 4,378,580 $ 61,338 67,710 $ 200 $ 97 $ 6,567,870 $ 92,007 90,280 $ 200 $ 97 $ 8,757,160 $ 122,676 112,850 $ 200 $ 97 $ 10,946,450 $ 153,346 135,420 $ 200 $ 97 $ 13,135,740 $ 184,015 157,990 $ 200 $ 97 $ 15,325,030 $ 214,684 180,560 $ 200 $ 97 $ 17,514,320 $ 245,353 203,130 $ 200 $ 97 $ 19,703,610 $ 276,022 gEOPW/CRA tt _ n rj 4 6 ,ICvSSE� • P�pnsal C— 114ianti ,1 rena East This proposal suggests that the baseball stadium to be located in the Miami Arena East area bounded by Northeast 0 Avenue on the East; Northwest 0 Avenue on the West; Northeast 8"' Street on the North and Northeast 6"' Street on the South. This location suggests removing a limited number of private lands from the tax rolls for the development of a public ballpark. The assessed value of the parcels being removed from the current tax rolls under Proposal C total $9,901,990. Should this proposal move forward, not taking into consideration recent land purchases and assuming unchanged assessed values, would reduce the existing tax increment revenues of the SEOPW by an amount of $138,714 representing a loss of 15% of the CRA's tax increment revenue. Proposal C - Arena East ax Roll $ 145,489,471 $ 145,489,471 reduction of Tax Roll (9,901,990) ase Property Value 78 305.502) 78 305 502 icreased Property Value $ 67,183,969 $ 57,281,979 CRA's Tax Base 63,824,771 54,417,880 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.01474 Tax Increment Revenue NIJM % Change • Proposal D — Miami. It rena West (Poinciana) This proposal suggests that the baseball stadium to be located in the Miami Arena West area bounded by Northwest 1" Avenue (Metrorail Line) on the East; N.W. 3 d Avenue (1:-95) on the West; Northwest 8"' Street on the North and Northwest 6"' Street on the South. This location suggests removing a limited number of private lands from the tax rolls for the development of a public ballpark. The assessed value of the parcels being removed from the current tax rolls under Proposal D total $9,126,990. Should this_proposal move forward, not taking into consideration recent land purchases and assuming unchanged assessed values, would reduce the existing tax increment revenues of the SEOPW by an amount of $127,857 representing a loss of 14% of the CRA's tax increment revenue. Proposal D - Arena West ax Roll $ 145,489,471 $ 145,489,471 Reduction of Tax Roll $ (9,126,990) Base Property Value 78 305 502 78 305 502 Increased Property Value $ 67,183,969 $ 58,056,979 95°/ 95% CRA's Tax Base 63,824,771 55,154,130 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.01474 Tax Increment Revenue 941,160 Change !"A • SEOPWICRA N to X 7 CottOSSeb • Proposal E — N. E. 9"' Slreel This proposal suggests that the baseball stadium to be located in the Park West area bounded by Northeast 2nd Avenue on the East; North Miami Avenue on the West; Northwest 111' Street on the North and Northeast 9"' Street on the South. This location suggests removing a limited number of private lands from the tax rolls for the development of a public ballpark. The assessed value of the parcels being removed from the current tax rolls under Proposal E total $18,617,133. Should this proposal move forward, not taking into consideration recent land purchases and assuming unchanged assessed values, would reduce the existing tax increment revenues of the SEOPW by an amount of $211,574 representing a loss of 22% of the CRA's tax increment revenue. Proposal E - Unaffect Blvd, NE 9th Street r i r r r r Tax Roll $ 145,489,471 $ 145,489,471 Reduction of Tax Roll $ (15,103,036) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) Increased Property Value $ 67,183,969 $ 52,080,933 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 63,824,771 49,476,886 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 941,160 729.986 Change • Opportunity to Increase the Tax Increment Generation - Proposals C, D, and E Proposals C, D and E allow the properties fronting the Boulevard to remain on the tax roll and be available for further development. These properties are the best candidates for development opportunities in the SEOPW and have experienced and average sales value increase of .15% over the past two years without further development. ]wring the 2000 calendar year, several lots on the Boulevard frontage were purchased for amounts ranging from $150 /sq. ft. to $1.75 / sq. ft. The most recent sales price during the 2001 calendar year was approximately $200 / sq. ft. The Boulevard frontage properties are the most profitable for the CRA amounting to over 50% of the SEOPW's Tax Assessments. These recent sales will further boost the assessed values of the properties from their current assessed values of $103 / sq. ft. The added assessment value of these blocks could increase the CRA's tax increment revenue anywhere between $222,837 and $459,897 assuming current real. estate prices according to the most recent sales in the area. Development Growth Opportunities for Boulevard Frontage Lots 7th Street (Blocks 41. 40. 21. 20 & 1 338,447 $ 150 $ 47 $ 15,907,009 $ 222:83 338,447 $ 175 $ 72 $ 24,368,184 $ 34136; 338,447 $ 200 $ 97 $ 32,829,359 $ 459.897 • SEOPW/CRA sh r�.rts,rp 8 Proposal F— rV.l'. 2"`l Arelme This proposal suggests that the baseball stadium to be located fronting Biscayne Boulevard on the East; Northeast l't Avenue on the West; I-395 on the North and Northeast 9t' Street on the South. This location suggests removing a limited number of private lands from the tax rolls for the development of a public ballpark. The assessed value of the parcels being removed from the current tax rolls under Proposal. F total $25,925,474. Should this proposal move forward, not taking into consideration recent land purchases and assuming unchanged assessed values, would reduce the existing tax increment revenues of the SEOPW by an amount of $363,182 representing a loss of 39% of the CRA's tax increment revenue. Proposal F - Unafleet Blvd, NE 2nd Ave. T Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Miliage Rate Tax Increment Revenue % Change 145,489,4711 $ 145,489,471 $ (25,925,474) $ 67,183,969 95% 63,824,771 0.014746 g41.]gQ $ 41 39,195,570 • Opportunity to Increase the Tax Increment Generation - Proposal F This proposal may provide an increase in assessed values to the properties lying immediately south of the proposed stadium. The properties fronting the Boulevard have experienced a 15% sales value increase over the past two years without further development. The added assessment value of this site could increase the CRA's tax increment revenue anywhere between $95,436 and $196,964 assuming current real estate prices according to the most recent sales in the area. Opportunity Proposal - F Development Growth Opportunities for Boulevard Frontage Lots North of NE 7th Street (Blks 41. 40) at Blocks i'PrIce /Sq. FL, Mai neist Assessed ValluiR increment. 144,950 $ 150 $ 47 $ 6,812,650 $ 95,436 144,950 $ 175 $ 72 $ 10,436,400 $ 146,200 144,950 $ 200 $ 97 $ 14,060,150 $ 196,964 SEOPW/CRA 19+1111110 9 O Ise VIteb • SUMMARY The placement of the Baseball Stadium is crucial to the CRA. It is very important for the expansion and development of this area to consider the CRA's Tax Increment Revenues in order for it to prosper and profit from its economic expansion. A Baseball Stadium development located on sites that hinder the SEOPW from further development and economic expansion could destroy the possibilities of the revitalization of the area. • is Following is a Summary of Tax Increment Revenue Increases/(Decreases) based on Current Property Sales. This summary illustrates that locating the Baseball Stadium as proposed by Proposal AI and All (Biscayne Boulevard East Site), Proposal B-II (Biscayne Boulevard West Site) and Proposal F (Northeast 2°d Avenue Site) would each have a severe negative financial impact on the CRA and will impede any future economic progress. Proposals C — Arena East or D-Arena West appear to have the least negative financial impact on the CRA, although these sites warrant further review to determine the redevelopment and housing impacts on the Overtown community. Proposal B-I (Biscayne Boulevard East) and Proposal E (Northeast 9" Street site) seem to be the most practical proposals with the least negative financial impact on the CRA. Please note that this analysis is strictly based on the effects on the CRA's Tax Increment Revenues and utilizes the various assumptions listed above. Summary of Tax Increment Revenue Increases/(Decreases) based on Current Property Sales Tax Increment $ Revenue Decrease $ (492,467) $ (422,423) $ (148,135) $ Tax Increment % Revenue Decrease -45% -16% Optimal Development Option Offset 65.085 306,691 196,964 Net Tax Increment $ Increase/Decrease $ (492,467) $ (357,339) $ 158,556 $ (61,903) Summary of Tax Increment Revenue Increases/(Decreases) based on Current Property Sales ax Increment $ Revenue Decrease $ (138,714) $ (127,857) $ (211,574) $ (363,182) ax Increment % Revenue Decrease -15% -14% -22% -39% iptimal Development Option Offset 459,897 459,897 459,897 196,964 $ 321,1831 $ 332,0391 $ 248,323 $ (166,218) Net Tax Increment $ Increase/Decreasel SEOPW/CRA .�.'.� a Rt lev ssE b ;! 1 2/0 i SECTION III ' DEBT OBLIGATIONS The CRA has obligations on one outstanding bond issue and outstanding loan. Debt service on the 1990 Series Bond Issue is paid with pledged Tax Increment Revenues and Florida Guaranteed Entitlement Funds of the Redevelopment Area. A reduction of tax increment revenue could require the City to meet any annual debt service deficit. In addition, the $1,708,864 GCC Loan must be completely paid off by the year 2008 by the City of Miami. There is no interest due on this loan, but repayment of the loan must be made from tax increment funds received from the Designated Area. • $11,500,000 Community Redevelopment Revenue Bonds, Series 1990 — On November 8, 1990, the City. issued .$11,500,000 aggregate principal .amount of Community Redevelopment Revenue Bonds, Series 1990, maturing through 2015, with interest rates ranging from 7.15 ' percent to 8.5 percent. These bonds *are secured by a pledge of guaranteed entitlement revenue received from the State of Florida and annual tax increment revenue received from the City and County within the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) ' redevelopment area. The proceeds of the bonds were used to refinance a $5,958,000 Section 108 HUD Promissory Note, to reimburse the City for monies advanced to the Agency by the City in an amount not to exceed $750,000, and to finance the acquisition and clearing of certain real property for community redevelopment within the redevelopment area of the CRA pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Phase I Development Program of the City/County CRA's Interlocal Agreement, dated March 31, 1983, and related resolutions of the City and County. • $1,708,864 Gran Central Corporation (the "GCC") Loan - On January 9, 1992, the City entered into a $3,000,000 loan agreement with the Gran Central Corporation (GCC) to finance 50 percent of the cost to acquire a parcel of property (17,000 square feet) and structure within the SEO/PW CRA redevelopment area to use by the City to relocate and widen Northwest First Avenue between Northwest First Street and Northwest Eighth Street to .the Miami Arena as provided for in the CRA redevelopment plan. The loan amount that was withdrawn by the City, in the amount of $1,708,864, does not bear interest and is payable from tax increment funds received from the City and County within a Designated Area of the SEO/PW CRA redevelopment area defined in the loan documents on a junior and subordinate basis to the lien granted to holders of the $11,500,000 Community Redevelopment Revenue Bonds, Series 1990. GCC is to be fully repaid, by the City, by the year 2008 with annual payments to be made by the City to the extent tax increment revenues are generated within the Designated Area, as defined in the loan document, and are available after required payments for the Series 1990 Bonds debt service and any requirement of the reserve fund or reserve product, as defined ' in the Series 1990 Bond indenture. As of September 30, 1999, no payments have been made by the City to the GCC since CRA tax increment revenues are not available- within the Designated Area. The City of Miami has been paying interest on the $4,800,000 and the $300,000 Section 108 HUD Loans since August 1, 1995. As of August, 2000, the City commenced to pay back the principal on these two outstanding debt obligations in addition to the loan interest it had been ' paying. SE0PW/CRk ip SeusseD 31 i tii $4,800,000 Section 108 H loan from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") — The loan proceeds were used to retire $6,735,000 of the City's outstanding CRA Bonds Series 1990. Loan interest is payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year commencing on August 1, 1995. Principal is payable annually commencing August 1, 2000. $300,000 Section 108 Loan from HUD — The loan proceeds were used by the City to fund the acquisition of vacant land for the expansion of the Lyric Theater and the construction of the Lyric Theater Plaza project (an extension of the 9'' Street Pedestrian Mall) in collaboration with Miami -Dade County. The principal is payable annually commencing on August 1, 2000. Loan interest is payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year commencing August 1, 1995. S.E®PW/f RA- 12 1 0 ! SECTION IV ECONOMIC GROWTH An evaluation of economic conditions that would affect the SEOPW and a review of published information regarding economic development in the area was performed to understand historical ' growth in key economic variables in SEOPW (i.e., assessed values and assessed growth rate). Several meetings were also conducted with individuals and agencies knowledgeable about the development patterns in the area. ' The Baseball Stadium can deliver the necessary synergy with other entertainment and cultural destinations that is critical to a successful project. "Clustering" of destinations in and around the Park insures that the public derives the maximum benefit from infrastructure expenditures and entrepreneurial initiatives, both public and private. Additionally these developments will enhance the flow of pedestrians to the Omni Redevelopment Area including the Performing Arts Center. 1 REVIEW OF ECONOMIC FORECASTS The CRA `s Redevelopment Area has experienced exponential growth in its tax value and land appraisal values,in recent times. The property bordering on the Boulevard which was assessed at an average of $103 / sq. ft. for the year 1999 will probably be assessed at nearly double that rate due to recent land purchases. The latest sale, scheduled to close the second week of February 2001, has a purchase price of $190.55 / sq. ft. The placement of a stadium in or near Bicentennial Park, bordering on the SEOPW Redevelopment Area, will create an economic expansion of the commercial and residential properties in the surrounding area. This will in turn increase property values due to the influx of visitors, both residents and tourists, being drawn to this area for the ball games, art museums, park areas and Biscayne Bay views. The close location of the Performing Arts Center to the ' proposed Stadium will create a synergy attracting people who will park or ride the People Mover, stay to eat and purchase goods being sold in the vicinity. The placement of the Baseball Stadium, however, is crucial to the CRA and the impact on its tax increment revenues. It is very important for the expansion and development of this area to consider the CRA's Tax Increment Revenues in order for it to prosper and profit from its economic expansion. A Baseball Stadium development located on sites. that hinder the SEOPW from further development and economic expansion could destroy the possibilities of the revitalization of the area. $WPW/C%A • • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter ProposalA Scenanol Bisc. Blvd, East Srte ,� ,� rc ,< r,a ."�4 , Tax Roll $ 160,038,4187$160,038,.418 $ 176,042,260 $ 176,042,260 $ 193,646,486 $ 193,646,486 Reduction of Tax Roll 43,942,960) (54,928,700) (68,660.875) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) Increased Property Value $ 81,732,916 $ 37,789,956 $ 97.736,758 $ 42,808,058 $ 115,340,984 $ 46,680,109 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 77,646,270 35,900,458 92,849,920 40,667,655 109,573,935 44,346,103 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 11144,972 529,388 1,369.165 599,685 �; , a:u%) 1,815,777 653,928 .;.. Change 5g^ „�•-_ Proposal A - Scenario 11 Bisc. Blvd. East Site 60,038,418 $ 160,038,418 $ 176,042,260 $ 176,042,260 Tax Roll $ 193,646,486 $ 193,646,486 Reduction of Tax Roll F81,732,916 (37,692,960) (47,116,200) (58,895,250) Base Property Value 78,305,50� (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 44,039,956 $ 97,736,758 $ 50,620,558 $ 115,340.984 _ $ 56,445,734 Increased Property alue 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 77,646,270 41,837,958 92,849,920 48,089,530 109,573,935 53,623,447 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 1,144,972 616,943 1,369,165 709,128 660 i%) 1,615,777 790,731 ".-.. % Change 46 Proposal B - -_ Bisc. Blvd. East _ i i Tax Roll $ 160,038,418 $ 160,038,418 $ 176,042,260 $ 176,042,260 $ 193,646.486 $ 193,646,486 Reduction of Tax Roll (13,218,096) (16,522.620) (20,653,275) • Bee. Property Value Increased Property Value (78,305,502) $ 81,732,916 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 68,514,820 $ 97,736.758 $ 81,214,138 $ 115,340,984 $ 94,687.709 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 77,646,270 65,089,079 92,849,920 77,153,431 109,573,935 89,963,323 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 1,144,972 959804 �a;�.; 1,369,165 1,137.704 �a� �al,� 1,615,777 1,326,452 % Change is SEOPW/CRA liWstg% 14 • • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter • Proposal E - Unallecl Blvd, NE 9th Street - - $ 160,038,418 "� i11-1 $ 160,038,418 ra ,s , r� r • , ,� , Tax Roll $ 176.042,260 $ 176,042,260 $ 193,646,486 $ 193,646,486 Reduction of Tax Roll (16,613,340) (18,274,674) (20,102,141) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305 502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 81,732.916 $ 65,119,577 $ 97.736,758 $ 79,462,084 $ 115,340,984 $ 95,238,843 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 77,646,270 61.863,598 92,849,920 75,488,980 109,573,935 90,476,901 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 R,v �nrrempn� Riven ,,. 1,144,972 912,241 .,, ,. 1,369,165 1,113,161 1,615,777 1.334.172 • SEOPW/CRA D� ituSillF � 15 • • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal A - Scenario I PrOPM11- PMPOSal A4 TIR Bisc. Blvd. East Site $ 213.011,134 i Tax Roll $ 213,011,134 $ 219.401,469 $ 219,401,469 $ 225,983,513 $ 225,983,513 Reduction of Tax Roll (85,826,094) (90,117,398) (94,623,268) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 134,705,632 $ 48,879,539 $ 141,095,967 $ 50,978,568 $ 147.678,011 $ 53,054,742 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 954 95% CRA's Tax Base 127,970,351 46,435.562 134.041,168 48,429,640 .294,110 50,402,005 Mfllage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 TexlncrementRevenue 1,887,051 684,739 1976571 714,143 '0%=% )2,068,777 L140 743,228 a1 % Change Proposal A - Scenario 11 ftopoSall A41 TIR Bisc. Blvd. East Site r r, , ; Tax Roll $ 213,011,134 $ 213,011,134 $ 219,401,469 $ 219,401,469 $ 225.983,513 $ 225,983,513 Reduction of Tax Roll (73,619.063) (77,300,016) (81,165.016) Base Property Value 78,305 502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 134,705,632 $ 61,086,570 $ 141,095,967 $ 63,795,951 $ 147,678,011 $ 66,512,994 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 127.970,351 58,032,241 134,041,168 60,606,153 140,294,110 63,187,344 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 1,887,051 855,743 1,976,571 893,698 ;: :',I 2,068,777 931,761 % Change Proposal Bisc, Blvd, East Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 213,011,134 (78.305.502) $ 213,011,134 (25,816,594) (78,305,502) $ 219,401,469 (78,305,502) $ 219,401,469 (27,107,424) (78,305,502) $ 225,983,513 (78,305.502) $ 225,983,513 (28,462,795) (78,305,502) $ 134,705,632 $ 108,889,038 $ 141,095,967 $ 113,988,543 $ 147,678,011 $ 119,215,215 95% 95 % 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 127,970.351 103,444,586 134,041,168 108,289,115 140,294,110 113,254.455 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746;0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 1,887,051 1,525,394 �:r;i.�,s;` 1,976,571 1,596,831 �.,11 2,068,777 1.670.050 Change SEOPW/MA pup— v1 s C-ussIM 16 • • • Projected Growth In Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal E - Unaffect Blvd, NE 9th Street Tax Roll • Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millage Rate Proposal F - Una//ect Blvd NE 2nd Ave. Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue % Chanae • $ 213,011,134 $ 213,011,134 (22,112,355) (78,305,502 (78,305,502) $ 134,705,632 $ 112,593,277 95% 95% 127, 970, 351 106, 963, 614 1,867,051 I 1,577,285 $ 213,011,134 $ 213,011,134 (63,294,614) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 134.705.632 $ 71,411.018 95% 95% 127, 970, 351 67, 840, 467 0.014746 0.014746 1,887,051 1,000,376 $ 219,401,469 $ 219,401,469 (22,775,726 (78,305,502) (78,305,502' $ 141,095,967 $ 118,320,241 95% 95% 134, 041,168 112, 404, 229 laoti, m5)11 1,976,571 1,657,513 $ 219,401,469 $ 219,401,469 (66,459,345 (78,305,502) (78,305,502 $ 141,095,967 $ 74,636,622 95% 95i 134,041.168 70,904,790 0.014746 0.01474E 1,976,571 1,045,562 $ 225,983,513 1 $ 225,983,513 $ 147,678,011 $ 124,219,013 95% 95% 140,294,110 118,008,062 0.01474f; 0,01474 2,068,777 1,740,147 $ 225.983,513 $ 225,983,513 (69,782,312) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 147.678,011 $ 77,895,698 95% 95% 140,294,110 74,000,913 � .,lnu)JJ 2,068,777 1 1,091,217 SEOPW/CRA ,���fuSlFD 121t. ;:1n C) n i 5 I .,1 i' 17 Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal A - Scenario I Bisc. Blvd, East Site Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue Proposal A - Scenario 11 Bisc. Blvd. East Site Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue % Change Proposal Bisc. Blvd. East Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue % Change Bisc. Blvd. West Site (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value C1INs Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue Proposal C - Arena East Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Millage Rate Tax Increment Revenue $ 232,763,018 $ 232,763,018 $ 239,745,908 $ 239,745,908 $ 246.938.286 $ 246,938,286 (99,354,432) (104,322,153) (109,538,261) (78,305,502) (78 305,502) (78,305,502) (78 305,502) (78305,502) (78,305,502) $ 154,457,516 $ 55,103,084 $ 161,440,406 $ 57,118,253 $ 168,632,7B4 $ 59,094,523 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 146,734,640 52.347.930 153.368,386 54,262,340 160,201,145 16,139,717 14 4 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,01474 0.014746 2,1631749 771,923 2"l 2,261,570 800,15E d'•.,1it1 2,362,326 827,837 $ 232,763,018 $ 232,763,018 $ 239,745,908 $ 239,745,908 $ 246,938,286 $ 246,938,286 (85,223,267) (89,484,431) (93,958,652) (78,305,502 (78,305,502) (78,305.502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 154,457,516 $ 69,234,249 $ 161,440,406 $ 71,955,976 $ 168,632,784 $ 74,674,132 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 146,734,640 65,772,536 153,368,386 68.358,177 160,201,145 00147461 70,940.425 4,414.746E 0,01474 2,163,749 0,014746 969,88E 19:1." %; 4 4] 4Z1St 2,261, 770 4 414Z4Ft 1,008,010 (:.:-'i i :n6 1) 2,362,326 1,046,088 $ 232,763.018 4 $ 232,763,018 $ 154.457,516 $ 124,571,581 95% 95% 146, 734, 640 118. 343, 002 4,014746E 2,163,749 0,014746 1,745,066 $ 232,763,018 1 $ 232,763.018 $ 154,457,516 $ 102,231.507 95% 95 % 146,734,640 97,119,932 0,014746 091474E 2,163,749 1,432,131 $ 232,763,018 $ 232,763,018 (15,841,814) (78305,502) (78,305,502) $ 154,457,516 $ 138,615,702 95% 95% 146,734,640 131,684,917 9 4] 434Si U14745 21163,749 1,941,826 $ 239,745,908 $ 239,745,908 (31,380,232) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 161,440,406 $ 130.060,175 95% 95% 153,368,386 123,557,166 dhl -)II 2,261,570 I 1,821,974 $ 239,745,908 I $ 239,745,908 (54,837,309) $ 161,440.406 $ 106.603,097 95% 95% 153, 368, 386 101, 272, 942 0,014746 0,01474fi 18) 2,261,570 1,493,371 $ 239,745,908 $ 239,745,908 (16.317,068) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 161,440,406 $ 145,123,339 95% 95% 153,368,386 137,867,172 ^: ?^ t 0.014746 2,261,570 4_014746 2,032,989 $ 246,938,286 (78,305,502 $ 246,938,286 (32,949,243) (78,305,502) $ 168,632,764 $ 135,683,541 95% 95% 160, 201,145 12 B, 899, 363 a t,.'s•n 1 0,0147461 2,362,326 491479E 1,900,750 $ 246,938,286 I $ 246,938,286 (57,579,175 $ 168,632,784 $ 111.053,609 95% 95% 160, 201.145 105,500.929 0,014746 0.01474E 758 ; D91 2,362.326 1,555,717 .3,y $ 246,938,286 $ 246,938,286 (16,806,580) (78 305,502) (78 305,502) $ 168,632,784 $ 151,826,204 95% 95% 160, 201,145 144,234,894 1218.58, 11 2,362,326 I 2,126,888 SEOPW/CRA �1SlusSEC 18 Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter • Proposal D - Arena west proposal 0 MR Proposal D MR rr•2009-10 - $ 232,763,018 $ 232,763,018 $ 246.938,286 Tax Roll $ 239,745.908 $ 239,745,908 $ 246,938,286 Reduction of Tax Roll (14.601,921) (15,039,978) (15,491,178) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 154.457,516 $ 139,855.595 $ 161,440,406 $ 146,400,428 $ 168,632,784 $ 153,141,606 Increased Property Value 95 % 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 146,734,640 132,862,815 153,368,386 139,080,407 160.201,145 145,484,526 Millage Rate 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 22]4ZQ¢ 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,163,749 1,95)195 2u-i.�;bi) 2,261,570 2,050,880 ��%-GS��; 2,362,326 2945, 115 % Change Proposal E - Unaffect Blvd, Proposal E M- Proposal E M- Proposal NE9(hStreet +r )• r+• + Impact Tax Roll $ 232,763,018 $ 232,763,018 $ 239,745,908 $ 239,745,908 $ 246,938,286 $ 246,938,286 Base Property Value • Reduction of Tax Roll (78,305,502) (24,162,767) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (24,887,650) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (25,634,280) (78,305,502) $ 154,457,516 $ 168,632,784 Increased Property Value $ 130,294,749 $ 161.440,406 $ 136,552,756 $ 142,998,504 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 146,734,640 123,780,011 153,368.386 129,725,118 160,201,145 135,848,579 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 2,163,749 1,825,260 2,261,570 1,912,927 2,362,326 2,003,223 %-h;inar • Proposal F - Unaffect Blvd, NE 2nd Ave. Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 232,763,018 (78.305,502) $ 232.763,018 (73,271.428) (78,305,502) $ 239.745,908 (78,305,502) $ 239,745.908 (76,934,999) (78,305,502) $ 246,938,286 (78,305,502) $ 246,938,286 (80,781,749) (78,305,502) $ 154,457,516 $ 81,186,088 $ 161,440.406 $ 84,505,407 $ 168,632,784 $ 87,851.035 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 146,734,640 77,126,784 153,368,386 80,280,137 160.201,145 83,458.483 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,163,749 1,137,312 r. mr,.r, t 2,261,570 1,183,811 n nr% Ism 2,362,326 11230,679 %Chance 1111111 •18 SEOPW/CRA .a. . '� 19 DOs��ssffl • • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter • Proposal A - Scenario 1 Ri— Rlvd_ Fact Ri(c ] UI i 41 ' a _i11 L • • Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 254,346,434 (78,305,502) $ 254,346,434 (115,015,174) (78,305,502) $ 261,976,827 (78,305,502) $ 261,976,827 (120,765,933) (78,305.502) $ 269,836,132 (78,305,502) $ 269,836,132 (126,804.229) (78,305,502) $ 176,040,932 $ 61,025,758 $ 183.671,325 $ 62,905,393 $ 191,530,630 $ 64,726.401 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 167,238,886 57,974,470 174,487,759 59.760,123 181,954,099 61,490,081 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 4.0147460 014746 0,0147461 4.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,466,105 854,892 2,572,996 881,223 r, 2,683,095 906,733 %Change 6e 6(i Proposal A - Scenario 11 Bisc. Blvd. East Site Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 254.346,434 (78.305,502) $ 254,346,434 (98,656,585) (78,305,502) $ 261,976,827 (78.305.502) $ 261,976,827 (103,589,414) (78,305,502) $ 269,836.132 (78.305.502) $ 269,836,132 (108,768,885) (78,305,502) $ 176,040,932 $ 77,384,348 $ 183,671,325 $ 80,081,911 $ 191,530,630 $ 82,761,746 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 167,238,886 73,515,130 174,487,759 76,077,816 181,954,099 78,623,658 Millage Rate 0,014746 4014746 4.014746 0,0147460,014Z46 0.014746. Tax Increment Revenue 2,466,105 1,084,064 sr;z--so) 2,572,996 1,121,843 ;l) 2,683,095 1,159,384 Change i Proposal 841 TIR ! Proposal NI TIR Proposal Bdl TIR Fr 2010.11 FY 2010.11 Impact FY 2011-12 FY 2111-12 Impact FY 2012-13 FY 2012-13 Impact Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 254,346,434 (78,305,502) $ 254,346,434 (60,458,133) (78,305,502) $ 261.976,827 (78,305,502) $ 261,976,827 (63,481,040) (78,305,502) $ 269,836,132 (78,305,502) $ 269,836,132 (66,655,092) (78,305,502) $ 176,040,932 $ 115,582.799 $ 183,671,325 $ 120,190,285 $ 191,530.630 $ 124,875,538 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 167,238,886 109,803,659 174,487,759 114,180,771 181,954,099 118,631,761 Millage Rate 0,014746 4.414746E 4.414796E 0,014746 4414Z4& 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,466,105 1,619,165 ��-���.�'tt)� 2,572,996 1,683,710 t:'s�; i 2,683,095 1,749,344 Change Proposal C - Arena East Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 254,346,434 (78,305,502) $ 254.346,434 (17,310,777) (78,305,502) $ 261,976,827 (78,305,502) $ 261,976,827 (17,830,101) (78,305,502) $ 269,836,132 (78,305,502) $ 269.836,132 (18,365,004) (78,305,502) $ 176,040.932 $ 158,730,155 $ 183,671.325 $ 165,841,225 $ 191,530.630 $ 173,165,626 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 167,238,886 150,793,647 174,487,759 157,549,163 181,954,099 164,507,345 Millage Rate 4.414746E 0,014746 4.414746E 0,014746 0,014746 4'414746E Tax Increment Revenue 2,466,105 2,223,603 242.1,0"1 2,572,996 2,323,220 2 2:'%�l 2,683,095 2,425,825 277.27n1 % Change 1 -' SEOPW/CRA 20 D1509ism 0 • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter • Proposal D - Arena West • • • •.: , D tmProposal. TIR proposal i TIR Tax Roll $ 254,346,434 $ 254,346,434 $ 261,976,827 $ 261,976,827 $ 269,836,132 $ 269,836,132 Reduction of Tax Roll (15,955,913) (16,434,591) (16,927,628) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 176,040,932 $ 160,085,019 $ 183,671,325 $ 167,236,735 $ 191,530,630 $ 174,603,002 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 167,238,886 152,080,768 174,487,759 158,874,898 181,954,099 165,872,852 Millage Rate 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,466,105 2,242,583 �._...,._ 2,572,996 2,342,769 2,683,095 2,445,961 Change Proposal E - Unallect Blvd, Proposal E TIR Proposal E TIR Proposal E TIRNE 9th Street , , , ,3 impact Tax Roll $ 254,346,434 $ 254,346,434 $ 261,976,827 $ 261,976,827 $ 269,836,132 $ 269,836,132 Reduction of Tax Roll (26,403,308) (27,195,408) (28,011,270) Base Property Value • (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78.305.502) (78,305,502) $ 191,530,630 $ 163,519,360 Increased Property Value $ 176,040,932 $ 149,637,624 $ 183,671,325 $ 156,475,918 95% 95% 95% 95% 951% 95% CRA's Tax Base 167,238,886 142,155, 743 174,487,759 148,652,122 181,954,099 155,343,392 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 [ox inrn;,neni iia•i-..... 2,466,105 2,096,229 2,572,996 2,192,024 u;c,.i':') 2,683.095 2,290,694 "hang" - Proposal F - Unallect Blvd, NE 2nd Avc. , Tax Roll $ 254,346,434 $ 254,346,434 $ 261,976,827 $ 261,976,827 $ 269,836,132 $ 269,836,132 Reduction of Tax Roll (84,820,837) (89,061,878) (93,514,972) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 176,040,932 $ 183,671,325 $ 94,609,447 $ 191,530,630 $ 98,015,658 Increased Property Value $ 91,220,096 95% 95% 95% 951% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 167,238,886 86.659,091 174.487,759 89,878,975 181,954,099 93,114.875 Millage Rate 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0. Tax Increment Revenue 2,466,105 1,277,875 i W ':',w�? 2,572,996 1,325,355 �-� �; 2,683,095 072 1,373,072 n o �'��� ��^=1) Change • SEOPW/(RA "M w .- _ -- 1>1 %cossro 21 • • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal A - Scenario I Bisc. Blvd. East Site $ 277,931,216 Tax Roll $ 277,931,216 $ 286,269,153 $ 286,269,153 $ 294,857,227 $ 294,857,227 Reduction of Tax Roll (133,144,441) (139,801.663) (146,791,746) Base Property Value (78,305.502) (78,305,502) (78,305 502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305.502) $ 199,625,714 $ 66.481,273 $ 207,963,651 $ 68,161,988 $ 216,551,725 $ 69,759.979 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 951% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 189,644,426 63.157,210 197,565,468 64,753,888 205,724,139 66,271,980 Millage Rate 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,796,497 931,316 2,913,300 954,861 r,_ i.W' 3,033,608 977,247 Change Proposal A - Scenario It ....:.: J.MI U. Bisc. Blvd. East Site $ 277,931,216 $ 277,931,216 , Tax Roll 286.269,153 $ 294,857,227 $ 294,857,227 Reduction of Tax Roll (114,207,329)(119,917,695) 7*� (125,913,580) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 199,625,714 $ 85,418,385 88,045,955 $ 216,551,725 $ 90,638,145 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 189,644,428 81,147,466 197,565,46E 83,643,658 205,724,139 86,106,231 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,796,497 1,196,601 2,913,300 1,233,409 1 6"!)All 1) 3,033,608 1,269,723 Change Proposal 8 Proposal - Bisc. Blvd. East r , , Tax Roll $ 277,931,216 $ 277,931,216 $ 266.269,153 $ 286,269,153 $ 294,857,227 $ 294,857,227 Reduction of Tax Roll (40,050,011) (42,052,512) (44,155,137) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 207,963,651 $ 165,911,139 $ 216,551,725 $ 172,396,588 Increased Property Value $ 199,625.714 $ 159,575,703 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 189,644,428 151,596,918 197,565,468 157,615,582 205,724,139 163,776,759 Millage Rate 0.014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,796,497 2,235,448 2,913,300 2,324,199 3,033,608 2,415,052 % Chan e m < Bisc. Blvd. West Site Proposal 13-11 TIR Proposal _ (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) Tax Roll $ 277,931,216 $ 277,931.216 $ 286,269,153 $ 286,269,153 $ 294.857,227 $ 294,857,227 Reduction of Tax Roll (69,987,847) (73,487,239) (77,161,601) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 207,963,651 $ 134,476,412 $ 216,551,725 $ 139,390,124 Increased Property Value $ 199,625.714 $ 129.637,867 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 189,644,428 123,155,974 197,565,468 127,752,591 205,724,139 132,420,618 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,796,497 1,816,058 I91+n i;i��l 2,913,300 1,883,840 3,033.608 1,952,674 n Change SEOPW/CRA • is • • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal D - Arena West Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 277.931,216 (78,305.502) $ 277,931,216 (17,435,457) (78,305,502) $ 286,269,153 (78,305,502) $ 286,269,153 (17,958,521) (78,305,502) $ 294,857,227 (78.305.5021 $ 294,857,227 (18,497,276) (78,305,502) $ 199,625,714 $ 182,190,257 $ 207,963,651 $ 190,005,130 $ 216,551,725 $ 198,054,449 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 189,644,428 173,080,744 197,565,468 180,504,873 205,724,139 188,151.726 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,796,497 2,552,249 2,913,300 2,661,725 3,033,608 2,774,485 Change Proposal E - Unal/ect Blvd. NE 9th Street Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Properly Value Increased Property Value $ 277,931,216 (78,305,502) $ 277,931,216 (28,851,608) (78,305,502) $ 286,269,153 (78,305,502) $ 286,269,153 (29,717,156) (78,305,502) $ 294,857,227 (78,305,502) $ 294,857,227 (30,608,671) (78,305,502) $ 199,625,714 $ 170,774.106 $ 207,963,651 $ 178,246,495 $ 216,551,725 $ 185,943,054 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 189,644,428 162,235,401 197,565,468 169,334,170 205,724,139 176,645,902 Millage Rate 0,014746 4,014746 0,014746 QQj4746 0.014746 0.014746 tax n,rn,mPm Hove nun 2,796,497 2,1392,323 1111 "'` 2,913,300 2,497,002 i i'� 3,033,608 2,604,820 Proposal F- Unaftoct Blvd, NE 2nd Ave. Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Properly Value Increased Property Value $ 277,931,216 (78,305,502) $ 277,931,216 (98.190,721) (78,305,502) $ 286,269,153 (78,305,502) $ 286,269,153 (103,100,257) (78,305,502) $ 294,857,227 (78.305.502) $ 294,857,227 (108,255,270) (78,305,502) $ 199,625,714 $ 101,434,993 $ 207,963,651 $ 104,863,394 $ 216,551,725 $ 108,296,455 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 189,644,428 96,363,243 197,565,468 99,620,224 205,724,139 102.881,633 Millage Rate 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 2,796,497 1,420,972 sz l 2,913,300 1,469,000 il,:'n,l 3,033,608 1,517,093 l Chan a �,,, sr,,11 SEOPW/CRA D�S�vSSEp 23 • • • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal A - Scenario I Proposal A4 MR - .�.�..:.: � -Proposal Bisc. Blvd. East Site Tax Roll $ 303,702,944 $ 303,702,944 $ 312,814,032 $ 312,814.032 $ 322,198,453 $ 322,198,453 Reduction of Tax Roll (154,131,333) (161,837,900) (169,929,795) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (7B,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) Increased Property Value $ 225.397,442 $ 71,266.109 $ 234.508,530 $ 72.670,630 $ 243,892,951 $ 73,963,156 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 214,127,570 67,702,103 222,783,104 69,037,099 231,698,304 70,264,998 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,157,525 998,346 ,a'au' 3,285,160 1,018,021 c: >,,; !:;'n 3,416,623 1.036,128 Chance Proposal A • Scenario ll Bisc. Blvd. East Site Tax Roll $ 303,702,944 $ 303,702,944 $ 312,814,032 $ 312,814,032 $ 322,198,453 $ 322,198,453 Reduction of Tax Roll (132,209,259) (138,819,722) (145,760,708) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 225,397,442 $ 93,188,183 $ 234,508,530 $ 95,688,808 $ 243,892,951 $ 98,132,243 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 214.127.570 813,528,774 222,783,104 90.904,368 231,698,304 93,225,631 Millage Rate 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,157,525 1,305,445 n-+5:�,71;u) 3,285,160 I 1,340,476 3,416,623 1,374,705 % Change s:)' I ;, . Proposal Bisc. Blvd. East Tax Roll $ 303,702,944 Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value (78,305,502) Increased Property Value $ 225,397,442 95% CRA's Tax Base 214.127,570 Millage Rate 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,157,525 Change Proposal 04 $ 303,702,944 (46,362,894) (78,305,502) MR Proposal 84 MR Proposal B-1 , MR ��-+�•-+,+-n $ 312,814,032 (78,305,502) $ 312,814,032 (48,681,039) (78,305,502) $ 185,827,492 95% 176,536,117 0.014746 2,603,202 �s++' _Is++1 $ 322,198,453 (78,305,502) $ 322,190,453 (51,115,091) (78,305,502) $ 179,034,548 95% 170,082,821 0.014746 2,508,041 $ 234,508,530 95% 222,783,104 0.014746 3,285,160 $ 243,892,951 95% 231,698,304 0.014746 3,416,623 $ 192,777,861 95% 183,138,968 0,014746 2.700.567 Bisc. Blvd. West Site Proposal 841 MRMR Proposal B-11 MR (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) $ 303,702,944 $ 303,702,944 , ; Tax Roll $ 312,814,032 $ 312,814,032 $ 322,198,453 $ 322,198,453 Reduction of Tax Roll (81,019,681) (85,070,665) (89,324,198) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 225,397,442 $ 144.377,761 $ 234,508.530 $ 149.437.865 $ 243.892,951 $ 154,568.753 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 214,127,570 137,158,873 222,783,104 141,965,972 231,698,304 146,840.315 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0.0147 ¢ 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,157,525 2,022,545 uii 3,285,160 2.093.430 3,416,623 2,165,307 I Change r, r, SEOPW/CRA r �i�l.V zSED 24 • • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter • Proposal D - Arena WestProposal . TIR Proposal, TIR Proposal , _ $ 303,702,944 pad Tax Roll $ 303,702,944 $ 312,814,032 $ 312,814,032 $ 322,198,453 $ 322.198,453 Reduction of Tax Roll (19,052.195) (19,623.761) (20,212,473) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305 502) $ 225,397,442 $ 206,345,247 $ 234.508,530 $ 214,884,770 $ 243,892,951 $ 223,680,478 Increased Properly Value 95% 95% 95% 950/6 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 214.127,570 196,027,985 222,783,104 204,140,531 231,698.304 212,496,454 MIIIageRate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,0147461 o.ola7as 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,157,525 2,890,629 a. isle) 3,285,160 3,010,256 _n):;) 3,416,623 3,133,473 s�;) % Change Proposal E - Unaffect Blvd, Proposal NE 9th Street 2018-19 pact Tax Roll $ 303,702,944 $ 303,702,944 $ 312,814,032 $ 312.814,032 $ 322,198,453 $ 322,198,453 Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502} (78,305,502) (78,305 502) • Reduction of Tax Roll (31,526,931) (32,472,739) (78,305,502) (33,446,921) (78,305 502) $ 243,892,951 $ 210,446,030 Increased Property Value $ 225.397,442 $ 193,870,511 $ 234,508,530 $ 202,035,792 95% 95% 95% 951/6 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 214,127,570 184,176,986 222,783,104 191,934.002 231,698,304 199,923,729 Mlllage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 I1x "c"I w"iliw„n„, 3,157,525 2,715,874 3,285,160 2,830,259 1) 3,416,623 _ 2,948,075 Proposal F- Unarlecf Blvd, opra NE 2nd Ave. , Tp!q, ; Tax Roll $ 303,702,944 $ 303,702,944 $ 312.814,032 $ 312,814,032 $ 322,198,453 $ 322,196,453 Reductlon of Tax Roll (113,668,033) (119,351,435) (125,319.007) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 234.508,530 $ 115,157,095 $ 243,892.951 $ 118,573,944 Increased Property Value $ 225,397,442 $ 111,729,409 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 214,127,570 106,142.938 2221783,104 109,399,240 231,698,304 112,645,247 Mlllage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,157,525 1,565,184 r .. i i i 3,285,160 1,613,201 3,416,623 1,661,067 ssr+) Change Y) • 1�e CRIA 25 • • • • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal A - Scenario I , _ - Bisc. Blvd. East Site - , r i Tax Roll $ 331,864,407 $ 331,864.407 $ 341,820,339 $ 341,820,339 $ 352,074,949 $ 352,074,949 Reduction of Tax Roll (178,426,285) (187,347,599) (196,714,979) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305 502) (78,305,502) Increased Property Value $ 253,559,905 $ 75,132,620 $ 263,514,837 $ 76,167,238 $ 273,769,447 $ 77,054,468 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 240,880,960 71,375,989 250,339.095 72,358,876 260.080,975 73,201,745 Millage Rate 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,552,031 1,052,510 cL fr, 3!:1 3,691,500 1,067,004 a i r: r,1 _ 3,835,154 1,079,433 ;5 Change Proposal A - Scenario it - ... ,. Bisc. Blvd. East Site $ 331,864.407 - , � i r Tax Roll $ 331,864,407 $ 341,820,339 $ 341,820,339 $ 352,074,949 $ 352,074,949 Reduction of Tax Roll (153,048,744) (160,701,181) (168,736,240) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305 502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 253,558,905 $ 100,510,161 $ 263,514,837 $ 102,813.656 $ 273,769,447 $ 105.033,208 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 951% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 240,880,960 95,484,653 250,339.095 97.672,974 260,080,975 99,781,547 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,552,031 1,408,017 3.691,500 1,440,286 n 3,836.154 1,471,379 % Change Proposal C - Arena East Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 331,664,407 (78,305.502) $ 331,864,407 (22,586,638) (78,305,502) $ 341,820.339 (78,305,502) $ 341,820,339 (23,264,237) (78,305,502) $ 352,074,949 (78,305,502) $ 352,074,949 (23,962,164) (78,305,502) $ 253,558.905 $ 230,972,267 $ 263,514,837 $ 240,250,600 $ 273,769,447 $ 249,807,283 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 240.880,960 219.423,653 250.339,095 228,238,070 260,080,975 237,316,919 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue L 3,235,621 n ------3,552,031 3,691 500 3,365,599 <s ?' i 3,835,154 3,499,475 a , ; 701 Change WOMMA j 26 DIse &ISEa • • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter • Proposal D - Arena west r $ 331,864.407 Tax Roll $ 331,864,407 $ 341,820,339 $ 341,820,339 $ 352,074,949 $ 352,074,949 Reduction of Tax Roll (20,818,848) (21.443,413) (22,086,715) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502 $ 253,558.905 $ 232,740,057 $ 263,514,837 $ 242,071,424 $ 273,769,447 $ 251.682,732 Increased Property Value 95% 951/6 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 240.880,960 221,103,054 250,339.095 229,967,853 260,080,975 239,098,595 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,552,031 3,260,386 3,691,500 3,391,106 "• ,:'•' 3,835,154 3,525,748 ns.hlli) Change Proposal E - Unarrect Blvd, NE 9th Street r Tax Roll $ 331,864,407 $ 331.864,407 $ 341,820.339 $ 341,820,339 $ 352,074,949 $ 352,074,949 Reduction of Tax Roll • Base Property Value (78,305,502) (34,450,329) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (35.463,838) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (36,548,354) (78,305 502) $ 228,030,999 Increased Property Value $ 253.558.905 $ 219,108,576 $ 263,514,837 $ 273,769,447 $ 237.221,094 951/6 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 240,880,960 208,153,147 250,339,095 216,629.449 260,080,975 225,360,039 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0914746 0,014746 3,552.031 3,069,426 ��; 3,691,500 3,194,418 .>4:; 3,835,154 3,323,159 '15 Proposal F - Unal/ect Blvd, Proposal F TIRProposal F TIR Prop..ProposelF TIR NE 2nd Ave. Tax Roll $ 331,864,407 $ 331,864,407 $ 341,820,339 $ 341,820,339 $ 352,074,949 $ 352,074,949 Reduction of Tax Roll (131,584,957) (138,164,205) (145,072,415) Base Property Value (78,305,502) f78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502 (78,305,502) $ 253,558,905 Increased Property Value $ 121,973,948 $ 263,514,837 $ 125,350,632 $ 273,769,447 $ 128,697,032 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95 CRA'sTax Base 240.880,960 115,875,250 250,339,095 119,083,100 260,080,975 122,262,180 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0 ¢14746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,552,031 1,708,696 e n 3,691,500 1,755,999 „i i 31 35,154 1,802.878 Change;,:' • SEOPW/CRA D I se vssEb Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter • Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal A - Scenario I Bisc. Blvd. East Site r�r .. r r i 7, Tax Roll $ 362,637,198 $ 362,637,198 $ 373,516,314 $ 373,516,314 $ 384.721,803 $ 384,721,803 Reduction of Tax Roll (206,550,728) (216,878,264) (227,722,178) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) Increased Property Value $ 284,331,696 $ 77,780,968 $ 295,210,812 $ 78,332,547 $ 306,416,301 $ 78,694,124 95% 95% 95% 95% 95 % 95% CRA's Tax Base 270,115,111 73,891,919 280,450,271 74,415.920 291,095,486 74,759.417 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,983,117 1,089.610 1 31u:t :,,) 4,135,520 1,097,337 �.o:+x '.,3:+) 4,292,494 1,102,402 :ui ,i•t?s Change Proposal A - Scenario II Proposal - Proposal A41 TIR Bisc. Blvd. East Site FY 2M23r , Tax Roll $ 362,637,198 $ 362.637,198 $ 373,516,314 $ 373.516,314 $ 384,721,803 $ 384,721,803 Reduction of Tax Roll (177,173,052) (186,031,704) (195,333,290) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78.305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 284,331,696 $ 107,158,644 $ 295,210,812 $ 109,179,107 $ 306,416,301 $ 111,083,012 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 270,115,111 101,800,712 280,450,271 103,720,152 291,095,486 105,528,861 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,983,117 1,501,153 ii, I 1 .);d) 4,135,520 1,529,457 �:' 606,)W 1 4,292,494 1,556,129 r .ina Change Ir Proposal Bisc. Blvd. East r .• ,� , Tax Roll $ 362,637,198 $ 362,637,198 $ 373,516,314 $ 373.516,314 $ 384.721,803 $ 384,721,803 Reduction of Tax Roll (62.130,712) (65,237,248) (68.499,110) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 284,331,696 $ 222,200,984 $ 295,210,812 $ 229,973,564 $ 306,416.301 $ 237,917,191 Increased Property Value • 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95 CRA's Tax Base 270,115,111 211,090,934 280,450.271 218,474,886 291,095,486 226,021,331 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0 014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3. 83,117 3,112,747 - ) 4,135,520 3,221,631 ,..� :+rl'a� 4,292,494 3,332,911 u;•,-attar Change Bisc. Blvd. west Site Proposal 1341- Proposal - (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) r rcIM Tax Roll $ 362,637,196 $ 362,637.198 $ 373,516,314 $ 373,516,314 $ 384,721,803 $ 384,721,803 Reduction of Tax Roll (108,574,121) (114,002,828) (119,702,969) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 284,331,696 $ 175.757,574 $ 295,210,812 $ 181,207,984 $ 306,416,301 Increased Property Value $ 186,713,332 95% 95 % 95% 95% 95% 95 % CRA's Tax Base 270,115,111 166,969,696 280,450,271 172,147,585 291,095,486 177,377,666 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,983,117 2,462,135 szo._in?1 4,135,520 2,538,488 sn ,l;a ,) 4,292,494 2,615,611 676A 1) Change Proposal C - Arena East FT 2022-23 Proposal C TIR FT r Proposal - Proposal C TIR Tax Roll $ 362,637,198 $ 362,637,198 $ 373,516,314 $ 373,516,314 $ 384,721,803 $ 384,721,803 Reduction of Tax Roll (24,681,029) (25,421,460) (26,184,104) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 259,650,666 $ 295,210,812 $ 269,789,351 $ 306,416,301 $ 280,232,197 Increased Property Value $ 284,331,696 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 270,115,111 246,668,133 280,450,271 256,299,884 291,095,486 266,220,587 Millage Rate 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Change • Tax Increment Revenue 3,983,117 3,637,368 4,135,520 3,779,398 , , 4,292,494 3,925,689 SEOPW/C RA 28 iv1SQusStfa • Ll Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter • • • Proposal D - Arena West FY r $ 362,637.198 r Tax Roll $ 362,637,198 $ 373,516,314 $ 373,516,314 $ 384,721.803 $ 384.721,803 Reduction of Tax Roll (22,749,317) (23.431,796) (24,134,750) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (76,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 284,331.696 $ 261,582,379 $ 295,210.812 $ 271,779,015 $ 306,416,301 $ 282,281,551 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 270,115.111 248,503,260 280,450,271 258,190,065 291,095,466 268,167,473 Mlllage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,983,117 3,664,429 rtl,l.il:+ui 4,135,520 3,807,271>ri .�a�n 4,292,494 3,954,398 Change Proposal E - Unarrect Blvd, NE 9th Street Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 362,637,198 (78,305,502) $ 362,637,198 (37,644,804) (78,305,502) $ 373,516,314 (78,305,502) $ 373,516,314 (38,774,148) (78,305,502) $ 384,721,803 (78,305,502) $ 384,721,803 (39.937,373) (78,305,502) $ 284,331,696 $ 246.686.892 $ 295,210,812 $ 256,436,663 $ 306.416,301 $ 266,478,928 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 270,115,111 234,352,547 280,450.271 243,614,830 291,095,486 253,154,982 Mlllage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 ::r.-a„a 3,983,117 3,455,763 ':'.:,`:; 4,135,520 3,592,344 4,292,494 3,733,023 Proposal F - Una/lect Blvd, NE 2nd Ave. Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 362,637.198 (78,305,502) $ 362,637,198 (152,326.036) (78,305,502) $ 373,516,314 (78,305,502) $ 373,516,314 (159,942.338) (78,305,502) $ 384,721,803 (7B,305,502) $ 384,721,803 (167,939,455) (78,305,502) $ 284,331.696 $ 132,005,660 $ 295,210,812 $ 135,268,474 $ 306,416,301 $ 138,476,846 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRNsTax Base 270,115,111 125,405,377 280,450,271 128.505,050 291.095,486 131,553,004 Mlllage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 3,983,117 1,849,228 a.tt(n!t 4,135,520 1,894,935 �._-',1U) 4,292,494 1,939,881 Change „i,.. SEOPW/CRA Ey11� 29 D�ta.lussEa • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal A - Scenario 11 Bisc. Blvd. East Site Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 396,263,457 (78,305,502) $ 396,263,457 (205,099.954) (78,305,502) $ 408,151,361 (78,305,502) $ 408,151,361 (215,354,952) (78,305,502) $ 420,395,902 (78.305,502) $ 420,395,902 (226,122,699) (78,305,502) $ 317,957,955 $ 112,858,001 $ 329,845,859 $ 114,490,907 $ 342,090,400 $ 115,967,700 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 302,060,057 107,215,101 313,353,566 108,766,362 324,985,880 110,169,315 Millage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,454,178 1,580,994 ;:, 4,620,712 1,603,869 n 4,792,242 1,624,557 % Chance Proposal B Bisc. Blvd. East Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 396,263,457 (78.305.502) $ 396,263,457 (71,924,066) (78,305,502) $ 408,151,361 (78,305,502) $ 408,151,361 (75,520,269) (78,305,502) $ 420,395,902 (78.305.502) $ 420,395,902 (79,296,282) (78,305,502) $ 317,957,955 $ 246.033,889 $ 329,845,859 $ 254,325,590 $ 342,090.400 $ 262,794,117 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 302,060,057 233.732.195 313,353,566 241,609,310 324,985,880 249,654,411 Mlllage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0.014746 0'014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,454,178 3,446,615 r;:il 4,620,712 3,562,771 4,792,242 3,681,404 % Chance "' Bisc. Blvd. west Site (Move Bisc. Blvd. EaslJ Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 396,263,457 (78,305,502) $ 396,263,457 (125,688.117) (78,305,502) $ 408,151,361 (78,305,502) $ 408,151,361 (131,972,523) (78,305,502) $ 420,395,902 (78,305,502) $ 420.395.902 (138,571,149) (78,305,502) $ 317,957,955 $ 192,269,838 $ 329,845,859 $ 197,873,336 $ 342,090,400 $ 203,519,250 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 302,060,057 182,656,346 313,353,566 187,979,669 324,985,880 193,343,288 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 9.014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,454,178 2,693,450 "' 4,620,712 2,771,948 0 4,792,242 2,851,040 % Chance n Proposal C - Arena East Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 396,263.457 (78,305.502) $ 396.263,457 (26,969,627) (78,305,502) $ 408,151.361 (78,305.502) $ 408,151,361 (27,778,716) (78,305,502} $ 420,395,902 178.305,502) $ 420,395,902 (28,612,077) (7%305,502) $ 317,957,955 $ 290,988,328 $ 329.845.859 $ 302,067,143 $ 342,090,400 $ 313,478,322 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 302,060.057 276,438.912 313.353,566 286,963,785 324,985,880 297,804,406 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,454,178 4,076,368 "' 4,620,712 4,231,568 4,792,242 4,391,424 Change SEOPW/CRA ' 30 D(Stust FD • • Projected Growth In Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter • Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter • Proposal E - Unallect Blvd, NE 9th Street Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 396,263,457 (78,305,502) $ 396,263,457 (41,135,494) (78,305,502) $ 408.151,361 (78,305,502 $ 408,151,361 (42,369,559) (78,305,502) $ 420,395,902 (78,305,502) $ 420,395,902 (43,640,646) (78,305,502) $ 317,957,955 $ 276,822,461 $ 329,845,859 $ 287,476,300 $ 342,090,400 $ 298,449,754 95% 95 % 95 % 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 302.060,057 262,981,338 313,353,566 273,102,485 324,985,880 283,527.266 Millage Rate 0.014746 2214746 0.014746 0,014746 .4 414.M 0,014746 'ninrrn.�ii �� n... ..u„ 4,454,178 3,877,923 i!,7;',. 4,620,712 4,027,169 4,792,242 4.180,893 Proposal F � Unallect Blvd, NE 2nd Ave. Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roil Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 396,263,457 (78,305,502) $ 396,263,457 (176,336.427) (78,305,502) $ 408,151,361 (78,305,502) $ 408,151,361 (185,153,249) (78,305,502) $ 420,395,902 (78,305 502) $ 420,395,902 (194,410,911) (78,305,502) $ 317,957,955 $ 141,621,528 $ 329,845,859 $ 144,692,610 $ 342,090,400 $ 147,679,488 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 302,060,057 134,540,451 313,353.566 137,457,980 324,985,860 140,295,514 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 1 0,0147461 0,0147462 Tax Increment Revenue 4,454,178 1,983,933 G' � iO '4'1 4,620,712 2,026,955 >`� + r ;1,1 4,792,242 2.068,798 -' 72a t,in) Change SE0PW/QA 31 ��S t V3eCn 0 . Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Prop OSal A - Scenario I BiscBlvd. East Sire Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 433,007.779 (78,305,502) $ 433,007.779 (276,797,730) (78,305,502) $ 445,998,012 (78,305 502) $ 445,998,012 (290,637,617) (78,305,502) $ 459,377,953 (78,305,502) $ 459,377,953 (305,169,497) (78,305,502) $ 354,702.277 $ 77.904.547 $ 367.692.510 $ 77.054,894 $ 381,072,451 $ 75,902,953 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 336,967,163 74,009.319 349,307.885 73,202,149 362,018,828 72,107,805 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,968,918 1,091,341 5,150,894 1,079,439 5,338,330 1,063,302 Change Jr, g; Proposal A - Scenario ll •• ... , - , , „-„ - , , ,,, , - Bisc. Blvd. East Site i Tax Roll $ 433,007,779 $ 433,007,779 $ 445,998,012 $ 445,998,012 $ 459,377,953 $ 459,377,953 Reduction of Tax Roll (237,428,834) (249,300,276) (261,765,290) Base Property Value (78,305,502] (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 354,702,277 $ 117,273,442 $ 367,692.510 $ 118.392,234 $ 381,072,451 $ 119,307,161 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 336,967,163 111,409,770 349,307,885 112,472.622 362,018.828 113,341.803 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,968,918 1,642,848 5,150,894 1,658,521 5,338,330 1,671,338.E+> Change Proposal B - - Bisc. Blvd. East ,r : ,r< r • ,a i $ 433,007,779 $ 433,007,779 $ 445,998,012 $ 445,998,012 $ 459,377,953 $ 459,377,953 FTaxoll tion of Tax Roll (83,261,097) (87,424,151) (91,795,359) Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) • Increased Property Value $ 354,702,277 $ 271,441,180 $ 367,692,510 (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 381,072,451 (78,305,502) $ 289,277,092 $ 280,268,359 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 336,967,163 257,869,121 349,307.885 266,254,941 362.018,828 274,813,237 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,968,918 3,802,538 i 6" OW 5,150,894 3,926,195 5,338,330 4,052,396 Change Bisc. Blvd, West Site - - (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) 1 ,c , Tax Roll $ 433.007.779 $ 433,007,779 $ 445,998,012 $ 445,998,012 $ 459,377,953 $ 459,377,953 Reduction of Tax Roll (145,499,707) (152,774,692) (160,413,427) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 354,702,277 $ 381,072,451 $ 220.659,024 Increased Property Value $ 209,202,570 $ 367,692,510 $ 214,917.818 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 336,967,163 198,742,441 349,307,885 204,171.927 362,018,828 209,626,073 Millage Rate 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,968,918 2,930,656 2.'i n.2fi21 5,150,894 3,010,719 sl 5,338,330 3,091,146 )J%'j +q Change Proposal C - Arena East Tax Roll $ 433,007,779 $ 433,007,779 $ 445,998,012 $ 445,998,012 a2030-31 Impact $ 459,377.953 $ 459,377.953 Reduction of Tax Roll (29,470,440) (30,354,553) (31,265,190) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 381,072,451 Increased Property Value $ 354,702,277 $ 325,231,837 $ 367,692,510 $ 337,337,957 $ 349,807,261 95% 95% 95% 950/6 95% 96 CRA's Tax Base 336,967,163 308,970,245 349,307,885 320,471,059 362,018,828 332,316,898 Millage Rate 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,968,918 4,556,075 5,150,894 4,725,666 5,338.330 4,900,345 %Change • SEOPW / CRA 32 D' % #- v::Ep • • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter • Biscayne Blvd, frontage properties (A, B. F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal D - Arena West IK ,r IK 1'K Tax Roll $ 433,007,779 $ 433,007,779 $ 445,998,012 $ 445,998,012 $ 459,377,953 $ 459,377,953 Reduction of Tax Roll (27.163,874) (27,978,790) (28,818,154) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305 502) (78,305,502) (78,305 502) (78,305,502) $ 354,702,277 $ 327,538,403 $ 367.692,510 $ 339,713,720 $ 381,072,451 $ 352,254,297 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 951/6 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 336,967,163 311.161,483 349,307,885 322,728,034 362,018,828 334,641,582 Mlllage Rate 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 4,968,918 4,588,387 r..,:; 5,150,894 4,758,948 a'. 5,338,330 4,934,625 n Change Proposal E - Unallect Blvd, NE 9117 Street Tax Roll •Reduction of Tex Roll 3ese Properly Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Mlllage Rate -,e b¢vi, n,;nl ilrev,tnw, Proposal F - Unallr-ct Blvd, NE 2nd Ave. Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Mlllage Rate Tax Increment Revenue • $ 433.007.779 $ 433,007,779 (44.949,865) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 354,702,277 $ 309,752,412 95% 95% 336,967,163 0,014746 294,264,791 4,968,918 0,014746 4,339,229 $ 445,998,012 I $ 445,998,012 (46,298,361 $ 367,692,510 $ 321,394,149 95% 95% 349,307,885 305,324,442 0,014746 0,01474S O 5.150.694 4,502,314 $ 459,377,953 (78,305.502) $ 459,377,953 (47,687,312) (78,305,502) $ 381,072,451 $ 333,385,139 95% 95 362,018,828 0,014746 316,715,882 0,01474.6 5,338,330 4,670,292 $ 433,007,779 (78,305,502) $ 433,007,779 (204,131,457) (78,305,502) $ 445.998,012 (78.305.502) $ 445,998,012 (214,338,030) (76,305,502) $ 459,377.953 (78,305.502) $ 459,377,963 (225,054.931) (78,305,502) $ 354.702,277 $ 150,570,820 $ 367,692,510 $ 153,354,480 $ 381,072,451 $ 156,017,519 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 336,967,163 0,014746 143,042,279 0.014746 349,307,885 0,014746 145,686,756 362,018,828 148,216,643 4,968,918 2,109,301 5,150.694 0,0147461 2,148,297 w:.r,.'r) 0,014746 5,338,330 0,01.4746 2,185,603 SEOPW / CRA 41 — 0"71 DISC U:sFD 33 • 0 Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal A - Scenario 1 - LL Bisc. Blvd. East Site $ 473,159,291 Tax Roll $ 473,159,291 $ 487,354,070 $ 487,354,070 $ 501,974,692 $ 71,1 Reduction of Tax Roll (320,427,972) (336,449,371) ., Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305.502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 394,853,789 $ 74,425,817 $ 409,048,568 $ 72,599,197 $ 423,669,190 $ 70,397,350 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 375,111.100 70,704,526 388,596,139 68,969,237 402,485,730 66,877,483 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 5,531,388 1,042,609 ., 5,730,239 1017020 5,935,055 986,175�9aH,+;m % Change Proposal A - Scenario ll .., -- : , , „ , - Bisc. Blvd. East Site $ 473,159,291 L Tax Roll $ 473,159,291 $ 487,354.070 $ 487,354,070 $ 501,974,692 $ 501,974,692 Reduction of Tax Roll (274,853,554) (288.596,232) (303,026,044) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,306,502) (78,305,502) $ 394,853.789 $ 120,000,235 $ 409,048,568 $ 120,452,336 $ 423,669,190 $ 120,643.146 Increased Property Value 950/6 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 375,111,100 114,000,223 388,596.139 114,429,719 402,485,730 114.610,989 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 5,531,388 1.681,047 tir.: 5,730,239 1,687,381 5,935,055 1,690,054 %Change Proposal B - Bisc. Blvd. East Tax Roll $ 473,159,291 $ 473,159,291 $ 487,354,070 $ 487,354,070 $ 501,974,692 $ 501,974,692 Reduction of Tax Roll (96,385,127) (101,204,383) (106,264,602) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (70,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 394,853,789 $ 298,468,662 $ 409,048,568 $ 307,844,185 $ 423,669,190 $ 317,404,587 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 375,111.100 283.545,229 388,596,139 292,451,975 402,485,730 301,534,35E Millage Rate 0,014746 0.81 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 5,531,388 4,181,150 158 •',o +n+ 5,730,239 4,312,497 r^) 5,935,055 4,446,426 Change Bisc. Blvd. West Site (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 473,159,291 (78.305,502) $ 473,159,291 (168.434,098) (78,305,502) $ 487.354,070 (78,305,502) $ 487,354,070 (176,855,803) (78,305,502) $ 501,974,692 (78.305,502) $ 501,974,692 (185.698,593) (78,305,502) $ 394,853,789 $ 226,419,691 $ 409,048.568 $ 232,192,765 $ 423,669,190 _ $ 237,970,597 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRXsTax Base 375,111,100 215,098,706 388,596.139 220.583,127 402,485,730 226.072,067 Millage Rate 0.014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 5,531,388 3,171,846 2..+,�.+ �+:+) 5,730,239 3,252,719 '+� :;^n) 5,935,055 3,333,659 Change rr. SEOPW / CRA 34 v1SevsSEO • 0 0 Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal E - Unarlecl Blvd. NE 9th Street Tax Roll •Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value CRA's Tax Base Mlllage Rate Cr,;I [n Proposal F - Una/lect Blvd. NE 2nd Ave. Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value fs Tax Base ge Rate Increment Revenue • $ 473,159,291 $ 473,159,291 (49,117,931) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 394,853,789 $ 345.735,858 95 % 95 375,111,100 328,449,065 0,014746 0,01474 5,531,388 41843,310 $ 487,354,070 $ 487,354,070 (50,591,469) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 409,048,568 $ 358,457,099 95% 95% 388.596,139 340,534,244 0,014746 0,014746 5,730,239 5,021,518 $ 501,974,692 (78.305.502) $ 501,974,692 (52,109.213) (78,305,502) $ 423,669,190 $ 371,559,977 95% 95% 402,485,730 0,014746 352,981,978 5,935,055 0.014746 5,205,072 . $ 473,159,291 (78,305,502) $ 473,159,291 (236.307.678) (78,305,502) $ 487,354,070 (78,305.502) $ 487,354,070 (248,123,062) (78,305,502) $ 394,853,789 $ 158,546,111 $ 409,048.568 $ 160,925,506 95% 95% 95% 95% 375,111,100 0,014746 150,618.806 0,014746 388,596.139 152,879,231 5,531,388 2,221,025 ai9:11 4 4]4Z4S 5,730,239 0,014746 2,254,357 $ 501.974,692 ! $ 501,974.692 (260,529.215' $ 423,669,190 $ 163,139,975 95% 95% 402,485,730 154, 982, 976 0,014746 0,014746 5,935,055 2,285,379��? ;DPW/CRA rDI s e+lv =s Co 35 • L-1 • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessrnnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter • ... ': prpppae PropomrIA4 71R PropowlA-t np i 1 M ;, ne FT 2034F35 FY 203435 1 " FY 2035,98 FY 203536 ' - Impact F1r 2036M FT 2036.37 Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 517.033,933 (78,305,502) $ 517,033.933 (370,935,431) (78,305,502) $ 532,544,951 (78,305,502) $ 532,544,951 (389.482,203) (78,305,502) $ 548,521,299 (78,305,502) $ 548,521.299 (408,956,313) (78,305,502) $ 438,728,431 $ 67,792,999 $ 454,239,449 $ 64,757.246 $ 470,215,797 $ 61,259,484 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA'STax Base 416,792.009 64,403,349 431,527,476 61,519,383 446.705,007 58,196,510 Mlllage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 6,146,015 949,692 6,363,304 907,165 6,587,112 858,166 Change:nr° Proposal A - Scenario 11 Bisc. Blvd. East Site Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 517,033,933 (78,305,502) $ 517,033,933 (318,177,346) (78,305,502) $ 532,544,951 (78,305,502) $ 532,544,951 (334,086,213) (78,305,502) $ 548.521,299 (78,305,502) $ 546,521,299 (350,790,524) (78-305,502) $ 438,728,431 $ 120,551,085 $ 454,239,449 $ 120,153,236 $ 470,215,797 $ 119,425,273 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 416.792,009 114,523,531 431,527,476 114,145,574 446,705,007 113,454,010 Mlllage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 6,146,015 1,688,764 6,363,304 1,683,191 6,587,112 1,672,993 Change Bisc. Blvd. West Site (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 517.033,933 (78,305,502) $ 517,033.933 (194,983.523) (78,305,502 $ 532.544,951 (78,305,502) $ 532,544.951 (204,732,699) (78,305,502) $ 548,521,299 (78,305,502) $ 548,521.299 (214,969,334) (78,305,502) $ 438,728,431 $ 243,744,908 $ 454,239,449 $ 249,506,750 $ 470,215,797 $ 255,246,463 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 416,792,009 231,557,662 431,527,476 237,031,412 446,705.007 242,484,140 Mlllage Rate 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014-M 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 6,146,015 3,414,549 5? ' ' -166) 6,363,304 3,495,265 (2.9 A o3f11 6,587,112 3,575,671 13.')i 1 Change I,l ,: n Proposal C - Arena East FY ftW=1 C TIR Piroposal C TIR Proposal- a $ 517,033,933 $ 517,033,933 < w 3 Tax Roll $ 532,544,951 $ 532,544,951 $ 548,521,299 $ 548,521,299 Reduction of Tax Roll (35,189,246) (36,244,924) (37,332,271) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 438,728,431 $ 403,539,184 $ 454,239,449 $ 417,994,525 $ 470.215,797 $ 432,883,526 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 416,792,009 383,362,225 431,527,476 397,094,799 446.705,007 411,239,349 Mlllage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 • Tax Increment Revenue %Change 6,146,015 5,653,069 "IC',')5n', 6,363,304 5,855,560 '-o% 7•1:1 6,587,112 6,064,135 (522-577) SSEOPW/CRA 36 • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter • Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal D - Arena west $ 517,033,933 $ 517,033,933 SmakiL< Ella Tax Roll $ 532,544,951 $ 532,544.951 $ 548,521.299 $ 548,521,299 Reduction of Tax Roll (32,435,086) (33,408,139) (34,410,383) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 438,728,431 $ 406,293,344 $ 454,239,449 $ 420,831,310 $ 470.215.797 $ 435,805,414 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 951/6 CRA's Tax Base 416,792,009 385,978,677 431,527,476 399.789,744 446,705,007 414,015,144 Mlllage Rate 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 6,146,015 5,691,642Is.�_: ; ,� 6,363,304 5,895,3001���,.'�r�sl 6,587,112 6,105,067 I Change _ Proposal E - Unallect Blvd. NE 91h Street Tax Roll • Reduction of Tax Roll $ 517,033,933 $ 517,033,933 (53,672,489) $ 532,544,951 $ 532,544.951 (55,282,664) $ 548.521,299 $ 548,521,299 (56,941,144) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 438,728,431 $ 385,055.941 $ 454,239,449 $ 398,956,785 $ 470,215,797 $ 413.274,653 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 416,792,009 365,803,144 431,527,476 379,008,945 446,705,007 392,610,920 Mlllage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Hovrm.... 6,146,015 5,394,133 6,363,304 5,588,866 .' :h;) 6,587,112 5,789,441 Proposal F- Unallect Blvd, PrOPOSOIF TIR Propotall F TIR - , , ,,; allF Tin NE 2nd Ave. FY 203"5rK - ; ,<6-37 ,3 Tax Roll $ 517,033,933 $ 517,033,933 $ 532,544,951 $ 532,544,951 $ 548.521,299 $ 548,521,299 Reduction of Tax Roll (273,555,675) (287,233,459) (301,595,132) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) $ 438,728,431 $ 165,172,755 $ 454.239,449 $ 167,005,989 $ 470.215,797 $ 168,620,665 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA'sTax Base 416,792,009 156,914,117 431,527,476 158,665,690 446,705,007 160,189,632 Mlllage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 0.014746 Tax Increment Revenue 6,146,015 2,313,856 a2.'. ` 91 6,363.304 2,339,537 h1.r72 + �; 6,587,112 2,362,156 Change i • SEOPW/cm -- _. , - a� Shut t Eft 37 • • • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal A - Scenario I IM Bisc. Blvd. East Site 'rK rK ,<,; rK • Tax Roll $ 564,976,938 $ 564,976,938 $ 581,926,246 $ 581,926,246 $ 599,384.034 $ 599,384,034 Reduction of Tax Roll (429,404.129) (450,874,335) (473,418,052) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305.502) $ 486,671,436 $ 57,267,307 $ 503,620,744 $ 52,746,409 $ 521,078,532 $ 47,660,480 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 462,337,864 54,403.942 478,439.707 50.109,089 495,024,605 45,277,456 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 6,817,634 802,241 7,055,072 738,909 „ 7,299,633 667,661 Change Proposal A - Scenario ll _ Bisc. Blvd. East Site rK $ 564,976,938 rK Tax Roll $ 564,976.938 $ 581.926,246 $ 581,926,246 $ 599,384,034 $ 599,384.034 Reduction of Tax Roll (368,330,050) (386,746,552) (406,083,880) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305 502) $ 486,671,436 $ 118,341.386 $ 503,620.744 $ 116,874,192 $ 521,078,532 $ 114,994,652 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 950/6 CRA's Tax Base 462.337,864 112,424,317 478,439,707 111.030,482 495,024.605 109,244,919 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 6,817,634 1,657.809 7,055,072 1,637,255 "s) 7,299,633 1,610,926 Change Proposal C - Arena East $ 564,976,938 $ 564,976,938 rC: $ 581,926,246 IK $ 581,926,246 FY 2039-40 IM Tax Roll $ 599,384,034 $ 599,384,034 Reduction of Tax Roll (38,452,240) (39,605,807) (40,793.981) Base Property Value (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305,502) (78,305 502} $ 486,671,436 $ 448,219,197 $ 503.620,744 $ 464,014,938 $ 521,078,532 $ 480,284,551 Increased Property Value 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 462,337.864 425,808,237 478,439,707 440,814.191 495,024,605 456,270,323 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 0,014746 • Tax Increment Revenue Change 1,117,634 6,278,968 :. ;;;r,, 7,055,072 6,500,246 -. ..,2,1 7,299,633 6,728,162 ci SEOPW/CRA A A I r- Pfi1-0 38 V Ise COS seo Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter • Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B. F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter • Proposal ! i1R Proposal TIR Proposal 71R FY 2037-3 FV 2037-38 Impact FY 2MO39 FY 203939 Impact FY 203940 ! FY 2039-40 Impact Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 564,976,938 (78,305,502) $ 564,976,938 (58,649,378) (78,305,502) $ 581,926,246 (78,305,502) $ 581,926,246 (60,408,860) (78,305,502) $ 599,384,034 (78,305,502) $ 599,384,034 (62,221,126) (78,305,502) $ 486,671,436 $ 428,022,058 $ 503,620,744 $ 443,211,885 $ 521,078,532 $ 458,857,406 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 462,337,864 406,620,955 478,439,707 421,051,290 495,024,605 435,914,536 Mlllage, Rate 0,014746 0,014746 0.014746 0.014746 0,014746 0,014746 1 na hv7m�now H,:'viarnn' 6,817,634 5,996,033 ��' do�� 7. 55,072 6,208,822 �tt.a;.a:�r) 7,299,633 6,427,996 :. Ch;uvle Proposal F - Unaffect Blvd, NE 2nd Ave. Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 564.976,938 (78,305,502) $ 564,976,938 (316.674,889) (78,305,502) $ 581,926,246 (78,305,502) $ 581,926.246 (332,508,633) (78,305,502) $ 599,384.034 (78,305,502) $ 599,384,034 (349,134,065) (78,305,502) $ 486,671,436 $ 169,996,547 $ 503,620,744 $ 171,112,111 $ 521.078,532 $ 171,944,467 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 462,337,864 161,496,720 478,439,707 162,556,505 495.024,605 163,347,243 Millage Rate 0,014746 0.014746 0.014. 0,014746 0,014 '- 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 6,817,634 2,381,431 (a..�:�r,.�aii 7,055,072 2,397,058�.����<<. `�'h 7,299,633 2,408,718 % Change s" r;6 SEOPW/CRA 39 E • Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter • Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter Proposal A - Scenario I Bisc. Blvd, East Site • • Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 617.365,555 (78,305,502) $ 617,365,555 (497,088,955) (78,305,502) $ 539,060.053 $ 41,971,098 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 512,107.050 39,872,543 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 7,551,531 587,961 Change ip Proposal A - Scenario ll Bisc. Blvd. East Site Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 617,365.555 (78,305,502) $ 617,365,555 (426,388,074) (78,305,502) $ 539,060,053 $ 112,671,979 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 512.107,050 107,038,380 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 7,551.531 1,578,388 Change Proposal Bisc. Blvd. East Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 617,365,555 (78,305,502) $ 617,365,555 (149,524,967) (78,305,502) $ 539,060.053 $ 389,535,086 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 512,107.050 370,058,331 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 7,551,531 5,456,880 :' J-! �'M) Change Bisc. Blvd. west Site (Move Bisc. Blvd. East) Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 617,365,555 (78,305,502) $ 617.365,555 (261.296,569) (78,305,502) $ 539,060,053 $ 277,763,484 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 512,107,050 263,875,310 Millage Rate 0.014746 0 014746 Tax Increment Revenue 7,551,531 3,891,105 Change Proposal C - Arena East Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 617,365,555 (78,305,502) $ 617,365,555 (42,017,800) (78,305,502) $ 539,060,053 $ 497,042,252 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 512,107,050 472,190,140 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 7,551,531 6,962,916 Change SEOPW / CRA 1Ell 129 1 40 Di OroSavtf � Projected Growth in Overall Assessment Value Overall Assessmnt Value is increased by 10% thru 2005, 3% thereafter • Biscayne Blvd. frontage properties (A, B, F only) are increased by 25% thru 2005, 5% thereafter 0 • Proposal D - Arena West Roll $ 617,365,555 $ 617,365,555 uction of Tax Roll (38,729,189 3 Property Value (78,305.502) (78,305,502 3ased Property Value $ 539,060,053 $ 500,330,864 s Tax Base 512,107,050 475,314,320 ge Rate 0,014745 24]474Q Increment Revenue 7,551,531 7,008,985 tAr,nfi Proposal E - Unaffect Blvd, NF 91h Strnrl Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 617,365,555 (78,305,502) $ 617,365,555 (64,087,759) (78,305,502) $ 539,060,053 $ 474.972,293 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 512,107,050 451,223,679 Millage Rate 0,014746 0.014746 7.551,531 6,653,744 !`1 Proposal F - Unatlect Blvd, Tax Roll Reduction of Tax Roll Base Property Value Increased Property Value $ 617,365,555 (78,305,502) $ 617.365,555 (366,590.768) (78,305,502) $ 539,060,053 $ 172,469,285 95% 95% CRA's Tax Base 512,107.050 163.845,820 Millage Rate 0,014746 0,014746 Tax Increment Revenue 7.551,531 2,416,070 IF'0) % Change rn SEOPW/CRA i 41 DiSa &: 3 Fa BERCOW & RADELL, P.A. MEMORANDUM :.: TO: Honorable Arthur E. Teele, Jr., Chairman, City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency FROM: Jeffrey Bercow, Esq. SUBJECT: Marlins Baseball Stadium - Alternative Development Scenarios Development of Regional Impact Issues DATE: 2/ 15/ 01 CC: Mr. Richard Judy William Bloom, Esq. Alejandro Vilarello, Esq. Mr. Dipak Parekh This memorandum is intended to be a very brief outline summary of the major Development of Regional Impact (DRI) issues relating to each of the four present alternative locations for the Marlins Baseball Stadium. As indicated below, additional information is needed to complete this analysis. 1. Bicentennial Park "A" and "B". This property is located within the City of Miami Downtown DRI Development Order. The Miami Downtown DRI Development Order permits certain types of land uses, with specified intensities, as "net new development". The definition of "net new development" expressly allows trade-offs between permitted land uses, provided that the net p.m. peak hour trip generation of the added use does not exceed the trip generation of the use that is deducted from the capacity inventory. DDA's DRI Consultants have performed an analysis of the trip generation for a proposed baseball stadium, and have calculated the amount of credits that would remain in the development order inventory capacity after an exchange , between land uses. The analysis indicates that there is more than adequate capacity in the Downtown DRI Development Order through Increment I build out of May 28, 2003. DDA is preparing shortly to commence the application process for Increment H. SE0 PW/CRA' �t 4 _- pest toEsfa .,, 2. West of Biscayne Boulevard. This alternative involves the placement of the stadium on the west side of a relocated Biscayne Boulevard. It appears that this location would be within the jurisdiction of the Southeast Overtown/Park West (SEOPW) DRI, originally approved by. -the City of Miami Commission on February 11,1988. Like the Miami Downtown DRI Development Order, the SEOPW DRI Development Order contains a definition of "net new development" that permits exchanges between land uses as long as peak hour trip generation is not exceeded. Based upon a preliminary review, there appears to be adequate remaining capacity within Increment II of the SEOPW DRI Development Order. (As indicated in our July 27, 2000 memorandum on the status of SEOPW DRI, Increment I has expired with significant amounts of unused development capacity remaining.) Although additional information is needed regarding existing Iand uses and intensities at this location, it is conceivable that the proposed baseball stadium will not produce significantly more peak hour traffic impact than the existing uses. Since land uses to be demolished may receive a credit against. the proposed baseball stadium for .purposes of calculating the net increase, it is theoretically possible to construct the stadium at this location without an exchange of land use'credits under the SEOPW DRI Development Order. Additional information needed: existing land uses and, intensities within the properties to be used for this location. 3. Arena West. This property is entirely within SEOPW DRI. As indicated in the prior section relating to the "West of Biscayne Boulevard" alternative, there appears to be adequate capacity under Increment II of the SEOPW DRI Development Order for a stadium at this location. Although additional information is needed regarding existing land uses and intensities at this location, it is conceivable that the proposed baseball stadium will not produce significantly more peak hour traffic impact than the existing uses. Since land uses to be demolished may receive a credit against the proposed baseball stadium for purposes of calculating the net increase, it is theoretically possible to construct the stadium at this location without AU exchange of land use credits under the SEOPW DRI Development Order. Additional information needed: existing land uses and intensities within the properties at this location. 4. Arena East Location. This site includes properties located within the 1985 DRI Development Order for the Miami Arena, and property within the 2 SEOPW/CR A . DoSevssca jurisdiction of the SEOPW DRI Development Order. Although we have been unable to obtain a copy of the DRI Development Order for the Miami Arena, we assume that this development order permitted construction of a non -serial performance attractions facility with approximately 15,000 seats, and that the property subject to the developmertt.ordep-cs limited to the site of the arena itself. We believe that it is possible to persuade the Department of Comm P P p unity Affairs (DCA) and the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) to permit construction of a new baseball stadium at this location, without amending either the development order for the Miami Arena or for SEOPW DRI. We would need to show the agencies that the Miami Arena Development Order permits redevelopment of 15,000 seats for a non -serial performance facility, and that the Southeast Overtown/Park West has sufficient development capacity to ' permit construction of another 25,000 to 30,000 seats for such a facility. The proposed stadium at this location would simply combine these two permitted uses efficiently at one centralized location. ' Additional information needed: Miami Arena DRI Development p Order and any amendments; most recent annual status report for Miami Arena ' Development Order; inventory of land uses, types and intensities, on other properties within this location. Ip We look forward to providing you further counsel and advise as you proceed through this process. 3 SE®PW/CRA si t evstrp Exhibit "A" Increment I1 Development Order SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK NEST INCREMENT II DEVELOPMENT ORDER * * * * PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Project consists of development in the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Area through the Year 2007, including ,-he following land uses and increments: Increment I Increment II Increment III Buildout- Buildout- Buildout- Land uses (1988-1997) �9`'��-199�4 1999-2007 Totals (1992-2004) Office (g* 166,000 337„000 500,500 1,003,500 Commercial (gA 95,400 71,700 90,600 257,700 tel blooms) 0 500 600 1,100 ldential nits) 2,000 2,000 5,000 9,000 Attract ions/Recreation (seats) 8,000 8,000 0 16,000 * * * ACTION TAKEN: That, having made the findings of fact and reached the conclusions of law set forth above, it is ordered that Increment II of the Project is hereby approved, subject to the ' following conditions: 1 THE CITY, ITS SUCCESSORS, AND/OR ASSIGNS JOINTLY OR SEVERALLY MAY ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY FOR TOTAL ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT, PURSUANT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE ATTENDANT MASTER DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND SHALL: op r:. DI co'uV cow s ' 12. Establish the termination date for completing development as DeeembeF 3' 1999 November 30, 2004, provided that the -,applicant, its successors, and assigns, complies with Condition 15, herein. The termination date may only be modified in accordance with Section 380.06(19)(c) F.S. i t 2 �. SEOPW/CRA! Composite Exhibit "B" Master Development Order - Increment I Development Order - Amendment to Increment I DO Amendment to Increment I DO Increment II Development Order - Increment 11 Development Order - Resolution #88-110 February 11,1988 Resolution #88-111 February 11,1988 Resolution #92-607 September 24,1992 Resolution #92-608 . September 24,1992 Resolution #92-609 September 24,1992 Resolution #93-217 March 15,1993 d'W/CRA 'De zedssea IP I F Baseball Stadium DRI Options I DRI Options I _ _ Recommendation 1. City does all necessary adjustments and conversion of credits within existing Downtown DRI in order to accommodate the Baseball Stadium. 2. Baseball Stadium obtains its own individual DRI (as in individual project). 3. The Baseball Stadium project waits until Increment 11 of the Downtown DRI is in place (so that the necessary credits can be included). 4. The City negotiates with the State of Florida so that the Baseball Stadium can be approved under the existing Downtown DRI by just doing conversions as reflected in the exchange tables without adding more credits for daytime events as required for the Heat Arena. 5. The City negotiates with the State of Florida to update transportation tables used in the Downtown DRI to reflect current industry standards and thereby increase available credits in the existing Increment I of the Downtown DRI; this way, the Baseball Stadium can be approved under the existing DRI by making all necessary conversions (including giving up additional credits for daytime events). Denial Approval Approval Approval Approval SEOPW/c. DIscvsse Baseball Stadium Approximate Timelines Bicentennial Park Riverfront Site * Arena West * Orange Bowl Site Zoning Change N/A — Zoning in place 9 months 4 months N/A — Zoning in place Land Use Change N/A — Land Use in place 9 months 4 months N/A — Land Use in place DRI 3 to 6 months 3 to 6 months 3 to 6 months N/A — vested for Requires agreement with Requires agreement with Requires agreement with required number of the State of Florida the State of Florida the State of Florida attraction seats Department of Department of Department of CommunityAffairs Community Affairs Community Affairs MUSP 6 months 6 months 6 months 6 rionths Total time 6 months 12 months 7 months 6 months DRI Issues and MUSP Public hearing portion of Public hearing portion of can run concurrently. MUSP cannot begin MUSP cannot begin until Land Use and until Land Use and Zoning have been Zoning have been adopted; concurrent adopted; concurrent portions can occur for portions can occur for first 3 months of MUSP. first 3 months of MUSP. d * NOTE: These sites require street closures and replatting which takes approximately 7 to 9 months, but can run n concurrently with other zoning applications. e M i q d C] 0 BERCOW & RADELL, P.A. MEMORANDUM . Y-V TO: Alejandro Vilarello, CityAt.trney FROM: Jeffrey Beri�bw and Ben 4fhandez SUBJECT: Status of Southeast Overtown/Park West D.RI DATE: July 27, 2000 CC: Ms. Ana Gelabert, Ms. Lourdes Slazyk, Mr. Richard Judy, Commissioner Arthur Teele, Jr. and Joel Maxwell, Esq. Master DO. The. Master Development Order for .the Southeast Overtown/Park West Development of Regional Impact (SEOPW DRI) was approved on February 11, 1988 by the City of Miami Commission. The Master Development Order approved the following land uses and Increments: Land Uses Increment I Increment II Increment III TOTALS (1988-1994) (1994-1999) (1999-2007) Office 166,000 205,000 632,500 1,003,500 (gsf) Retail/Service Gen I Commercial 66,200 37,300 90,600 194,100 (gsf) Hotel 0 500 600 1,100 (rooms) Residential 2,000 2,000 5,000 9,000 (its) Convention 290,000 310,000 0 600,000 (gsf) A flexibility mechanism which permits simultaneous increases and decreases between land use categories provided that the regional impacts of the SEOPW/Cl 0 0 land uses as changed do not exceed the r dverse regional impacts of the project, as originally approved, as measured by ' o tal peak hour vehicle trips, was also approved by the Increment I Development Order. The Master Development Order is attached as Exhibit A. Below is a list of the six major conditions from the Master Development Order which required City action and the status of each condition:... 1. Within 6 months of the effective date of this Development Order, adopt and implement a uniform ordinance that incorporates a requirement that Net New Developments shall mulch, spray or plant grass in exposed areas to prevent soil erosion and minimize air pollution during construction. Done - See Section 14-181 of the City Code. 2. Within 6 months of the effective date of the Development Order, adopt and implement a uniform ordinance that incorporates a requirement that Net New Developments shall place temporary screens, berms, and/or rip -rap around sites under construction to filter.. or retain stormwater runoff during construction. Done - See Section 14-181 of the Code and Department of Public Works Bulletin No. 25. 3. Within 6 months of the effective date this Development Order, adopt and implement a uniform ordinance or establish an accepted procedure to require Net New Developments to design, construct and maintain stormwater management systems to meet the following standards. Done - See Section 14-181 of the Code and Department of Public Works Bulletin No. 26. 4. Adoption and implementation of a uniform ordinance providing for hazardous materials accident prevention, mitigation, and response standards. No records in file. 5. Enact an ordinance requiring Net New Development to remove all invasive exotic plants. 2 SFOPW/CRA flasoe�sg�D t. . Done - See Section 14-181(8). 6. Direct the City Manager to estabish procedures whereby the Police Department and the Fire Department shall make recommendations to incorporate security measures into the design and operation of Net New Development. Done - See City Code Section 19-1. ,.. Increment I. The Increment I Development Order was also approved by the City Commission on February 11,1988. The Increment I Order approved the Increment I land uses and gross square footage as described in the Master Development Order. The Increment I Development Order is attached as Exhibit B. Below is a list of the seven conditions from the Increment I Development Order which required city action and the status of each condition: 1. Conduct air quality monitoring for carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations. ' Done - Report prepared by Keith and Schnars PA for Increment I and II. 2. The monitoring shall consist of four (4) weeks of data collection during the winter months, November 15th through March 151h. The monitoring shall be completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy within that location for the first development under this Development Order which meets 100 percent of the presumptive threshold for Developments of Regional Impact or prior to March 15, 1991, whichever comes first. Done. 3. Submit final air quality monitoring reports to FDER, DERM and the Council staff which within 60 days of the completion of the monitoring. Results sent to RPC on April 29,1991. 4. Conduct air quality modeling of carbon monoxide impacts to determine what, if any, changes are needed in air quality monitoring, including the need to continue monitoring. The modeling shall be ' completed within one year after the base -line data monitoring had been completed. .3 SEOPW/CRA\ ZISe,uSSFp 1 0 0 Done. ® 5. Four years after the effective date of the Development Order, complete the construction of four -lane widening of N.W. 1st Avenue from N.W. 2nd Street to N.W.101h Street. ' Done. _• Y» 6. The City shall prepare an annual report and submit copies to the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC), the City Clerk and Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on or before each anniversary date of this Development Order. The annual report for Downtown Miami - Increment I must also be incorporated into the annual report required in the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Master Development Order so that a single annual report is complied for the entire Project. No record in file. 7. Within 30 days of the effective date of this Development Order, it shall be recorded with the Clerk, Dade County Circuit Court, pursuant to F.S. 380.06(15)(1987), specifying that the Development Order runs with the land and is binding on the Applicant, its successors, and/or go assigns, jointly or severally. Must check public records. Settlement with DCA. On May 4, 1998 the City Commission approved a Stipulation of Settlement with DCA. This Settlement Agreement was the result of negotiations with DCA subsequent to its appeal of the Increment I Development Order. The principal issue in DCA's appeal concerned the Development Orders applicability to all "development" as defined in Chapter 380.04, Florida Statutes, including such things as renovations to existing buildings, demolitions, and replacement of existing structures with an equal or lesser amount of development. The City's development orders defined "Net New Development in a way that limited the applicability of many conditions to only new construction which resulted in a net increase in the intensity of development in the DRI area. Through the Settlement Agreement the City agreed to report to DCA any small developments involving new construction under 10,000 square feet in floor 1 4 SEOPW/ CRA �1S� uYS�D t • • area that are granted an exemption by the Planning Director from the Development Order definition of "Net New Development." The cumulative sum of such exemptions is termed "Aggregate Exclusion." The Agreement also limited the City's authority to issue building permits during a substantial deviation review. The Settlement Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit C; the following are the principal conditions of the Settlement Agreement: 1. The CITY agrees to maintain detailed records concerning all development, as defined pursuant to Section 380.04, F.S. (1987), including any redevelopment, and all maximum 10,000 square foot exemptions granted by the Planning Director, that are excluded from Net New Development. The cumulative sum of the exclusions made pursuant to the maximum 10,000 square foot exemption shall be termed the "Aggregate Exclusion" and shall be reported in the Annual Report to the DEPARTMENT. No records in file. 2. The CITY will provide the DEPARTMENT with the Consolidated Application for Development Approval (CADA) within 15 days of the execution of this agreement. The DEPARTMENT agrees that submittal of the CADA is no longer an issue of the appeal. 3. The CITY and AUTHORITY agree to record this Stipulation simultaneously with the Master Development Order and Increment I Development Order in the public records of Dade County, Florida. A copy of the recorded Stipulation shall be provided to the Department within 30 days after the effective date of the Stipulation. Must check public records. Amendment to Increment I. On September 24, 1992 the Miami City Commission issued Resolutions No. 92-607 and No. 92-608, which amended the Master Development Order and the Increment I Development Order of the SEOPW DRI respectively (See Exhibits D and E). These resolutions amended the phasing for Increments I and II by extending Increment I from a 1994 buildout to a 1997 buildout, and by commencing Increment II in 1992 instead of 1994. These resolutions also amended the Increment I description of permitted land uses and the permitted quantities of net new development for which certificates of occupancy may be issued as follows: 5 SEOPW/CRA Disc v3sorp Ito' Original Amended Master D.O. Land Uses Increment I Increment 1 (1988-1997) (1994-1999) Office 166,000 166,000 (gross square feet) Retail/Service/ 95,400 66,200 General Commercial (gross square feet) Hotel 0 0 (rooms) Residential 2,000 2,000 (dwelling units) Attractions 8,000 0 (seats) Convention 0 290,000 (gsf) Increment II. On September 24, 1992, the Miami City Commission issued Resolution No. 92-609, which approved Increment II of the SEOPW DRI. See Exhibit F. The Increment II Development Order started the increment in advance of the original 1994 commencement 'd..ate, and amended the proposed uses originally anticipated in the Master DO, to approve the following land uses: SEOPW/CIA >D�sevsr�� Original Land Uses Approved Master D.O. Increment II Increment II (1992-1999) (1994-1999) Office 337,000 205,000 (gsf) ... Commercial 71,700 37,300 (gsf Hotel 500 500 (rooms) Residential 2,000 2,000 (units) Attractions 8,000 0 (seats) Convention 0 310,000 (gsf) Below is a list of the conditions from the Increment II Development Order which required city action and the status of each condition: 1. Complete the construction of N.W. 15t Avenue from N.W. 10th Street to N.W. 14w Street as a new four -lane divided facility prior to December 31, 1998. In the event that by December 31,1997, the necessary right- of-way for the subject improvement has not been acquired, then within 30 days, the Applicant shall request a meeting with Council staff to consider potential reallocation of the Applicants proportional share in the amount of $472,852 (1992 dollars). Any reallocation must be consistent with applicable statutes and rules. Not done; meeting never requested. 2. Comply with the requirements of Chapter 14, Section 14-71, Code of the City of Miami, entitled Transportation Control Measures, which set forth the peak hour trip reduction and reporting requirements for this project. j SEOPW/CRA I. Ii omseusz" There are no records available. However, the current Code Section excludes developments of less than 10,000 sq. ft. and those developments generating an increase of less 50 peak hour trips over the previous use. 3. Conduct air quality modeling of carbon monoxide impacts, based on actual 1998 traffic counts for the -.following intersections: N.E. 1St Avenue/N.E. 5th Street; and, N.E. 2nd Avenue/N.E. 5ei Street and, be submitted by June 30, 1999, in a detailed analysis to FDER and DERM for comment and review, and to SFRPC for review and approval. Not done. 4. Integrate all original and supplemental ADA information into a consolidated Application for Development Approval (CADA) and submit two copies of the CADA to the Council and one copy to the Department of Community Affairs within 30 days of the effective date of the development order. No record in files. 5. Submit an annual report to the Council, and the Department of Community Affairs on each anniversary'date of the effective date of the development order. The annual report shall include, at a minimum, a complete response to each question in Exhibit 3 (Annual Report). No record in files. 6. Designate an official to monitor compliance with all conditions of the development order and specify monitoring procedures that, at a minimum, require development order conditions to be reviewed by City of Miami prior to issuance of any local development permit. Community Redevelopment Agency. Amendment to Increment II. In December of 1999, the City Commission approved an amendment to Increment II which extended the build out date for Increment II by 4 years and 11 months, to November 30, 2004. See Exhibit G. This extension is conclusively not a substantial deviation. SE®PW/CRA 8 D1 % tossro Completed Development. Based on the information provided by the City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department, we believe that the amount of development completed under Increment I in the project area is as follows: Residential Number of Units Biscayne View Apts. 463 Arena Towers 354 Poinciana Village Condos. 40 St. John's Apts. 35 Total Units 892 Retail Gross Square Feet 9th Street Mall Retail space 18,000 Office Citadel Office Building 50,000 To date, we have been unable to verify the amount of development completed under Increment II. Unused Capacity. When the amount of completed "Net New Development" in the SEOPW DRI area is subtracted from the development permitted under Increment I of the DO, the result reveals that .approximately 116,000 square feet of office space, 77,400 square feet of retail space, 1,108 residential units, and 8,000 seats of attraction facility had not been developed and constituted "unused capacity" in 1997 when Increment I expired. Land Uses Increment I Used Capacity Unused Capacity (1988-1997) Office 166,000 50,000 116,000 (gross square feet) Retail/Service/ 95,400 18,000 77,400 General Commercial (gross square feet) 9 SEOPW/CIU bvs$Fb I I I a Hotel 0 .0 (rooms) Residential 2,000 892 (dwelling units) Attractions 8,000 _ 0 (seats) 0 1,108 8,000 Issues and Analysis. At present, we believe that there are the following issues and problems with the DRI Development Order for Southeast Overtown Park West: • Increment I has expired, yet only a very small portion of its development capacity has been utilized. • The four laning of NW 1s' Averse, from NW 101h Street to NW 14th Street, was not completed as required by the Increment II Development Order. • The air quality monitoring required by the 1992 amendment to the Increment II Development Order has not been completed. • Although there are buildout dates for each of the Development Order increments, there is no Development Order expiration date. Typically, an expiration date is provided approximately five years after the buildout date, in order to permit the Development Order to be amended for technical reasons or if the buildout deadline is exceeded. • The Increment III buildout date should be extended, at least for a period of four years and eleven months, to permit further development of the project over time. • The Development Order land uses, originally approved in 1988 (and as modified for Increment II in 1992) may no longer properly reflect market realities, and should be re-examined. • At a minimum, the Development Order should be amended to clarify that land use exchanges under the "net new development" 10 SE®PW/IvRA IN8�as�� a 0 • flexibility mechanism can be approved administratively. The City Commission approved a similar amendment for the Downtown DRI. If an amendment of the Development Order is anticipated that is anything more than a simple "clean up" application, DCA will want to see the "net new development" flexibility mechanism replaced with a more sophisticated equivalency matrix that adequately examines impacts on other infrastructure elements as a result of the conversion of land uses. • There are a number of minor technical incidents of non-compliance with the Development Order. • Required annual reports apparently have not been prepared or submitted. Based on the foregoing, we recommend that the Development Order be amended in order to address and correct the above -described problems. The CRA should attempt to process such an application as a Notification of Proposed Change (NOPC), which would require the City Commission (and DCA and the SFRPC) to consider whether the changes, cumulatively with other changes, constitute a substantial deviation from the approved Development Order. In all likelihood, however, due to the extent and significance of the proposed changes, particularly any attempt to "revive" the permitted but unused uses from Increment I and redistribute such uses into Increment II and III, the amendment would probably be considered to be a substantial deviation. Such an amendment would require the filing of an Amended Application for Development Approval (AADA). While an NOPC can be processed within several months and is relatively inexpensive, the processing of an AADA could easily take nine months to a year and will require a substantial commitment toward consultants' costs, particularly in the transportation area. Alternative to DO Amendment. We should bring to your attention the fact that an areawide DRI development order such as the SEOPW DRI Development Order has one principal benefit: it obviates the need for individual DRI size projects from undergoing the DRI review and approval process. It provides little direct benefit to non-DRI size projects, other than being part of a planned area wide development and enjoying the benefits of additional planned infrastructure, if any. For example, the SEOPW DRI Development Order exempts a five hundred rooms hotel from undergoing DRI review; however, it provides no such benefit to a five hundred unit residential project, which would not otherwise be required to undergo individual DRI review. SEOPW/CRA, �stCfA$t�A A potential alternative to the DRI amendment process described above would be for the CRA to abandon the DRI, and amend the City's comprehensive plan as well as the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida in order to designate the SEOPW area as "highly suitable for increased threshold intensity" pursuant to subsections 380.0651(d) and (g), Florida Statutes. The combination of these statutory subsections, with a determination that the SEOPW area is part of the Urban Central Business District as described in Rule Section 28-24.014(10), FAC, would increase the DRI thresholds for office development to 900,000 square feet and increase the DRI threshold for hotel development to 1,125 rooms. Although w g e feel obligated to bring this alternative to your attention, we would not recommend its implementation. First, the DRI abandonment process is itself somewhat complicated, and may become contentious given the complexities of SEOPW DRI Development Order. Second, although this alternative would probably exclude most office and hotel developments from the DRI review process, it could subject other projects that are likely to be developed in the SEOPW area to individual DRI review. This would include �. retail projects and attractions facilities, such as stadiums. This second reason would be a significant disincentive for the locating of a stadium or other attractions facility in the SEOPW area. i 12 PW/CIS ZY r� MARLINS BALL PARK ALTERNATE PARK WEST LOCATION OPTION Prepared for: City ®f Miami Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) April 9 2000 Prepared by: III,) BERIVIELL0 AJAMIL S PARTNERS INC. Archltocturo EnBlnsorinp Plannlno Landscape Archltocturs Intorlor Doalon SEOPW/CIA P 0 0 Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West Location Option TABLE OF CONTENTS April 2000 INTRODUCTION......................................................... I-1 METHODOLOGY......................................................... I-1 ANALYSIS AND SITE IDENTIFICATION ................................... I-2 I. Marlins Ball Park Facility Site Development Requirements .................... I-2 II. Park West Redevelopment Area Site Development Constraints ................. I-4 Rapid Transit and Rail Access Major Structures Principal Street Access III. Potential Sites Identification ............................................. I-7 North West Quadrant Site Miami Arena Site IV. Park West Site .......................................................... I-11 Required Property Condemnation Street Relocation and Infrastructure Order, of Magnitude Development Costs Bermello, Ajamil and Partners SEOPW/CAI . r • • Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West Location Option April 2000 INTRODUCTION As part of the team effort led by the City of Miami Downtown Development Authority, the City of Miami Redevelopment Agency (CRA) was assigned the task of identifying a potential site in the Park West Redevelopment Area for the development of a new Marlins Ball Park (hereafter referred to as the "Ball Park"). In this regard the CRA employed Bermello, Ajamil and Partners to assist the CRA in accomplishing this task. For the purposes of the site identification, the boundaries of the Park West Redevelopment Sub -area of the CRA are defined by I-395 on the north, Biscayne Boulevard on the east, the F.E.C. railroad right of way on the west and N. E. 61` Street on the south. The extent of our analysis was limited to the potential siting of the Ball Park. No associated traffic impacts were analyzed except those identified by our analysis of Park West's site development constraints. However, it is the belief of the CRA that the traffic impacts associated with a Park West site are not different from those of a Bicentennial Park site. METHODOLOGY A four step methodology guided our analysis and site identification: 1) Identifying and understanding the Ball Park's site development requirements including general building/site required relationships and site area requirements; 2) Defining the physical elements that present site assembly development constraints for a potentially viable Park West site; 3) Defining the required urban street pattern changes to create the. site; 4) Defining the land taking impacts of creating such a site which include the number of land parcels and land area to be condemned, streets rights of way to be abandoned and/or created, as well as order of magnitude infrastructure improvements costs associated with creating such a site. The results of our analysis and the potential site identification are shown in the following pages. Bermello, AjamU and Partners slao W I�0 1 Marlins Ball Park 1 Alternate Park West Location Option April 2000 I� ANALYSIS AND SITE IDENTIFICATION I I. Marlins Ball Park Facility Site Development Requirements The Marlins Ball Park Facility site development requirements were derived from the I drawings presented and the information provided by the Florida Marlins professional team: Urban Design Associates and HOK Sports. It is important to clarify that as a general development constraint it was assumed that the facility could not be raised above ground to allow street access under the facility, because of the obvious cost penalties associated with 1 such an undertaking which would put an economically unbearable load on project financing. 1 From these drawings and our conversations with the Florida Marlins and their consultant firms we identified the following requirements: 1) Site Area Requirements - The proposed Bicentennial Park Ball Park footprint including the structured parking was determined at 15.6 acres. An associated 1500 vehicle parking I�. garage was established by the Florida Marlins as needed for the Ball Park and as indicated 1 in the original drawings. The 15.6 acres define a general foot print for the facility, the parking, and a minimal amount of open space surrounding the proposed buildings. A series of footprints of similar ball parks through out the U.S. were provided by Urban Design 1 Associates and are included with this report. r�� 2) Facility Associated Oven Spaces and Pedestrian Access -Needs such as entrance plaza 1 and perimeter pedestrian circulation were not included in the calculations for required site l f area. As can be observed from the drawings, the open space surrounding the facility at / Bicentennial Park was not included in the calculations for the purposes of identifying Park West site needs, although site assembly will require condemnation to create such open spaces. 1 3) Grandstand View Requirements - The need to create views to the waterfront from the ` grandstand and sky .box areas, as expressed by the Florida Marlins, was accepted as a potentially desirable Park West Site attribute by the DDA/CRA evaluation team. In the case of a Park West site this implies the creation of view corridors to the bay and a relative proximity to the bay of the site. 1� 1 Bermello, Ajamil and Partners I-1 SEOPW/CRA {t tD�swss�® D a t4 VF--- P- 61010004 E3ALTLM02fz- 000 SF AC'AICS U�. ClMr-INWATI 714 t 0 oc SF IT& Acrts H WHr-- A Fdn-1-5 al-1,000 IS5 lo. C,LeVE.LAtqr:) 0 6111(poo GF IS Ar A- re5 = OF MlAM MARLINS BALL PARK DOWNTOWN. PRELMNARY LOCATIONS EVALUATION 0 • i cl i • Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West Location Option April 2000 H. Park West Redevelopment Area Site Development Constraints The figure Development Constraints shows the site development constraints within the Park West area that we identified. These are: Rapid Transit and Rail Access Metrorail - The Metrorail Overtown Station and the Metrorail guide way are located on the southwestern perimeter of the site and represent a development constraint in creating a site at the south west end. The Metrorail Overtown Station presents an opportunity to create a pedestrian link to the Ball Park in Park West. Metromover Line and Station- Located on the west side N. E. 2' Avenue, the Downtown People Mover line and stations represent a development constraint and an asset. Relocation of this line is not practical and the location of the stations links Park West to the rest of the Downtown, including the Omni, and the large number of on surface and structured parking in the area. Port ofMiami Rail road access - The railroad tracks providing service for the Port of Miami represent a site development constraint. Railroad service is important for the Port of Miami's cargo operations. The railroad is used to access cargo that, because of its weight and size, can not be trucked in. Rail operations occur from midnight to early morning and frequency is limited. Given the bridge access to the Port of Miami, the location of the railway line going north, the location of historic building and a developed urban fabric south of 6`' Street, the relocation of the rail road line going into the Port of Miami would present potentially economically unsurmountable problems for its relocation. As such the location of the existing rail road line was taken as a given in the process of assembling a potentially viable Park West Site. Major Structures Arena Towers, Bay View Towers Block - The super blocks defined by North Miami Avenue on the east, N. W. 1 n Avenue on the west, N. W. 81 Street on the south and N. W.101 Street on the north, contain four large apartment structures with associated parking, commercial, and recreational uses. These building range from 20 to 30 stories. Their acquisition, and demolition present development constraints to assembling a site in this area. Bermello, Ajamil and Partners PW/CRA: 1-4 H v >D®se!vss�� Martins Ball Park Alternate Park West Locatio0on to April 2000 Miami Arena - While the Miami Heat has left the Miami Arena and there is talk that the site could potentially be used to house the Ball Park, we identified the Miami Arena site as a development constraint. The site area defined by the Arena's footprint and associated pedestrian access areas is not sufficient to house the Ball Park'footprint. TheMiamiArena's total site area, to the boundary of the rail line is not sufficient ink width and in total area a mere 5 acres. For there to be potentially sufficient land area the Ball Park would have to straddle the rail line and be required to be raised above ground placing a substantial penalty on its construction. This is further discussed in the following section. FPL Chiller Plant - A new facility that serves the American Airlines Arena and in the future other potential large users in the area is another development constraint. This facility, as indicated in the drawings, is located on the north boundary of the Park West Re -development Area. Principal Street Access Existing street network access constraints were identified in the context of allowing access and egress from Downtown Miami to I-395 with subsequent connections to Miami International Airport and the local and inter -state highway system. It was accepted as a given that channeling traffic into the surrounding urban street grid was an important attribute of the street system that had to be preserved in as much as possible. The following street were taken as development constraints in maintaining the permeability to traffic of the area: N.E. I' Avenue - An important south to north avenue carries. traffic from the Downtown to I-395 and the northern sectors of the city. Closing this street would divert traffic to Biscayne Boulevard and create serious turning movement problems at the intersections of both N. E. 11 m Street, and N. E. 13' Street. We determined that keeping N. E. 11 Avenue as a viable south - north street was a development constraint in the Park West Area. N.E. 2'Avenue - Carries traffic from I-395 and the north sector of the city into Downtown Miami. It is paralleled in the Park West Area by the Metromover line and three stations. Keeping N. E. 2"d Avenue open is a development constraint in Park West. N. E. (W.) 8" Street - An important east -west connector, 81 St. allows egress and access from I-95 to the Park West Are. N. W. 81' St. terminates at N. W. r Avenue, an important north south avenue. It is important to maintain N.8th St. open to allow traffic to flow in the west and `east directions on a daily basis and during functions. SE®PW/j. Z Use'u32ca Bermello, Ajamil and Partners 1-6 0 L a 0 Q�f 11th. St. N.W. 8th N.W. 6 t h. S t. l St. 44 .......... . Metrorail People Mover RR tracks to POM 3Q;; Park West Metrorail Station People Mover Station N.V\/. 9th Street Mall Arena Towers Chiller Plant Vehicular Circulation Miami Arena DEVELOPMENT CONSTRANTS PARK WEST SOTS SEOPW/CRA CMf OF A/; i MARLINS BAEL PARK DOWN TIOW-14 POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITES N PS" ELHVM,'1,MY ALTERNATWE LOCAMNS EVALUATION I — I., Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West April 2000 III. Potential Sites Identification Given the site area requirements and the development constraints the process of site identification was carried out. Because of the Ball Park's footprint, no single assembly of blocks within any the central part of Park West could be developed without impacting the major streets identified as development constraints. North West Quadrant Site The site at the north west quadrant, bordered by N. Miami Ave. on the east, N. W. 101' St. on the south, N. W. l' Ave. on the west and I=395 on the north was identified as a potential site that would not generate major street impacts. Although site area appeared to be somewhat acceptable, site geometry and adjacent development constraints made this identified site not feasible for the location of the ball park because of the following reasons: 1) The site did not provide the minimum of 930 to 940 feet in the east west direction needed for the ball park's footprint. In preserving the original orientation, the entrance plaza on the west would be over the railroad line creating pedestrian conflicts with the associated liabilities and costs. 2) Even changing the orientation the ball park, the length of the facility would allow it fit in the north south direction. 3) Bending N. Miami Avenue was an impossibility because of the bridge structures under I-395. 4) Locating the Ball Park in so close proximity to Overtown would cause substantial impacts to the neighborhood, making the land area more valuable as parking than as low density residential. 5) The site does not provide any of the image creating atributes that were identified as needed for the proposed ball park. Additionally this site has no potential for creating any other synergies with adjacent activities. 6) Because of the ball park's required orientation, the entrance plazas to the ball park would have to be in conflict with the railroad right of way and track. 7) There is no place to contiguously locate the required 1,500 car parking structure because of conflict with the'existing FPL Chiller Plant which can not be relocated.. Additional land area would have tobe used outside of the ball park "campus" in to construct the parking structure. SEOPW/ fit ' Bennello, Ajamil and Partners 1-7 LJ nENRL PIIOIOOMPII —� '-it-I I I 1-1 h-I I-11-1 I-i-1 H C } OWN N.W. 10th ST.1 t,� PRLL ANARI ALTERNATM LOCATIONS EVALUATION POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITES acwnn aura s..nrrnaa mc, nQW• FIARIDA Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West Location April 2000 [1 Miami Arena Site Our analysis specifically found that the Miami Arena property could not be part of a site for the proposed ballpark. Demolishing the Miami Arena will not permit the location of the ball park in this site since it is not possible to assemble a land area of sufficient size in that area of Park West to accommodate the ballpark due to a variety of constraints. These constraints are: 1) Arena Towers High rise Structures on North - Recently built residential towers that presently anchor residential uses in Park West and that would be extremely costly to acquire and demolish. This will require to obtain additional land towards 61 Street and create a conflict with the railroad access to the Port of Miami. 2) Railroad Access to the Port of Miami - As previously mentioned it would be very costly and disruptive to relocate the required railway access to the Port of Miami which delimits the south and west side of the Miami Arena Site. Because of the turning radiuses required, the need to keep 6' Street as a viable access street east west to I-95 and the inability to relocat and reconfigure the rail line as it enters the Port of Miami at Biscayne Boulevard, including thelocation of some major historical structures such as Freedom Tower, it is impossible to relocate the rail access. This presents a major constraint to using the Miami Arena site. 3) Only 5 Acres of land Available - Because of the reasons previously explained the only land available for locating a ball park at the Miami Arena Site would be the ' original 5 acres that the Arena presently occupies. This land area is insufficient to house the proposed ball park facility. The site as it is also does not provide the ' required dimensions needed to house the ball park. 4). Elevating the ball nark - The only way to create a site using the Miami Arena is to elevate the facility to allow railway access under it. Early in the site identification process it was established that elevating the ball park would put a substantial penalty ' on construction costs. Additionally, bringing a railroad under the facility would require that it be elevated even more to allow the minimum 17 feet clear access under ' the structure for the rail car. ' 5) Closing of Miami Avenue - To create a site incorporating the Miami Arena would require the closing of Miami Avenue. The north south arterials that lead and carry traffic from the Downtown need to be kept open to allow the adequate flow of traffic. This places another penalty in creating a site at this location. 6) Additional condemnation would have to be carried out to locate the 1,500 car parking structure. This parking structure would either be on the other side of N. E.1 st Ave. or N.E. 81' St. and would therefore be outside the ball park "campus". It is our professional opinion that because of the reasons previously stated, the North West Quadrant Site, or the Miami Arena Site are not viable sites for the location of the Ball Park in Park West. p SEOPW/CYO Bermello, Ajamil and Partners ; `'' 1-9 'Do seusse D 0 . — — — — — — — — ----- — — — -- — I ARE NA uj #1 ILI I I I I I FFH I I I I I 11P;9 CITY OF MANG MARLINS BALL PARK DOWNTOWN PRELMNARY ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS EVALUATION MLkK ROMA 0 J-C EN T-ErNN-JA .8 A L P.A R k", S� T E American Arena Railroad Trac!cs L\ --to-- P—o—rzoFIVIli—a—mi MIARM ARENA SITE POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITES Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West Locadoo-On April 2000 IV. Park West Site The drawing Park West Site illustrates the potentially viable Park West Site created in response to the development constraints previously identified. The bending of N.E. 111 Avenue is the basis for creating the potential site. Bending N. E. 1" Avenue to the west creates a sufficiently large land parcel with adequate length in the east west direction for the ball park's footprint to be accommodated. The 640' width from r.o.w. to r.o.w. in the north south direction is sufficient for the Ball Park required footprint width. In order to create a radius of sufficient width the bend on N. E. 1st Avenue must begin at the north edge of the railroad right of way requiring the condemnation of land parcels at N. W. 711' St and N. W. 8' St. as shown on the drawing Park West Site. N.E. I I Avenue would then bend back after N. E. 91' St. to straighten out to its original course back at the intersection of N. E. 11 'h St.. A landscape linear park would separate. N. Miami Avenue from a reconfigured N.E. 1' Avenue. The 9' Street Pedestrian Mall would lead into this linear park, connect to the plaza fronting the ball park and could potentially be continued to Biscayne Blvd. on the south side of N.E. Th St. The required 1,500 vehicle parking structure would be located towards the comer of N.E. 11 1hSt. and N. E. 2" d Ave. It would house approximately 220 vehicles/floor with a total of 7 floors. A pedestrian street to access the parking structure would be constructed in the present N. E. 10t' St. r.o.w. This pedestrian street could be opened to limited vehicular traffic during non event periods. Required Property Condemnation The drawing Required Property Condemnation identifies the required property condemnation needed for assembling the site. Privately held lands totaling 19.12 acres would need to be condemned. Additionally 4.67 acres of public rights of way would have to be vacated to assemble the site. An optional land acquisition area of 2.31 acres facing on Biscayne Blvd. is identified as optional areas for acquisition on the map. This is in response to the Florida Marlins expressed need to create a view corridor to the bay from the facility. The City of Miami Economic Development Department formulated the costs analysis for both sites. This information is not included as part of this report. Site Dimensions and Geometry - Site dimensions are illustrated in the drawing Park West Site. Proposed site length will be 940' and width 640'. Additional pedestrian area will be complemented by the 60' r.o.w. to be developed as a pedestrian street between the ball park and the proposed parking structure. The parking structure could serve to house the retractable roof of the ball park. A 150' wide plaza would be developed to allow pedestrian access to the ball park from the west on N.E. Is` -Avenue. Dimensions are given to the edge of the right of way. Additional pedestrian areas could be added to those shown with the inclusion of the street pedestrian paths (sidewalks). SE®PW/CRA Bermello, Ajamil and Partners . us 1-11 �ISCl��3S�� 0 0 • IIII i N.W. I I th. ST. N.W. I Oth. ST. • 75� N-W-9th. ST, NIA L'L-- -T 75 100 J ChMer Mann N.W. 11th. sT. CITY OF MEANU Mi ARKNS BIEL PARK D-OWNTOWpsl PR'PJ .TNMW A P1r AT 71'P-1PNTA-iMfP Tf)4-A1rTn-XTQ 1MfAT7rTAr—T 601 LU z 110 Site 16.4 Acres Open Space J 4.44 Acres Realigned N.E. 'I st Ave. 2.95 Acres / 1,754' 1-7 View Corridor 2.31 Acres a > ------ flea PDARK VVEST SffE POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITES smpw/c" 3>1 S ft v SS eb 0 MIN H.W. 8th. St. 7th. PARK WIE,-ST" im-vv. u-in. zit. man Miami Arena IL 0 0 LU co is . .... .. .... American Airlines Arena �T IT -LF Site View Corridor PARK WEST SATE CM,( OF MWM TKARUNS BALL PARIK DOWNTOWN POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITES PRELBMNARY ATFRNTA7MfP TftrAvo-ivp, P-srAT1TATTnN • F - =-�-U DI S C.0 z S ro • • • 0 • FIE PARK WEST N.W. 9th. Slt. N.W. 9-th. St_ -Mall nn SITE U i 'r N.W. 8th. St. Miami Arena N.W. 7th. St. -:Cn N.W. 6 th. Sit. — _ — Realigned N.E. 1 st Ave. IProperty to Condemn 19.12 Acres R.O.N. to Vacate 4.67 Acres Sub -Total 23.79 Acres Optional 2.31 Acres I M10 Total 26.1 Acres NOV ' CITY OF AEAPVE A4Al[� L NS BALL PARK DflV�/1\701NN ^ B+ERI.IE LLo gJA1.IIL d PARTNERS iNCI ]PR E1 L O -AA1RY ALTERNATIVE W-CATfONS EVALUATION REQUIRED PROPERTY CONDEMNAMN PARK VVEST SITE POTENTIAL ALTERNATE SITES SWPW/CxA 40 + ., u1staiSED as •T \FS2\LAIVDS\960RA2000\aerial•r2 DVI/G • �A 'may - _ -_ .- S,i ..�'. " '� - 'y{}..`j}. �,M,. • •.. yam- ^{iry; `.,--v^l".. ✓i 4 c .- _ -Y 395 iw n Parking ti loth. St. " s :••,' ... x t. .._ ----------.....-------- � IE _ cal .. •Sim I .r •7 a Lm j j E Arena TowersSITE Optional - N.W. Sty '^ St ANA n i R.6 iii ofli uaonoi Arena Metro Rail Station � People Mover Sta •' ..._ -y_ 1 1 ��.• !!. .. '1 Yes •: ..�+•„x'.S i T Property to condemn Optional Realigned N.E. 1StAve. CITY OF K AM MARLINS BALL PARK DOWI70WN MIA PRELAUNTAE Y A1LTERNATTVE LOCATIONS EVALUATION v AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ` oc�a© I SEOPW / CRA _ r t V •.r= ., - -tom ��� �� � � �'< ` t t•Ar �.•- * ' sip- . - r '*-� _hi .. �� t, I I I �' I I I ,.I I i •1• I I •.may - A Property to condemn Realigned N.E. 1st Ave. Optional View Corridor CITY OF MlkM j� INS BALL PARK DOWNTOWN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 1'� PREL&ffiARY Al[.TERNA= LDCATIO S D/ALiJAMON ' Marlins Ball Park Alternate Park West Location Option April 2000 Street Relocation and Infrastructure Order of Magnitude Development Costs Based on the information available regarding the existing infrastructure, B&A's engineering department developed an order of magnitude cost estimate for the relocation of N.E. lst Avenue. These costs do not include demolition of the existing r.o.w's to be vacated. ' CITY OF MIAMI MARLINS BALL PARK PARK WEST SITE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE* ' Relocation of N.E. 111 Avenue (From R.R. Tracks to N.E. 11`" Street) t 2400 L.F. @ 4 lanes of pavement @ 70' R/W D. Roadway (no demolition work included in estimate) Subgrade preparation 18,700 s.y. @ $5.00 = $ 93,500 1. Base (crushed limerock - 8" thick) 4,174 c.y. @ $15.00 = 62,610 ' 2. Pavement (2" thick) 11,700 s.y.. @ $6.00 = 70,200 ' 3. Curb & Gutter 4400 x $12.00 = 52,800 4. Sidewalks 4400 L.F. x $15.00 = 66,000 t5. Striping & signage (L.S.) = 30.000 Subtotal: $ 375,110 ' Lighting, Landscaping, Traffic Signalization and Drainage B. Street Lighting ' 48 light poles @ $750.00 = .$ 36,000 C. Landscaping (Trees, tree grates, etc. L.S.) = 24,000 D. Traffic Light Systems = 200,000 ' E. Modifications to adjacent & intersecting streets (L.S.) = 250,000 F. Storm Drainage 18 catch basin @ $4,000 = 72,000 24,000 L.F. exfiltration trench @ $100.00 240.000 t Subtotal: $ 822,000 Bennello, Ajamil and Partners PW/C" Z ISeossrb Marlins Ball Park ® 6 Alternate Park West Location Option April 2000 'Developed from conceptual design and from preliminary concept drawings, not based on actual site survey or detailed design drawings. Utility Relocations and New Installations Utility Relocations and New Installations 8" sanitary sewer w/manholes 2400 L.F. @ $250.00 = $ 600,000 Water Mains 2400 L.F. @ $200.00 = 480,000 Telephone 2400 L. F. @ $100.00 = 240,000 Gas 2400 L.F. @ $150.00 = 360,000 Underground Electric 2400 L.F. @ $300.00 = 720,000 Telecommunications 2400 L. F. @ $100.00 = 240,000 24" Sewer Force Main 1000 L.F. @ $125.00 = 125,000 Subtotal: $ 29765,000 Subtotal: $ 3,962.110 15% - Design & C.A. $ 594,316 20% - Contingency 911,285 Total Costs: $ 5,467.711 'Developed from conceptual design and from preliminary concept drawings, not based on actual site survey or detailed design drawings. I:U.AND\alfredo 1 \CRABoardMarl insrepfin.wpd aSEOPWb/ m Betmello, Ajamil and Partners r>; t'y�-I9 , IN L11Th11Nri p H. Miami Arena. � tk �c tk \\\V6 *�American it *jAirlines 4 Y, �<�1i N C r- N CITY OF MIAMI MARLINS BALL PARK DOWNToWN PRa2ANARY 'ALTERNAnVE ' LOCATIONS EVALUATION C e It, 0 a=I n LEGEND 1 Ball Park 2 Ball Park Plaza 3 Park 4 Parking Structure (1,50Q.cars-7 levels) 5 Sports Promenade 6 Reconfigured Land Parcels. N.W. 7th Street 7 Biscayne Blvd. Improvement 8 New Uses for Bicentennial Pz Park/Museums/Art Galleries/ Restaurant/Open Space SIBOPW/CRA-PARK WEST SITE i - - Illustrative Re Plan v1se rise • MARLINS BALL PARK StIAlt"Yo Downtown Miami Alternate Sites •Prepared for: City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency Prepared by: Civil-CADD Engineering, Inc. • SEOPW/CRA p1%6ulsE b March 8, 2001 0 • MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION CITY OF MIAMI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) CANDIDATES SITES NON -PREFERRED ALTERNATE SITE EVALUATIONS MIAMI ARENA SITE (SITE 2) MIAMI ARENA WEST SITE (POINCIANA) (SITE 3) NE 2ND AVENUE SITE (SITE 5) BICENTENNIAL PARK SITE "B" (SITE 6) PREFERRED ALTERNATES SITE EVALUATIONS Biscayne Boulevard West Site (Site 4) URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS F BALL PARK FUNCTIONAL ISSUES PREFERRED PARKING LOCATION RETRACTABLE ROOF DESIGN AND PLACEMENT SITE DIRECTED VEHICULAR CIRCULATION • PEDESTRIAN ACCESS DEVELOPMENT OF LINKAGES AND SYNERGIES ROADWAY IMPACTS �. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NE 7T" STREET NE 8T" STREET NE 9T" STREET NE 10T" STREET NE 11T" STREET i 1-395 RELOCATED ROADWAY IMPACTS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES UTILITIES WATER SANITARY SEWER DRAINAGE FLORIDA POWER LIGHT (ELECTRIC) i BELLSOUTH (TELEPHONE) GAS CHILLED WATER LINES 9T" STREET PUMP STATION SEOPW/CRA flIStJ`+�SEJa IMarch 8, 2001 Civil--CADD Engineering, inc. f MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 1 • TABLE OF CONTENTS f Park West Site at NE 9thStreet (Site 1) SITE AREA SITE IMPROVEMENTS RESPONSE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACCESS PEDESTRIAN ACCESS fSITE AVAILABILITY DEVELOPMENT OF LINKAGES AND SYNERGIES REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT ROADWAY IMPACTS NE 1ST AVENUE NE 2ND AVENUE NORTH MIAMI AVENUE NE 9T" STREET NE 1 OT" STREET NE I IT" STREET UTILITIES • WATER SANITARY SEWER DRAINAGE FLORIDA POWER LIGHT (ELECTRIC) BELLSOUTH (TELEPHONE) GAS CHILLED WATER LINES ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES i INTRODUCTION RECORDS REVIEW SITE RECONNAISSANCE SUSPECT ASBESTOS -CONTAINING MATERIAL PRELIMINARY NEPA CHECKLIST RECOMMENDATIONS SRDMMA r-ft "--+ 44 i��5eus3�p I March 8, 2001 Civil-CADD Engineering, Inc, MARLIALL PARK STUDY: e DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 1• , TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERALL STUDY AREA MOBILITY ANALYSIS TRAFFIC ISSUES TRIP GENERATION IMPACT TO REGIONAL FACILITIES EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES ' FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICES DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CAPACITY LOCAL BUS CAPACITY SUMMARY OF TRANSIT CAPACITY TRANSIT MODE SPLIT DOWNTOWN PARKING APPENDICIES COST ESTIMATES FOR THE BISCAYNE SITE BISCAYNE BOULEVARD RELOCATION METROMOVER UNDERPASS UTILITY RELOCATIONS N 9T" STREET PUMP STATION RELOCATION • NEW GRAVITY SEWER AND FORCE MAIN (PUMP Station Relocated) GRAVITY SEWER MAIN (PUMP Station Remains) DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE BISCAYNE BOULEVARD WEST TRANSIT GREENWAY APPLICATIONS TO THE MARLINS BALL PARK AND CRA RELATED LINKAGES TO THE ADJACENT COMMUNITIES i r MPW/CRA pes�,uss�® March 8, 2001 Civil-CADD Engineering, Inc. R MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency INTRODUCTION CITY OF MIAMI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) CANDIDATE SITES Five (5) potential sites were evaluated within the CRA South East Overtown Park West (SEOPW) Redevelopment Area boundaries for the location of the future Marlins Ball Park. These sites are as follow: • SITE 1 PARK WEST SITE AT NE 9T" STREET ■ SITE 2 MIAMI ARENA SITE ■ SITE 3 MIAMI ARENA WEST SITE (POINCIANA) ■ SITE 4 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD WEST SITE ■ SITE 5 NE 2ND AVENUE SITE One site was investigated that lies outside of the CRA boundaries • SITE 6 BICENTENNIAL PARK SITE "B" - The following is a summary evaluation of each candidate site. March 8, 2001 Civil-CADD Engineering, Inc. • • SE MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Afiami Community Redevelopment Agency NON -PREFERRED ALTERNATE SITE EVALUATIONS i MIAMI ARENA SITE (SITE 2) r The proposed potential site comprises the present Miami Arena site and other sites to the south and west. It extends from NW 1st Avenue on the east to NE 1st Avenue on the west, and from NE 81h Street on the north to NE 6th Street on the south. Although this site has excellent access to the MetroRail and is underutilized, a number of profound shortcomings make this site not apt to house the ball park. These are as follow: r ;D 10 r r r Railroad Access to the Port of Miami is required. There is no _room to relocate the rail line to the south. It cannot run on NE 6th Street because it would conflict with vehicular traffic, as there is insufficient space on NE 6th street. Major buildings, including the new Miami - Dade Jr. College Parking garage, are present on the south side of NE 6th Street; therefore, you can not demolish this structure and place the rail line further south. The Freedom Tower, a historical building, would be also impacted. 2. There is not enough land area to place the ball park properly given that the railroad line cannot be relocated and a total contiguous parcel, cannot be created. There are only 5.5 acres in the Miami Arena site. 3. Closing of Miami Avenue is required to create a contiguous site of sufficient dimensions and land area. The north/south arterial streets that allow access to the area need to be kept open to permit adequate flow of traffic. This places another penalty on this site. r March 8, 200> Civil-CAOO Engineering, /nc. iiii iii ii= MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency MIAMI ARENA WEST SITE (POINCIANA) (SITE 3) This site is in the Overtown Community. ,The proposed land area is bordered by NW 3`d Avenue on the west, the MetroRail station and line on the west, NW 8th Street on the north, and NW 6th Street on the south. Assembling the site would require the acquisition of the Poinciana Condominium and the relocation of its residents. Site area conditions and impacts are as follow: 1. This site has excellent access to MetroRail. 2. There appears to be sufficient land area to accommodate the facility. 3. Private land and building acquisition would be limited to the Poinciana Condominium. ' 4. Site assembly would require the closure of NW 2nd Avenue limiting egress from Overtown. The 1-395 ramp access from NW 61h Street has required NW 3rd Avenue be one way north up to NW 91h Street. After NW 91h Street, NW 3rd Avenue is a two-way street. NW 2nd C Avenue allows traffic traveling south on NW 3rd Avenue to egress Overtown. While alternate routes can allow access from the west and the east into Overtown, .closing NW 2nd Avenue could create perceived and potentially real access problems and could potentially �. increase community isolation. 5. Parking demand generated by the ball park along with its proximity will put a premium on land values in Overtown. The value of land for parking use can potentially exceed its present value for residential use, creating speculation and demolition of existing structures. It is our professional opinion that it will cause substantial damage to the urban fabric of the 0 Overtown community. 6. Because of the site's location (i.e., distance from major Downtown retail and entertainment areas) the facility would find it difficult to create synergies with other Downtown uses. 7. The site does not provide any "image" creating attributes. Views from the future ball park will consist of surrounding buildings. SEOPW/ORA I March 8, 100f Civil-CADD Engineering, /nc. !f MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: r° DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Reefevelowment Agency NE 2ND AVENUE SITE (SITE 5) The site is bounded by NE 1s' Avenue on the east, NW 9th Street on the south, Biscayne Boulevard on the east, and 1-395 (MetroMover) on the north. The site has a land area of approximately 16 acres. The creation of the contiguous site acreage demands the closure of NE 2"d Avenue. Site attributes are as follow:. 1. Site provides sufficient land area to accommodate the ball park. However... 2. The MetroMover line would have to be relocated from NE 2"d Avenue to Biscayne Boulevard between gth Street and 1-395. This .is an extremely expensive and time consuming proposal. 3. Removal of NE 2"d Avenue between NE 9" Street and 1-395 presents serious problems with traffic that presently utilizes NE 2"d Avenue to access 1-395. This particularly affects the Port of Miami truck traffic, which depends on NE 2"d Avenue. 4. The site does not create any linkages with existing activities in Downtown. 5. Off -site parking would want to be adjacent to the ball park and would essentially eliminate proposed development of other attractions adjacent to the ball park. • Parking demand generated by the ball park will put a premium on land values in Overtown. The value of land for parking use will exceed its present value for residential use, creating speculation and demolition of existing structures. It is our professional opinion that it will cause substantial damage to the urban fabric of the Overtown community. r r rMarch 8, 200' Civil-CADD Engineering, Inc. '`� / `rn,', /�� • � `.t - / - - �'__,.—:ram_=-�•-_::� ..�� i �l /may, / / 1.''rl .:� / / .•� ��• q`,C�-TiT�•_. f, Al 77 1pw VOW Nola 71, Ism WHY :, r _ {/s Sj%:i, .• �////1 ' f%i1j s �t f j• C!• �' OR fj 13 .01 4•�i. �. -� n ,,..' fir•',•? ''T; �� � � "_i/ r �' m00% ,yf y�•'�i � '?/i � ''.� �.,' •t 1 j iRf S / �, s`' Abe. � �w.,.`�-�`• / .. � J. S L. 'ems ./ ' _ .I"� '� Hj . i!%'i q', L ING. / ; r� �, f � r � � ` / . ;- f Y v ' .Xrr_ % , Y / � %i i� r"L /./ � .t �. "'•1 - }e1 d t•.• , 4.1 C T." �, i.; '� ` r �� l ;• j r is f :i. s. I f — �:• • ,t '-. l:.,,,. rig. �: �� - - ''�'' �fi€ #�. ?'�� ��'•:[,� - �� t � n y � /� rrs . 7rF7.7,Ysss%1v5i71�`/�� ate. / � •_, /: •*ts /il +a _ • • ^ :,- y ' � l / r • / . ,:.. 1 • - � •w H�ry .ra+A des,..... � - nl -� Fs•-.,r P9 zt� ///�A'%/f�i�il: �f � 1 .�3'-�5'�.'..,.- �rtic f i � : •� _ }a 9'' • �_ a � �r _ ' • 1 %} :�.% �i � ..- '- �. /�� •�`'�F•'-:.- F,,� ray,. - _ — �' -fit•..." < �: j.� - _ _� _�-�.��_�� z-air'.' ... �• � � �E' �t y f , 77_ - i �� _wp It, n �-•' r n fit'( Afi�„�� ; , t PARKING - 1� './gym �� -� � »Y' f'�+ ♦ "��.. r, ! Y3 - � - - - - -.. _ lam ,1/ f(F�'�,, �.j��ji ��'� � s 1K�a � � '•` +. ,.:�i Plusiv � �� / iFf,'1}�a4"'• i h•�.r•'' r�_��i''s_ � �F .'D•.� [T1'#I _.�" _ -r6 i :'>�fe'",+, ' fi.' , fv` :? 1 '!"r .Yl • s .rr •.� Y.� ••it' ee1! 1 11(JA t f ,y •e rA _1�� � 2',ri.• 1, ... �'• sitf�4 >r w a " 4 j 1 Li • a.,s �:'Y-... . .. '. r ;�� _--' , � IR,f � I I I j- � ` ' _� (t � I 1 � ,'� 1-f If cw 71, t1 I-j I =i c, m- (� �`.: I `4 a -'�`".� '''' r'.� �I -: _ "�'- ,�'/: _ -7"-=:.�t't'f^:_;•'",�'.' ik �p��"y"�?�{.�,�j�.eC ' ` � `�Q��•Q,3Qt�T;� �' + '� .� 5r. - �'`' d �- � �� - _ .. '' � � �' +�.W tF•"•��ol' L#', t t_� n'� .i.'�. -1ii. S�T� • j^ _ #� �• ..._ .'f--f''.= - �j;- );r.,, ' .. - •'`... MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency t BICENTENNIAL PARK EAST SITE "B" (SITE 6) This site lies within the western boundary of Bicentennial Park and requires the relocation of Biscayne Boulevard westward into the CRA District. Placing the ball park at this site would not impact resident's; however, it would severely restrict Bicentennial Park in terms of open space. Site area conditions and impacts are as follow: 1. This site has excellent access to MetroRail and the People Mover, 2. There appears to be sufficient land area to accommodate the facility. 3. Private development between relocated Biscayne Boulevard and NE 2"d Avenue would be limited. 1 SE®Pw/ �9 blav 3��D March 8, 200> Civil-CADO Engineering, Inc. 0 MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency PREFERRED ALTERNATES SITE EVALUATIONS Biscayne Boulevard West Site (Site 4) This alternate requires the reconfiguration of Biscayne Boulevard to create a potential site for the ball park. A site of approximately 12 acres (523,000 square feet) in land area can be configured with the reconfiguration of Biscayne Boulevard to the east. This site can have approximate dimensions of 670 feet at its widest point by 800 feet in length. It is our opinion that this site configuration, area, and dimensions could potentially house the proposed ball park as illustrated in the overall site maps in Appendices Section. This opinion is based on a general evaluation of similar facilities and assumptions on minimal space reductions in the width of the ball park foot print of approximately 4%. A large open spaces of approximately 100 feet by 570 feet for pedestrian access and bus drop s off could be provided on the north side of the facility. This area could also serve to house the I retractable roof structure. There are two (2) functional requirements for site configuration that must be initially solved. They are as follow: 1. Biscayne Boulevard realignment. I�2. Relocation of the pump station on the east side of Biscayne Boulevard and existing underground utilities. These tasks will place a time and cost constraint on site availability for the construction of the project. The time constraints and costs implications are outlined in the Appendices Section of this report. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The Marlins Ball Park could attract more than 40,000 fans to an event. Other area attractors include Bayside Marketplace, the Omni, the American Airlines Arena, Bicentennial Park, the j future Performing Arts Center, and possibly future Arts and Science museums. Fortunately there is already substantial transit infrastructure and capacity in place to serve the Park West area when needed. Since the highest demand for services occurs in the evening, much of the County bus and train fleet would otherwise be idle. Available resources could be placed in service to accommodate the increased demand on a scheduled or as -needed basis. MetroRail is the primary transit facility in downtown Miami. The Overtown Station lays just on the edge of the acceptable Y--mile walking radius. The Overtown Station lays just on the edge of the acceptable '/2-mile walking radius. On multiple event nights MDTA will need to operate at peak hour (6-minute) headways with the maximum 6-car trains. Each MetroRail car can accommodate approximately 200 passengers with a heavy standing load (crush capacity is 266 persons per car). At 6-minute headways in each direction with 6-car trains; MetroRail can carry 12,000 persons per hour in a northbound direction and 12,000 persons per hour in the southbound direction. MetroRail has ample capacity to handle demand for riders that either walk or ride a shuttle bus to Overtown statioWi i8&ly'h-mile from the stadium. At the March 8, ZOOf .�s�i°vi/--CADD Engineering, /nc. U 0 MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency Government Center Station, transfers can be made between the MetroRail and MetroMover lines. The MetroMover is an automated people -mover system that serves the downtown area with an elevated loop and separate branches to the Omni and Brickell Avenue areas. Three (3) stations on the Omni branch are within easy walking distance of the proposed stadium site. BALL PARK FUNCTIONAL ISSUES PREFERRED PARKING LOCATION The 1,500 preferred parking space garage would have to be located outside the main ball park campus. There is a potential site north of 1-395 where the structured parking could be located. A pedestrian connection over 1-395 and pedestrian paths under the bridge structures of 1-395 could access the ball park. Other potential locations for the parking structure could be on the west side of NE 2"d Avenue, or to the south of the ball park on NE 2"d Avenue. A parking structure on the west side of NE 2"d Avenue should have direct overhead pedestrian connection to the ball -park. All of these solutions would require additional land takings. RETRACTABLE ROOF DESIGN AND PLACEMENT l • The location of the retractable roof will be a major consideration for site development. From our conversations, ideally the roof should retract towards the north to allow naturai' light into the park to maintain natural sod growth. A retractable roof to the south would create large areas of shadow within the ball park and require artificial grass. This is an important consideration. _ SITE DIRECTED VEHICULAR CIRCULATION Given that the proposed site has street frontage on three (3) streets, NE 2"d Avenue, Biscayne Boulevard, and NE 111h Terrace, there should be sufficient frontage to allow facility operational vehicular access requirements. Additionally, a potentially' restricted vehicular access way could be provided at the southern boundary of the site. Required vehicular access to the facility includes equipment and delivery trucks, broadcast trucks, and emergency vehicles. Charter Buses and Group Arrivals could be programmed in the plaza facing NE 11'h Terrace. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS There is sufficient land area around the facility to create sidewalks a minimum of 20 feet in width, including space fronting the facility on the north side for a 100 feet wide by approximately 570 feet plaza. Improved sidewalk connections and street crossings will link, the proposed site to surrounding activities. DEVELOPMENT OF LINKAGES AND SYNERGIES The proposed Biscayne Boulevard West Site will be in close proximity, approximately two (2) blocks directly south of the proposed Performing Arts Center directly across Bicentennial Park p� and two (2) blocks north of the American Airlines Arena. This site offers potential to create linkages to existing and proposed cultural and recreational activities including the Performing SEOPW/CRA March 8, 200/ Civil-CADD Engineering, /nc. a�s�uss�® MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: x DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede veiopment Agency i Arts Center, Bicentennial Park, American Airlines Arena, Bayfront Park, Bayside, and future ■ development on the west side of Biscayne Boulevard. i ■ ROADWAY IMPACTS i BISCAYNE BOULEVARD Under the Bicentennial Park West concept, Biscayne Boulevard (US-1) would be relocated approximately 430 feet to the east at the central part of the ballpark. The relocation would begin at the NE 6tn Street intersection, just south of the American Airlines Arena, and would reconnect to the existing roadway at NE 12th Street to the north. ® The new roadway will incorporate a 30 mph design speed for the majority of the roadway, which is typical for this type of urban roadway. The only exception is the curve at the north end beneath 1-395 where the design speed is reduced to 20 mph. A design variance will be required by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for this section of the roadway; however, future improvements to the 1-395 roadway could allow for enhancing this section of I Biscayne Boulevard to a 30 mph design speed. The new right-of-way for Biscayne Boulevard will be dedicated as a 160-foot wide corridor to accommodate 6 lanes of through traffic, a A landscaped median, and turn lanes. NE 7TH STREET This street will be modified to create a new intersection with the relocated Biscayne Boulevard__ M NE 8TH STREET I This street will be extended approximately 70 feet east and connected to the relocated Biscayne Boulevard with a new intersection. This intersection will be signalized due to sight rdistance limitations. NE 9TH STREET I This street will be abandoned between NE 2"d Avenue and the existing Biscayne Boulevard. The vacated right-of-way will be utilized by new development adjacent to the ballpark. I NE 10TH STREET This street will be abandoned between NE 2"d Avenue and the existing Biscayne Boulevard. The vacated right-of-way will become part of the new the ballpark. NE 11 TH STREET This street will be abandoned between NE 2"d Avenue and the existing Biscayne Boulevard_ . The vacated right-of-way will become part of the new the ballpark. SEOPW/CRA � 9DeSGV�S�D March 8,100f Civil--CADD Engineering, inc. MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES i^ - City of Miami Community Redo ve%pment Agency 1-395 The existing 1-395 traverses the north site of the proposed ballpark and will not be affected by the ballpark. This roadway will serve as a main access to the ballpark via the exit at NE 2nd Avenue. 1-395 will be reconstructed in the future at which time portions of Biscayne Boulevard could be further enhanced in terms of alignment. RELOCATED ROADWAY IMPACTS To ADJACENT PROPERTIES 1. The southern portion of relocated Biscayne Boulevard cuts into the American Airlines Arena by approximately 80 feet at the NE 8th Street entrance to the north arena driveway. This affects the entrance plaza area, which is for pedestrian use only. Modifications to the pedestrian plaza area and steps into the arena would be required. 2. Between NE 8th Street and NE 9tr, Street, the relocated Biscayne Boulevard covers approximately 0.75 acres of the existing Miami -Dade County Seaport Slip No. 3. This area of the water would need to be filled to support the roadway, which is mainly a permitting issue. The permitting is described in the Environmental Section of this report. 3. Between NE gth Street and 1-395, the relocated Biscayne Boulevard would disturb a portion of the paved automobile racetrack within Bicentennial Park. Approximately 500 linear feet • of the track pavement would need to be realigned. 4. At the northern end of the relocated Biscayne Boulevard, the northbound lanes of the new roadway interfere with two (2) support columns of the MetroMover. The northbound lanes could be temporarily realigned to go between the columns, which would require a design variance from the FDOT. This condition would be temporary since a permanent alignment would be accomplished with the 1-395 reconstruction project. UTILITIES There are many utility lines within the existing Biscayne Boulevard right-of-way that must be relocated along with the ,roadway relocation. Some of these utility lines have branch lines along the various side streets that will be affected by the roadway relocation. These are described below. rWATER There are four (4) water mains. within the existing Biscayne Boulevard corridor. These water mains are as follow: 1. 6-inch Potable Water Main along the west side of Biscayne Boulevard. 2. 24-inch Potable Water Main within the southbound lanes of existing Biscayne Boulevard. 3. 24-inch Potable Water Main within the northbound lanes of existing Biscayne Boulevard. SEdPW/CRA March 8, 200Y i %co►SSr17 Civil-CADO Engineering, Inc. MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami CommunitA -17 -a y Redo ve/opment Agency 4. 12-inch Potable Water Main along the east side of Biscayne Boulevard (ends at NE 10th P Street) These mains will be relocated to within the new Biscayne Boulevard corridor. The 12-inch and 6-inch water mains on NE 81h Street and NE 91h Street will be extended to connect to the easternmost 24-inch main within the relocated roadway. The six (6) water mains at NE 10th Street and NE 111h Street will be removed since they are beneath the new ballpark. New lines along the north side of the ballpark may be necessary to ' provide a replacement of these mains in order to complete the loops. 01 SANITARY SEWER There are two (2) sanitary sewer force mains within the existing Biscayne Boulevard corridor. These force mains are as follows: 1. A 42-inch force main from the NE 9th Street Pump Station within the northbound lanes of existing Biscayne Boulevard. 2. A 48-inch force main running south from the NE 91h Street Pump Station along the east side of Biscayne Boulevard. This main turns and runs west along NE 8th Street. 'i 3. A 72-inch gravity sewer pipe, which collects all the sewage from the northeast area of the county between Downtown Miami and Aventura. I The 42-inch force main, 48-inch force main, and 72-inch gravity pipe relocations are further described with the NE 9th Street Pump Station relocation. DRAINAGE { Drainage pipes within the existing Biscayne Boulevard will be removed, and a new drainage 1 system will be installed along with the new roadway. NE 8th and NE 91h Street drainage that is presently connected to the Biscayne Boulevard drainage system will be extended along with the roadway connections to the new Biscayne Boulevard. The NE 10th and NE 11th Street drainage systems will be removed for the new ballpark. Interruptions to these side street drainage systems may need to be rerouted around the north or south sides of the new ballpark and reconnected to the Biscayne Boulevard drainage system. Easements will be needed for these lines. FLORIDA POWER LIGHT (ELECTRIC) Buried electric lines run along the existing Biscayne Boulevard along the east and west edges of the roadway. There are manholes and connections to these lines at various points along the mainline. Relocation of these lines is expected to occur along with the Biscayne Boulevard' relocation: SEOPW/CRA Pi SCussf® March 8, 2001 Civil-CA100 Engineering, Inc. '® MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 1. Two (2) electric lines that run along NE 111h Street must be relocated to go around the new ballpark. Easements will be needed for these new lines. BELLSOUTH (TELEPHONE) A buried telephone line runs beneath existing Biscayne Boulevard along the west side of the roadway between NE 9" and- NE 101h Streets. There are manholes and connections to these P lines at various points along the mainline. Relocation of these lines is expected to occur along with the Biscayne Boulevard relocation. P The NE 91h Street lines can be extended to the relocated Biscayne Boulevard. The NE 10th Street lines must be relocated to go around the new ballpark. An easement will be needed for this new line. P GAS There is a 4-inch gas main that runs beneath existing Biscayne Boulevard along the west side P of the roadway between south of this project to NE 11th Terrace at the MetroMover. At the northern point it connects to an 8-inch main that continues to the north and a 3-inch main that runs west along the MetroMover. The 4-inch main line will be relocated along with Biscayne P Boulevard and will bend to the west to reconnect to the 3-inch and 8-inch mains. • CHILLED WATER LINES There are two (2) 18-inch chilled water lines that run along NE 8th Street and turn south along the east side of Biscayne Boulevard. Since these lines would fall beneath the relocated roadway, they may need to be relocated to be outside of the right-of-way. 9TH STREET PUMP STATION The Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department has its main pump station within Bicentennial Park on the east side of Biscayne Boulevard. This station houses five (5) pumps, two (2) emergency generators, and various equipment. The station receives inflow from a single 72- inch diameter pipe, which collects sewage from the northeast area of the county between Downtown Miami and Aventura. The pumps discharge into a 42-inch force main that runs south on Biscayne Boulevard and a 48-inch force main that runs west on NE 8th Street. The station had new pumps and motors installed within the past 2 years, and the generators were replaced approximately 1 year ago. The building and most of the structure has been in operation since 1952. The proposed pump station relocation is part of this plan for the ball park; however, due to the time necessary to replace a facility of this magnitude, a phased replacement will occur. The existing pump station can remain in place with the ball park designed around it, and after it is relocated, the existing area can be used as part of the ballpark facility. There are two (2) potential locations for the new pump station: SEOPW/CRA 'p.lS�y1S�t� March 8, 200f Civil --CARD Engineering, Inc. MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES a_1 • City of Miami Community Rede veiopment Agency r 1. Bicentennial Park at the southeast quadrant of the relocated Biscayne Boulevard and the r Metro -Mover. 2. The northeast quadrant of 1-395 and Biscayne Boulevard in the Miami Herald parking lot. r r ri r • r r r N r wom/ a March 8, 200> Civil--CADD Engineering, /nc. I IL 1 TH ST. CC 1A 3 11 LU I 1L --- Aj: 1 7 Aft i,e II i' _— 1 1 _ , .� �\. ,err, ,_/. —7f-T"- i I ; t i ' 1 �I li Ar Li I L -�J Lu ZA Co a 4� Z— Z- 01 IL N-F 57q i U k6L[:;,'-i . .......... -.E=t R cp it sr, It v It PARK i NO: TEP, Alk If 14 =2 vp 0 i4k PPMA NO • :t ;r, � r,'.li!i r i I � I ' it j �{� �-�1 I '11 ,�, •>;�� Q --- --t .1a� II,C' I�,I, � ,`\11\SI ��: '� NE 13TH :T.'it Al V1 • j* Vr % ILlb . XX 00 1-39R� MOVE - -- � � \\. ...... ---- j, tu -xz N E IIIH ST J Al CL LL -_4 5D W" sw^,m, • NE 13TH ST. PMP S�� R G vR NE 12TH ST. RE-ALI NED BISCAY E BOULEVARD A LiBICENTENNIAL r PARK U W W Z O Ip0 O NE 8TH > a R 600' Q 3 z (e .0.02) N w AMERICAN z AIRLINES ARENA i WSMYM BOULEVARD YAM 9M BB9CaM BOU UWARD OEOM= NT5 • aff OF WN BAIL PARR N ALTERNATIVE 9M LOCATION EVALUATION u PERFORMING MNG ARTS CENTER ARTS CENTERNE 13TH ST. POTENTIAL NORTH 1-395 PARKING GARAGE SITE NE 12TH ST. POTENTIAL NE 2ND AVE PARKING GARAGE SITE RE -ALIGNED BISCAYNE BOULEVARD P/� AMERICAN AIRLINES ARENA BICENTENNIAL PARK BWAYM BOULEVARD WEgr SITE PREFERRED PARKNG ALTERNATE LOCATIONS NTS ro MY OF hGAAG MARLINS MU PARK sEopw/cm MTIERWI'M SITE LOCATION IWMMAMN rCOWUNM RMEVELOMM AGENCY (CM 03 s fis i-- dIM VALUES OF ALLOCATED AREAS TOTAL BUILDING AREA'B'= 6-16 AC, TOTAL PAVING AREA `a- =0.88AC. TOTAL AREA = 31.9D AC. LEGENDE llJ;lFA 'B' CIVIL-CADD ENGINEERING �Al C, The total amount of land required for this layout = 9.7 AC Property generated from realignment = 4.5 AC Property from purchase or swap = 3.5 AC Property from row = 1.7 AC Property available for swap = 2.7 AC This layout require the purchase of = 0.8 AC Property to be purchased or swap 3.5 AC i-y At CIVIL—CADD ENGINEERING DAIR .ate" sticr 3-N1 0 0 The total amount of land required for this layout = 12.7 AC Property generated from realignment = 5.5 AC Property from purchase or swap = 5.1 AC Property from row = 21 AC Property available for swap = 1.3 AC This layout require the purchase of = 3.6 AC Property to be purchased or swap 9.9 AC Nf1i�le;iL�:.I'uV51c1! �i�� CIVIL—CADD ENGINEERING 1S JAiR .-D in 0 • -5 AC 9 Property to ba puraiased or swap 7.0 AC CIVIL—CADD ENGINEERING IV] CA tri 0 I 'i A(` z"ILmi'Ity Lo 0 , Property owned by dty, county / DOT. 1.2 AC CIVIL—CADD ENGINEERING v • • %4 ;2 LES C*) tri 0 -t.? kc Park propety 7.7 AC CIVIL--CAOD ENCINEEf?iNC • a;+I BL tD J I EXIST, BSCAYNE - ;: Jj M F 1•;�' -1 j 1 I iJUU W—MLL_ fHKIS11Vh umKHut,_- I� ' •, •� I .� ,, _+��� Wit, # r MIAMI MARLINS SCHEMA A WILL FIT AT THIS LACTION WITH SCrit wtE- . MINOR MODIFICATION OF PARKINC FACILITY. IT WOULD REQUIRE •12.7 / o 1 \ i CIVIL-CADD ENGINEERING Iki 'i :�Ullu I IJ! • EXIST. BISCAYNE BLVD. 1500 SPACE -PARKING AGE 41 CB __------ \ ` `| W|AM| kfARUM3 SCHEMA B OWL—CADD BV[JNEERINC WILL FIT AT THIS LACllON WITH OFFS|T[ m/ /VE.�v,Iv,^" PARKING BETWEEN1Oth '� 1|th STREET �"«"`a' °o�m.v� ^pry THIS SCHEMAWILL REOU|�E |O�5 �CRES �- SPACE FOR 0FF�|TE PARKIN(-, / MIAMI MARLINS SCHEMA C WILL FIT AT THIS LACTION WITH OFF —SITE PARKIN(L' BETWEEN 10th & 11 th STREET. THIS SCHEME WIIL REQUIRE 10 ACRES CHEME c_' CIVIL—CADD ENGINEERING • • MARLINS PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency Park West Site at NE 91h Street (Site 1) Site assembly through the closure of NE 1st Avenue from NE 9th Street to 1-395. In this site assembly option, NE 2"d Avenue would be reconfigured to allow traffic egress and ingress into Downtown Miami from 1-395. It is imperative to keep an access way for traffic egress traveling north from Downtown Miami to 1-395. For this purpose it is proposed that NE 2"d Avenue be widened to two (2) in each travel direction with a median from NE 5th Street to 1-395. SITE AREA The site area to be created through the closure of NE 1st Avenue and NE 10th, and 11th Streets will be approximately 25.85 acres with site dimensions of 963 feet by 1145 feet which is ample land area to locate the proposed stadium and the required 1,500 car parking garage. There is sufficient land area not to create any development constraints on both the location of the parking garage or the retractable roof. The height -restricted area is approximately 6 acres facing Biscayne Boulevard. SITE IMPROVEMENTS RESPONSE FPL Chiller Plant ■ The use of this site to locate the proposed facility will require the incorporation of the existing FPL Chiller plant into the proposed ball park complex. Conversations with FPL personnel have • indicated that this could be accomplished and that they would be willing to cooperate in achieving this objective. The proximity of both uses will not cause any health or functional conflicts that can not be surmounted through adequate design and activity location decisions. i. NE 1st Avenue Closure ■ It is important to allow egress of Downtown traffic north to 1-395. Closure of NE 1" Avenue will require that traffic traveling north be redirected to gain access to 1-395. For this purpose it is proposed that NE 2nd Avenue be made a 4 lane median divided road from NE 5"' Street to I- 395. Traffic, in particular port related traffic, would access NE 2"d Avenue at 6th Street traveling north to 1-395 and would turn on NE 51h Street to gain Port of Miami access traveling south from 1-395. Once I-395 is upgraded improvements to the access ramps at the intersection of NE 2nd Avenue could be implemented. 50 View Corridors A view corridor would have to be established between NE 2"d Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard, from 91h Street to 101h Street to be able to meet the Marlins requirements for visibility of Biscayne Bay from the Sky Boxes and the TV areas of the ball park. For this purpose the view corridor can either be an open park or a height limitation on future constructions on this area could be imposed. Vehicular Drop Off and Access Exposure and land availability on both North Miami Avenue and NE 2"d Avenue will allow access areas for both tour and event bus drop off as well as event driven truck and service vehicle access. March 8, 2001 SEOI?Civil-GADD Engineering, Inc. 'D�ScuSSF� MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede veiopment Agency Parking The site area allows the location of the required 1,500-space parking structure on site. Additionally the space available under the 1-395 ramps allows for access and parking enhancements. t PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACCESS ! The proposed Park West Site is within easy walking distance of the Miami Overtown/Arena Metrorail Station. It is approximately a 1,500 feet or'/< mile, which is an acceptable walking distance from the Station, and can be easily accessed by the 9th Street pedestrian corridor. The MetroMover Stations are located directly east of the ball park facility within the proposed site. These two (2) stations are within less than 500 feet of the potential ball park entrances. The two (2) stations serving the site are 11th Street Station and the Park West Station. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS Ninth Street will become the major pedestrian access corridor to the proposed ball park from Bayside, American Airlines Arena, Bayside, the Performing Arts and Education District, the Miami Arena, and the Miami Arena/Overtown Community and areas to the west of the facility. This pedestrian corridor will also link to the Overtown/Arena MetroRail Station and the two (2) MetroMover Stations serving the site east of the ball park on NE 2"d Avenue. Pedestrian connections to the Performing Arts and Education District can be easily accommodated to improve joint parking opportunities and synergies. SITE AVAILABILITY Site acquisition will be required. There are no major structures on the proposed site other than the FPL Chiller Plant previously discussed and which can -be incorporated into the ball park complex. DEVELOPMENT OF LINKAGES AND SYNERGIES The proposed site is centrally located and will be in close proximity to major activities in the area. To the north it is in close proximity to the proposed Performing Arts Center and Education District; to the east to Bicentennial Park; to the southeast of the American Airlines Arena, Bayside, and the Bayfront Park; to the west the existing Miami Arena and the Civic L. Center Complex. This location will enrich the economic, employment and social opportunities for Overtown to reconnect to the waterfront and Downtown Miami. REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS 1 Utilities Improvements and Relocations Existing underground utilities would have to be vacated from existing roadways. However, the magnitude of these relocations is not critical and can be accomplished in an acceptable time frame. The pump station on Biscayne Boulevard will not have to be relocated. Overhead electrical and communication lines would have to be installed underground to improve March 8, 200f Civil-CADD Engineering, /nc. Usctlas)q —V.) � - 4 a 1• MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of /Miami Community Rede veiopment Agency �• Y pedestrian access and to remove any obstructions or interruptions due to large utility poles and related infrastructure. These improvements will also significantly enhance the aesthetic appeal of the areas and the propensities for residents and visitors to prefer pedestrian movements rather than vehicular movements. Roadway Improvements NE 2"d Avenue roadway improvements can be accomplished within 8 months, which will include design and construction, and will not interfere with the construction. { None of the required infrastructure improvements will interfere with the construction of the ball park, thereby allowing concurrent construction of all improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS This site does not create substantial impediments to the functioning of the area. The impacts generated can be resolved or minimized through improvements to NE 2"d Avenue to allow better access to and from Downtown. This site is discreetly located at the edge of Park West creating synergies with surrounding areas, having direct pedestrian access to all the major Downtown and regional public transportation systems and is within easy pedestrian access of Bicentennial Park and the waterfront. The scale of the building will not be an issue since it is located adjacent to 1-395 in proximity to • large structures such as the new Terremark NAP and residential towers, which mitigate the large scale and height of this facility. The facility can be easily linked to public transit, as well as Downtown and other major destinations in the area through the inception of enhanced pedestrian connections. rROADWAY IMPACTS rNE 1 ST AVENUE Under the NE 91h Street concept, NE 1st Avenue would be vacated for approximately 1,100 feet between 9th Street and 121h Street. The portion of NE 1st Avenue south of 121h Street could be utilized as an access drive to the new parking structure for the ball park. NE 2ND AVENUE rNE 2"d Avenue would be widened to a 4-lane facility and converted from its present one-way northbound flow to a 2-way condition. This would occur between 61h Street and 12th Street. NORTH MIAMI AVENUE Adjacent to the new ball park, North Miami Avenue will be improved within the existing right-of- way corridor and would maintain the existing 2-way traffic pattern. • March 8, 2001 Civi/-CADO Engineering, Inc, MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: F DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES +'. City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency NE 9T" STREET P This street will be improved between North Miami Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. The existing 2-way traffic pattern would remain. NE 10T" STREET NE 10th Street would be vacated for approximately 1,300 feet between North Miami Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. Portions of the vacated NE 101h Street could be utilized as access drives to the new ball park and the open space east of NE 2"d Avenue. NE 11TH STREET This street will be abandoned between NE 2"d Avenue and the existing Biscayne Boulevard. P The vacated right-of-way will become part of the new the ballpark. UTILITIES There are many utility lines within the existing street rights -of -way that must be relocated or P removed. These are described below. I* WATER There are existing water mains that run along NE 101h Street, NE 11`h Street, and NE 1" Avenue. These water mains would be removed and larger water mains would be installed along NE 9`h Street, NE 2"d Avenue, and North Miami Avenue to adjust for flow to the area. Also, improvements to these mains would be beneficial for the ball park and surrounding new developments. SANITARY SEWER There are two (2) sanitary sewer force mains within the existing Biscayne Boulevard corridor. rThese force mains are as follows: DRAINAGE Drainage within the existing street to remain would be unaffected. The new ball park and surrounding new development, and improvements to NE 2"d Avenue provide opportunities to improve the overall drainage of the area by providing more green space. Drainage should not rbe an issue with this proposed ball park site. FLORIDA POWER LIGHT (ELECTRIC) rThe main issue with FPL is the existing chiller facility along NE 111h Street that was recently o constructed. This facility will not be disturbed by the ball park; however, the new parking igarage is proposed to go over the chiller. SEOPW/CR March 8, ZOO/ — Civil-CADD Engineering, /ac. MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency I Two (2) electric lines that run along NE 101h Street and NE 111h Street must be relocated to go around the new ballpark. BELLSOUTH (TELEPHONE) I The NE gth Street lines should remain unaffected. The NE 10th Street lines must be relocated to go around the new ballpark. An easement will be needed for the new lines. i GAS i A 3-inch gas main running west along the Metro Mover must be replaced and an easement provided. CHILLED WATER LINES There are two (2) 18-inch chilled water lines that run from the FPL chiller plant to the American Airlines Arena. There will need to be resolved around the ball park site. i SEOPW/CRA March 8, 200f Civii--CARD Engineering, inc. r- 0 MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede veiopment Agency ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES p INTRODUCTION P A Phase I Environmental Assessment (ESA) was performed for the Proposed Miami Marlins Baseball Stadium - "Biscayne Boulevard West Site" property (herein referred to as the property). The property is located between NE 2"d Avenue (to the west); Bicentennial Park (to the east); NE 11th Terrace and/or an elevated "MetroMover" line (to the north); and NE 91h !� Street and/or the Miami -Dade County Seaport Slip Number Three (to the south) in the City of Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida. The property is located in an area that is primarily characterized by commercial development. The property encompasses approximately 18 acres and is developed with several buildings and a major north -south artery, United States Highway Number One (US-1 a.k.a. Biscayne Boulevard), transverses the center of the property (north to south). Other �ublic roadways which transverse the property (from west to east) include NE 9th 10th and 11 t Streets as well as NE 11 th Terrace. i The main objective of the ESA was to identify the presence or likely presence, use, or release on the property of hazardous substances or petroleum products as defined in ASTM Practice E PI 1527 as a recognized environmental condition. The ESA also included a preliminary evaluation j of certain potential environmental conditions that are outside the scope of ASTM Practice E 1527. Below is a summary of the findings and conclusions of this report: RECORDS REVIEW • 1. Based on a review of various historical sources, the property and the immediately surrounding areas have been developed as and utilized for gas stations, automotive sales and service facilities, multiple -storied commercial buildings, hotels, apartment buildings, a chemical laboratory, a funeral home, electrical repair shops, framing shops, plating shops, iron and metal works, a municipal sewer treatment/disposal plant and municipal seaport operations. Based on the general nature of these businesses, coupled with the lack of records, the presence of such operations represents a material threat of release on the property and, therefore, is a recognized environmental condition. 2. Based on a review of various historical sources, coupled with a review of applicable regulatory information, the current and previous use of 900 Biscayne Boulevard and 1000 Biscayne Boulevard as gasoline stations represent a historical recognized environmental condition of the property. SITE RECONNAISSANCE We observed potential evidence of USTs at 901 NE 2"d Avenue (apparent ventpipe), 900 p (PP Biscayne Boulevard (apparent fill ports) and 940 Biscayne Boulevard (apparent fuel dispenser island). The observed apparent improvements represent a recognized environmental conditions to the property. SUSPECT ASBESTOS -CONTAINING MATERIALS We conducted a limited visual survey of the existing improvements on the property for suspect ACMs. Suspect ACMs noted during the site reconnaissance included exterior stucco, roofing materials, vinyl floor tile, plaster walls, plaster ceilings, ceiling tiles, window caulking, and other typical building materials. Considering the construction dates of the property improvements, Marely 8, 200� Civi/-CAOD Engineering, /nc. v0SGussfi) 1• MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede veiopment Agency any suspect ACM should be properly assessed with bulk sampling and analysis prior to any disturbance from construction, maintenance or demolition activities. A discussion of ACMs is outside the scope of ASTM Practice E 1527 and, therefore, the presence of suspect ACM is not a recognized environmental condition. PRELIMINARY NEPA CHECKLIST We developed a preliminary checklist with respect to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) issues. This checklist was compiled utilizing cursory desktop resources, published in referenced environmental agency databases and local environmental records. Based on this limited research, the property may contain Native American archaeological sites and may have improvements with a potential to be considered historically significant. Additionally, a portion of the property is located within the 100-year flood zone. These issues are outside the scope of ASTM Practice E 1527 and, therefore, do not represent recognized environmental conditions. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on information collected from the ESA, we offer the following recommendations: 1. A subsurface investigation should be conducted to document if the former uses of the property have resulted in an adverse impact to the soil and groundwater of the property. The investigation should include (at a minimum) sampling and laboratory analysis of soils ® and groundwater. A geophysical investigation is recommended at potential UST locations. The review of archived building plans may be beneficial in locating potential UST locations and/or locating sampling points. I• 2. An asbestos survey with bulk sampling and analysis should be performed to document the presence/absence of asbestos in the building materials present on the property. 3. Prior to any redevelopment of the property, we recommend consulting with applicable State agencies to determine if any of the property improvements are historically significant. Similarly, we recommend consulting with local archaeologists regarding the potential existence of native artifacts. March 8, 2001 SEOPW/CRA Civil-Q4017 Engineering, Inc. MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: r DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency OVERALL STUDY AREA MOBILITY ANALYSIS r TRAFFIC ISSUES In the absence of a formal traffic study, potential traffic issues associated with each of the sites under study was based on information contained in the following documents: 1. February 27, 2001 transmittal from David Plummer & Associates to Donald Lonergan. 2. Copies of slides from David Plummer and Associates presentation (not dated). 3. Port of Miami City Street Improvements by Beiswenger, Hoch and Associates, Inc., September 2000. 4. Port of Miami Tunnel and Access Improvements Project Development and Environment Study, 1996. 7 TRIP GENERATION Based on the information from the above documents, the stadium is projected to attract as many as 40,000 spectators, generating between 11,500 to 14,500 trips during a single .event. ® The number of trips generated is based on the number of estimated parking spaces needed.. Based on the general traffic distribution developed by David Plummer and Associates, Inc., approximately 7,980 trips would come from the north on 1-95, 2,175 trips from the south on I- 95, 725 from the east on 1-395, and 3,620 from the west on SR-836. These figures would need to be confirmed once a final traffic analysis is performed for the stadium. IMPACT TO REGIONAL FACILITIES The overall impact of each site on the regional facilities such as 1-95, 1-395, and SR-836 are expected to be similar as patrons will use these facilities to access the Downtown area. All of the above facilities are currently over capacity during the peak traffic periods. Although the peak period for the trips to be generated by the stadium will differ from the typical rush hour period, a certain amount of overlap is expected between the two (2) periods. Based on the projected schedule for the 2000 season downloaded from espn.com, most the weekday games will start at 7:05 PM. Assuming that most of the spectators will arrive at least half an hour before the start of the game, traffic from the typical rush hour commute and traffic to the stadium will overlap some time between 6 and 7PM. Although a more thorough study of traffic patterns in the area would be needed to confirm the following assumptions, traffic tends to exit the Downtown area during the afternoon peak periods. Trips to the game will try to access downtown therefore traveling in the off-peak direction. However, due to the magnitude of the projected trips (7,980 trips represent more than three (3) travel lanes on a typical highway), some level of congestion is expected to occur on the facilities leading into the stadium. PRELIMINARY SITE ANALYSIS Each of the four sites for the baseball stadium were reviewed using the following proposed E parameters: March 8, 2001 SEOPW/cCRA Civil-CADD Engineering, Inc. wi',—Am � e3(sUtg� i` Ir I r r r ro • MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: • DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 1. Ease of access to and from regional facilities such as 1-95, 1395, and Biscayne Boulevard. Some of the patrons expected to drive to the stadium include individuals that are not familiar with the local roadways. It 'is therefore important that the stadium be located within easy access to and from the major regional highways. In addition, circuitous routes and hard to find locations may discourage local residents to attend the games. 2. Impact to local streets such as NW Td, Miami Avenue, NE 1st Avenue, NE 2"d Avenue, and 8th Street. 3. Impact to truck routes and traffic to and from the Port of Miami. Access to the Port of Miami is also a crucial factor to be considered as this major facility of regional significance plays a paramount role in the economy of the entire region. The location of the stadium needs therefore to be carefully considered as to not impede access to and from the Port of Miami. Based on the Port of Miami Improvements report, more than 70 percent of the truck traffic generated by the Port of Miami use 1-395 to reach their destination. In addition, truck traffic has increased by more than 60 percent between 1996 and 2000 - a trend that may continue as the Port expands. 4. Impact the roadway network when simultaneous events are occurring in the Downtown area. As Downtown Miami continues to expand its image as a major entertainment hub for the South Florida region, events may occur simultaneously at the stadium and one or more of the following establishments: the Miami Arena, the Performing Arts Center, American Airlines Arena, and Bayside. 5. Potential for special routing during events at the baseball stadium. 6. Potential location/intersection to be most impacted by the stadium. Park West Site at NE 91h Street The advantage of this site is that it offers a more direct access from 1-395 to the stadium. Projected trips generated by the stadium will only be on the local street network for a relatively short distance prior to entering parking facilities close to the stadium itself. However, without the proposed interim improvements or construction of the Port Tunnel, trips generated by the stadium if located on this site, will compete with truck traffic to and from the Port of Miami. Based on the preliminary distribution and trip generation figures developed by David Plummer and Associates, approximately 11,600 vehicles will enter this site using the 1-395 off -ramp to NE 2"d Avenue. While significant, the impact of these trips on the typical peak period congestion could be handled through a traffic management plan taking into account that most of the commuters will be exiting the Downtown area as these trips head to the stadium. The most significant impact from that site will be to NE 1s' and 2"d Avenues. This site will require closing NE 1st Avenue between NE 9th Street and 1-395. Existing and proposed trips currently on NE 1st Avenue will then need to be rerouted to NE 2"d Avenue which will need to be improved to allow traffic in both directions. NW 1st and Miami Avenues north and south of NE 10th Street will be impacted. Currently, NE 10th Street provides access from west of 1-95 to Biscayne Boulevard. The NE 9th Street Site would cause NE 10th Street to be closed east of North Miami Avenue. Traffic on NW Ioth'Street March 8, 2001 Civil--CADD Engineering, Inc. r D IS9.0St rD to r� r MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency would then need to turn left on NW 1st Avenue heading north. Likewise, traffic on NW 10' Street will need to make a right turn at NW 1st or Miami Avenue to head south. The traffic signal at Biscayne Boulevard and NE 10tn Street will need to be relocated to NE 9tn Street. NE 2"d Avenue may also need to become a two-way arterial, with a minimum of two lanes in each direction, from 1-395 to NE 6tn Street to minimize conflicts with northbound traffic. For example, traffic on northbound Biscayne Boulevard south of NE 6tn Street heading to 1-395 westbound will need to do the following with NE 2"d Avenue as a two-way street between 1-395 and NE 9th Street only: ■ Step 1 - Turn left at NE 6tn Street, then right at NE 1 st Avenue. ■ Step 2 - Turn right again at NE 9tn Street. • Step 3 - Turn left at NE 2"d Avenue. • Step 4 - Turn left again at NE 12tn Street and get on 1-395. Steps 1 through 3 are not needed if NE 2"d Avenue becomes a 2-way street between 1-395 and NE 6tn Street. Other roadways to be impacted include 1-95 off -ramp to NW 3rd Avenue and NW 3`d Avenue as trips from the south use these roads to access the stadium. One of the advantages of this site is that stadium traffic will not need to use Biscayne Boulevard. Miami Arena Site Traffic impacts associated with the Miami Arena site would be similar to the NW 101n Street Site. Encouraging some of the traffic from the west to use 1-395 to access the site could minimize the impact to the NW 8tn Street exit on 1-95. This would however add approximately 4,300 vehicles on NE 2"d Avenue and on NE 8tn Street, including the trips from 1-395 east. The advantage of this site is that conflicts with Port traffic will be minimized if the interim improvements or the proposed Port Tunnel are in place. Without these improvements, both stadium and truck traffic will compete for capacity on the same roadway segments. Traffic management plan could be put in place to alleviate congestion but not eliminate it all together if the stadium is located at that site. As for the NW 10tn Site, this site would require segregating stadium traffic from other traffic entering and exiting the Downtown area for a period of one to two hours before the startof the games or events during weekdays. Major impacts are to be expected at the NW 8tn Street Interchange with 1-95 and NW 8tn Street itself leading to the site. t Miami Arena West Site (Poinciana) ( From the north and west trips to this site could potentially use 1-95 south off -ramp to NW 8cn Street and head north on NW 3rd Avenue to access the site. This would create the need to accommodate approximately 11,600 vehicles through two (2) consecutive at -grade left turn movements within a 1 to 11/-hour time period. Although special traffic management measures March 8, 2001 ®PW/CCivil-'ADD Engineering, Inc. u OP Is E 01s f • i I It r• MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency could be' put in place to facilitate stadium traffic, such a heavy volume is expected to have a tremendous impact on traffic operation at the intersections near the site. Although an analysis of the existing traffic volumes and characteristics at the intersections under study would be needed to quantify the time period and capacity needed to handle such heavy volumes, an at - grade intersection is not expected to handle that number of trips without serious impacts to the surrounding roadways. One of the interim improvements recommended to facilitate truck traffic to and from the Port of Miami is to improve the interchange between 1-95 and NW 81h Street. The Poinciana Site could potentially create a conflict between stadium traffic and truck traffic to and from the Port of Miami, preventing easy access to both facilities. Impacts to traffic operation when simultaneous events are scheduled at other facilities within the Downtown area are expected to be significant with the Poinciana Site. For example, with events scheduled at the stadium and the Miami Arena, the NW 81h Street interchange with 1-95 would be expected to handle trips generated by both facilities within approximately the same time period, in addition to traffic exiting the downtown area. Traffic management plans for this site would require segregating stadium -generated trips from other traffic by providing other routes to the latter. Due to the limited available capacity in the area, this does not seem to be an efficient or easy solution. Biscayne West Site This site offers the most direct access from 1-395 to the parking garages at and close to the stadium. Impacts to local street are minimized with this site if vehicular access to and from the stadium is provided from NW 111h Street, NE 1st Avenue, and/or NE 2nd Avenue, impacts to Biscayne Boulevard are minimized, leaving only commuter and pedestrian traffic on Biscayne Boulevard. Improvements to the NW 81h Street at 1-95 or construction of the Port of Miami Tunnel would again be crucial in minimizing conflicts between stadium traffic and truck traffic. This site however has the potential for the highest level of congestion when simultaneous events are scheduled at the stadium, the American Airlines Arena, and the Performing Arts Center. A traffic management plan would be needed to address all potential combinations of events. This congestion could be alleviated if the Port of Miami Tunnel is constructed. Traffic heading to the American Airlines Arena could be encouraged to use the NW 8th Street interchange improvements at 1-95. These improvements are labeled as "interim" in the Port of Miami City Street Improvements report. This report also mentions improvements to NE 1st and 2nd Avenue, consisting of depressing both roadways to improve vertical clearances. These improvements could be enhanced based on a thorough traffic study to include features that would facilitate access to and from the stadium. - NE 2nd Avenue Site Although this site offers direct access from and to 1-395, impact to. traffic operation on Biscayne Boulevard are expected to be significant. NE 2nd Avenue currently provides access to 1-395 for northbound traffic exiting Downtown Miami. Closing NW 2"d Avenue between NE 9th Street and 1-395 would leave Biscayne Boulevard as the only major access to 1-395 for northbound traffic heading west. March 8, ZOO-f SEOPW/CRA DiStoLr� Civil--CAOO Engineering, Mc. 10 i MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY-. DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency NW 1 sc and Miami Avenues north and south of NE 10th Street will be impacted. Currently, NE 101h Street provides access from west of 1-95 to Biscayne Boulevard. The NE 9th Street Site would cause NE 101h Street to be closed east of North Miami Avenue. Traffic on NW 10th Street would then need to turn left on NW 1s' Avenue heading north. Likewise, traffic on NW 10th Street will need to make a right turn at NW 1s' or Miami Avenue to head south. The traffic signal at Biscayne Boulevard and NE 101h Street will need to be relocated to NE 9th Street. Traffic on Biscayne Boulevard will also increase in the southbound direction if NE 2"d Avenue is closed between 1-395 and NE gth Street. Traffic management during simultaneous events at the stadium and other entertainment facilities in the area will present a challenge as all traffic will need to processed through Biscayne Boulevard from the 1-395 eastbound exit ramp. Other sites would allow the use of NE 2"d Avenue as an alternate route. This would also have significant impacts on truck traffic to the Port of Miami if the 1-95/8th Street improvements and the Port Tunnel were not constructed. e Bicentennial Site B This site would have significant impacts on traffic operation along Biscayne Boulevard. The majority of the trips (approximately 11,600 vehicles) to be generated .by the stadium are expected to come from the west. Fifteen hundred (1,500), based on the proposed number of parking spaces, of these trips would have to cross Biscayne Boulevard in order to access the proposed parking garage at the stadium itself, creating a conflict with through traffic on Biscayne Boulevard. Drivers and passengers from the remaining traffic will then need to cross • Biscayne Boulevard to reach the stadium. In addition to the increased delay for through traffic on Biscayne Boulevard, the location of this raises safety concerns as a high number of pedestrians compete with heavy traffic volumes on Biscayne Boulevard. Traffic management during simultaneous events in the area will present a challenge as Biscayne Boulevard becomes the main access point to these facilities and is heavily used by commuting traffic during the peak periods. Public Transit Opportunities Efficient public transportation services are needed to provide access to and from the baseball park, as well as to other area attractions. In addition to the obvious benefit of easing traffic congestion, public transit could also provide important links between entertainment venues, restaurants, hotels, shops, remote parking, and employment centers throughout the area. Facilitating easy movement would benefit both the users and the varied business interests in the area. The Marlins Stadium could attract more than 40,000 fans to an event. Other area attractors include Bayside Marketplace, the Omni, the American Airlines Arena, Bicentennial Park, the f future Performing Arts Center, and possibly future Arts and Science museums. The potential number of people that could be drawn to the area will increase the demand for transit services, and effective mass transit services will be a critical part of the overall transportation system. Potential users of transit services include: ■ • 1. Downtown workers that want to go to a game after work. March 8, 2007 SEOPW I C. Civil --CA, 0D Engineering, lnc. �eSCVsg� . PARK STUDY: MARLINS BALL IIIR ..i•y., , DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Rede veiopment Agency so 2. Residents from the suburbs that want to avoid the hassle of driving. a 3. Users that depend on public transportation for their mobility needs. 91 4. Visitors or residents coming from or going to Miami Beach. 5. Bus patrons that could be drawn from throughout the city. so 6. People that park at remote parking locations including the OMNI and other downtown parking locations. IN 7. People that want to enjoy nearby dining or shopping opportunities before or after the game. 8. Other local area residents or workers. In Fortunately there are substantial transit infrastructure and capacity in place to serve the Park West area when needed. Since the highest demand for services is in the evening, much of the County bus and train fleet would otherwise be idle. Available resources could be placed in service to accommodate the increased demand on a scheduled or as -needed basis: EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES • Existing transit services include: MetroRail -A high capacity rail transit service from Dadeland South, through downtown and north to Hialeah. Overtown Station is the closest station, and there is another major downtown intermodal station at Government Center with connections to the MetroMover and bus lines. MetroMover An automated people -mover system that serves the downtown area with an elevated loop and separate branches to the Omni and Brickell Avenue areas. Three stations on the Omni branch are within easy walking distance of the proposed stadium site. MetroBus Bus service throughout Miami -Dade County. Various existing bus routes are on Biscayne Boulevard in front of the stadium site. Additional information and suggestions for improvements for each of the existing transit systems is contained in sections that follow. FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICES 11111 In 1998, the Florida Department of Transportation completed a Final Environmental Impact Statement and received a Record of Decision for the East-West Multimodal Project. This project envisions a heavy rail line in the SR-836 corridor from FIU at the Florida Turnpike to the Port of Miami with intermediate stops at the Miami International Airport, the Orange Bowl, and Government Center. It also placed an underground station just north of the Miami Arena. March 8, 200> SEOPW/ORA Civi/-CADD Engineering, /nc. DISe.USSt"D • PO MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency Although this line could some day serve the stadium area, it will not be in place within a time frame that is relevant to this study. Another component of the East/West Project was a light rail line from Miami Beach, across the . MacArthur Causeway, to downtown Miami. This line could be implemented in a manner that could serve the Park West area very well. Additional details of the future Miami Beach Line are provided below. A comprehensive mobility plan will be needed to integrate all forms of transportation to provide convenient access to the area, minimize delay, facilitate intermodal connections, and help to enhance an enjoyable overall experience for visitors to the area. Since public transportation only works when people choose to use it, a public information strategy to promote usage will be a key to its success. DOWNTOWN TRANSIT CAPACITY MetroRail is the primary transit facility in downtown Miami. The Overtown Station lays just on the edge of the acceptable %z-mile walking radius. On multiple event nights MDTA will need to operate at peak hour (6-minute) headways with the maximum 6-car trains. Each MetroRail car can accommodate approximately 200 passengers with a heavy standing load (crush capacity is 266 persons per car). At 6-minute headways in each direction with 6-car trains MetroRail can carry 12,000 persons per hour in a northbound direction and 12,000 persons per hour in the southbound direction. At the Government Center Station, transfers can be made between the MetroRail and MetroMover lines. The MetroMover (the downtown people mover system) operates a single unit train in each direction of the Omni Loop at 3-minute headways. The crush capacity of the people mover vehicle is 96 passengers. With 20 trains per hour in each direction 1,920 passengers can be shuttled over to the Government Center Station per hour and another 1,920 passengers can get shuttled up to the Omni parking Garage. It is possible to configure the MetroMover with 2 cars per train, which would double the capacity. A more detailed study would be needed to determine if there are enough cars available and if train operations could be adjusted to run a special service. If the Miami Beach Light Rail Transit (LRT) line is constructed from the Overtown Station to the Stadium/Arena area and on to Miami Beach, the light rail line could help move people out of the area by transit as well. Assuming the same headways as the MetroRail facility, there could be a train every six (6) minutes to Overtown and a train every six (6) minutes to Miami Beach. The typical single unit LRT vehicle carries 250 passengers. That would equate to ten trains per hour in each direction for a total capacity of 2,500 passengers per hour in each direction. The LRT could shuttle 2,500 passengers to the Overtown MetroRail station. Existing Metrobus service past the Stadium through downtown has a minimal carrying capacity. Additional bus service could be added to meet demand. A regular bus has a carrying capacity of 50 passengers with a legal standing limit of 25 for a total capacity of 75 people per bus. The following table shows the capacity of bus service based on the currently scheduled evening headways past the stadium. March 8, 2007 SEOPW/CJ , Civil--CAOD Engineering, Inc. Psi"Sserb r MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency r MARLINS STADIUM STUDY wow LEGEND XXX Metrorail Capacity ! Metromover Stations XXX —j> Metromover Capacity = Metrorall Stations 700(-••• * Metro Bus Capacity M Miami Beach LRT XXX ---1 Miami Beach LQT Capacity (Proposed) Transit Capacity March 8, 200f SEOPW/CIA Civil -CAD® Engineering, Inc. -- - ' � ram► 'DeS�VSSC� .. FIE 1 10 F re MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Afiami Community Rede veiopment Agency LOCAL Bus CAPACITY ROUTE 95 X DIRECTIONAD North No Evening Service HOUR HOUR Fla ler Max West No Evening Service Biscayne Max North No Evening Service C East 30 minutes 2 150 S East 10 minutes 6 450 K East 20 minutes 3 225 T East 60 1 75 3 North 60 1 75 . 9 North 30 2 150 10 North 30 2 150 16 North 30 2 150 48 North 60 1 75 48 South 60 1 75 8 West 30 2 150 TOTAL: 23 1,725 There are no buses to remote park -and -ride facilities operating after the evening peak hour. It would be strongly recommended that the 95X be operated to and from Golden Glades park and ride lot. If the demand were present as many as twenty (20) buses before and after and game could provide this direct connection between the Stadium/Arena area and the Golden Glades park and ride lot. This would provide an extra capacity of 1,500 persons. Similarly the Flagler Max could- operate on a similar schedule to the Orange Bowl and offer the same additional capacity to the west. Also, an additional park and ride site in the vicinity of the Turnpike and SR-836 may be warranted. SUMMARY OF TRANSIT CAPACITY The following table summarizes the existing and proposed transit capacity for the Stadium/Arena events. TOTAL CURRENT CAPACITY: 5,565 Available Walk to MetroRail See note 1 Miami Beach LRT to MetroRail 2,500 Miami Beach LRT to Miami Beach 2,500 Express Bus Service 4,500 Total Proposed Transit Capacity 9,500 TOTAL OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED TRANSIT CAPACITY: 19,001 March 8, 200f SEOPW/C1ZA Civil--CADD Engineering, Inc. D15e-v s S 1 MARLISBALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency MetroRail has ample capacity to handle demand for riders that either walk or ride a shuttle bus 1 to Overtown station, approximately %-mile from the stadium. TRANSIT MODE SPLIT There will be a total of approximately 67,000 seats in facilities proposed or existing along Biscayne Boulevard in downtown Miami. Those seats include the following: 1 1. Marlins Stadium 40,000 seats 2. American Airlines Arena 22,000 seats 3. Opera House 2,480 seats 4. Concert Hall 2,200 seats 5. Studio Theater 250 seats Existing transit is capable of transporting more than 5,000 passengers, or 14% of the total stadium capacity per hour. This capacity could be easily expanded with additional bus service to more than 10,000 per hour or about 25% of the stadium capacity. This level of service could accommodate about 15% per hour of all trips in the very unlikely event that all of the venues were filled to capacity. If the Miami Beach line where to be added, the total transit capacity would increase to over 15,000 trips per hour, or about 38% of the stadium capacity, and about 22% of all venues. Even with the Miami Beach line, the transit systems would likely be strained immediately following a game, but should be able to handle the peak demand in less than one (1) hour. Additional measures, particularly using additional buses and possibly 2-car MetroMover trains, 1 should be examined to provide additional service during the period of highest demand. DOWNTOWN PARKING Within a Y2-mile, walking radius of the Performing Arts Center, the American Airlines Arena and the proposed Marlins Ball Park there are 7,800 parking spaces. This includes on -street spaces, garage parking and open lots, both existing and proposed, both privately and publicly owned. According to the figures listed in the previous section referencing transit mode split there are a total of approximately 67,000 seats in the three (3) facilities proposed or existing along Biscayne Boulevard in downtown Miami. Using a range of vehicle occupancy rates between 2.2 and 2.6 persons per vehicle the total parking within Y2-mile of the facilities will only accommodate between 17,100 and 20,200 people arriving by personal vehicles into the downtown Miami area. Given the transit capacity described above and the parking capacity inventoried below there is a substantial shortfall in capacity in this portion of downtown Miami. March 8, 2007 SEOPW/C ,_ Civi!-CADA Engineering, /nc. �i�SG�SIt"� pw El 0 • a i • ry.. MARLIBALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES - City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency ATAILABLE .DOWNTOWN MIAMI LOCATION PARKING PARKING LOSPACES American Airlines Arena North Arena Drive and Biscayne Boulevard 1200 Ba side NE 2" Street to Biscayne Boulevard 1200 Ba side Valet arking 120 Biscayne Boulevard Biscayne Boulevard NE Adjacent to the Arena 75 Biscayne Boulevard S-Street to Nff 5 Street Biscayne Boulevard median SE Is 287 Biscayne Boulevard NE Biscayne Boulevard on -street parking 52 NW 3` Street Biscayne Boulevard to NE 3` Street 8 NW 3` Street NE 3 Street to 2" -Avenue 250 NW 5,n Street 1 s Avenue to 2" Avenue 23 NW 51nStreet 2" Avenue to 3` Avenue 14 NW Vn Street 4 Avenue to 7 Avenue 78 NW 5 fnStreet NE 5 Street to NE 4 Street 350 NW 5 Avenue NE 6 InStreet to 5 Avenue 300 NW 51nAvenue 5 Avenue on -street parking 50 NW 6 Street Is'Ave to 3a Avenue 62 NW 6 InStreet 4 Avenue to 6 Avenue 62 NW 6 InStreet NE 6 Street to Biscayne Boulevard 300 NW V Avenue 5 Street to 7 Street 30 NW 7 th Street NE 2" Avenue to Biscayne Boulevard 7 NW 7 Street 15 Court to 2 no Avenue 32 NW 7 InStreet NE 7 Street on street parking 25 NW 7 Street NE 7 to Miami Avenue 72 NW 7 fnStreet NE 7 nStreet to 2" Avenue 32 NW 7 ' Street NE 7 Street to 4 Avenue 40 NW 8 Street 15 Avenue to 1 S Court 62 NW 8 InStreet NE Biscayne Boulevard .to NE 8 Street 300 NW 8 thStreet NE 8 InStreet to 4 th Avenue 110 NW 81nStreet NW 8 Street on-streetparking_20 NW gin Street 9 Street to 2" Avenue 88 NW 10 Street Biscayne Boulevard to NE 1 "Avenue 17 NW 1 ofnStreet NE 15 Avenue to N. Miami Avenue 40 NW 10 Street 1S Court to 4 Avenue 42 NW 1 01FStreet NE 10 Street to 2" Avenue 17 Old Arena NW11 Street to 2" Avenue 88 NW 1 jfnStreet Biscayne Boulevard to NE 2"u Avenue 14 NW 1 11HStreet 15 Avenue to 2" Avenue 30 NW 11 Street 2" Avenue to 11 Street 200 NW 1 1thStreet NE 11 Street to 3` Avenue 14 NW 12 thStreet Under the overpass at Biscayne Boulevard 120 NW 13 InStreet NE Biscayne Boulevard to NE 13 Street 100 NW 13 InStreet NE 1 jTnStreet to 2" Avenue 350 7 UTAL: b,LS1 March 8, 2009 SEOPW/C Civi/-CADD Engineering, /nc. MARLISBALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of /Miami Community Rede veiopment Agency APPENDICIES March 8, ZOOf SEOP Civil--CA00 Engineering, Inc. D i S st'� i h MARLIN*ALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency COST ESTIMATES FOR THE BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SITE E Preliminary Statements of Probable Construction Costs were prepared for the modifications of the Biscayne Boulevard Relocation, MetroMover Underpass, Utility Relocations, and 91' Street Pump Station Relocation. Costs are summarized below with detailed cost descriptions shown on the following pages. R 1. BISCAYNE BOULEVARD RELOCATION r 2. METROMOVER UNDERPASS 3. UTILITY RELOCATIONS 4. 9T" STREET PUMP STATION RELOCATION R 5. NEW GRAVITY SEWER AND FORCE MAIN (Pump Station Relocated) 6. GRAVITY SEWER MAIN (Pump Station Remains) • i $7,092,000.00 $7,875,000.00 $3,908,025.00 $67,500,000.00 $7,507,500.00 $4,372,500.00 March 8, 200f - Civi/--CADD Engineering, Inc. - '®eiGdSSI�B� �.' MARLINS BALLPARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES i:_ 1 City of Miami Community Redo veiopment Agency BISCAYNE BOULEVARD RELOCATION Preliminary Statement of Probable Construction.Cost ]TEM DESCRIPTION UNIT JJ;IT ESTIRIAThl" PRICE . QUANTITY AMOUNT 1. Mobilization (10%) LS $389,000 --------------------- ----------- 2. ------------------------------------- Maintenance of Traffic ---------------- LS ------------------------------------- ------------------- $389,000 ----------- ----------- 3. -------------------------------- Demolition -------------- LF ----------------- ------------------- $100,000 ---------------------- ---------- - 4. -------------------------------- Racetrack Realignment --------------- Sy ---------------- $20.00 -------------------- 3,000 $60,000 ---------------------- ----------- 5. ------------------------------------ Earthwork --------------- LF ----------------- -------------------- $250,000 --------------- — ----------- 6. ------------ —--------------- Fill Seaport Slip -------------- Cy ----------------- $7.00 70,000 $490,000 ---- ----------- 7. ------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pavement (base, surface) SY $25.00 ------------------------------------- 30,000 $750,000 --------------------- ----------- 8. ------------------------------------ Curb ---------------- LF $15.00 -------------------- 12,000 $180,500 ---------------------- ----------- 9. -------------------------------- Drainage ---------------- LF ----------------- $125.00 6,000 $750,000 ------------------- ----------- 10. ----------_---------- --- --------------- Sidewalk — ----------------------------------------------- SF $3.00 ---------------------- 40,000 $120,500 -------------- -------- -- 11. ------- ----- -------------- ---- Signing & Marking -------------------------------- LS ------------------- 1 $250,000 --------------- - ----------- 12. --9----__------------------- Signalized Intersection --------------- EA ----------------- $100.00 ---------------- 5 $750,000 ------------- ----------- 13. ------------------------ ---- Landscape & Irrigation ------------- LS ----------------- 1 $250,000 SUBTOTAL $4,728,000 Contingency (20%) $945,600 SUBTOTAL $ 5,673,600 Design, Testing, CEI 20%) $ 1,134,720 Administration (5%) $ 283,680 GRAND TOTAL $ 7,092,000 1 March 8, 200f _ Civi/-CADD Engineering, Inc. �e $fin aSr� MARLINSALL PARK STUDY: • DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency METROMOVER UNDERPASS Preliminary Statement of Probable Construction Cost 1. Mobilization (5%) LS $250,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------ 2. Foundation and Superstructure LS $5,000,000 SUBTOTAL $5,250,000 Contingency (20%) $1,050,000 SUBTOTAL $6,300,000 Design, Testing, CEI 20%) $1,260,000 Administration (5%) $315,000 GRAND TOTAL $7,875,000 SEOPW/C , March 8, 200i Civil-CAOD Engineering, Inc. MARLIVBALL PARK STUDY: SAM : DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES - - City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency UTILITY RELOCATIONS Drnliminnr%i Cfnfcmnnf of Drnhnhla (_nncfmrrfinn Cncf i ITEM DESCRIPTIONUNIT PRICE ESTIMATED QUANTITY AMOUNT ____1___-__ Mobilization (10%) - --------------------- -_____LS______ _ ---------------- ------- _____________ $236,850 --------------------- 2 Demolition LS $250,000 3 Electrical Ductbank LF $60_00 6,900 $414,000 4 Electrical Manhole EA 40,000 12 -------------$480,000 5_ Telephone Ductbank LF $60.00 1_500 $90,000 6_____ Telephone Manhole EA 40,000 4 $160,000 ---- =---- 4" Gas Main_-------------------- ------LF------ --------$80 00 -------------1_800 -----------$144,000 ----8 =---- 6,. Gas Main---------------------- ------ LF ------ --------$90 00 ------------- 2_700 -----------$243,000 ----9----- 6., Water Main_---------------- -----LF------ --------$35 00 ------------- 2,700 ------------ $94,500 10. 12" Water Main LF $55.00 1_600 $88,000 11. 16" Water Main____ LF $65 00 1,500 $97,500 12. 24" Water Main LF $75.00 4,100 $307,500 SUBTOTAL $ 2,605,350 Contingency (20%) $521,070 SUBTOTAL $ 3,126,4580 Design, Testing, CEI 20%) $ 625,284 Administration (5%) $ 156,321 GRAND TOTAL $3,908,025 SEOPW/ems March 8, 200f - "� 4 -,C!vi/-CADD Engineering, /nc, DISI,LSSC,� MARLINALL PARK STUDY: 0 DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES :t City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Statement of Probable Construction Cost 1 Demolition of Existing Pump LS Station --------------------------------------------------------- 2. New Pump Station LS --------------------------------------------------------- 3. Site Procurement LS 4 Local Pump Station _ LS 9T" STREET PUMP STATION RELOCATION 1 $2,000,000 -- ----------------- ------------------ 1 ----------------------- $34,000,000 -- ----------------- -------------------- 2 ----------------------- $2,000,000 -- ----------------- ------------------ 3 --- $7,000,000 SUBTOTAL $45,000,000 Contingency (20%) $9,000,000 SUBTOTAL $54,000,000 Design, Testing, CEI 20%) $10,800,000 Administration (5%) $2,700,000 GRAND TOTAL $67,500,000 SEO]?W/CRA March 8, 2007 0 Civil-CADO Engineering, VISWSSED MARLIIBALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Statement of Probable Construction Cost 1. Mobilization (10%) LS 2 Demolition _ LS ----------------------------------- 3. 60" Sanitary Force Main LS ------- -- ------------ ------- ----- --- 4. 70' Gravity. Sewer Main LS NEW GRAVITY SEWER AND FORCE MAIN (Pump Station Relocated) $750,000 $2,700,000 $1,100,000 SUBTOTAL $5,005,000 Contingency (20%) $1,001,000 SUBTOTAL $6,006,000 Design, Testing, CEI 20%) $1,201,000 Administration (5%) $300,300 GRAND TOTAL $7,507,500 SEOPW/CRA D) se ussEb March 8, 200f Civil--CADD Engineering, inc. MARLI&ALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Statement of Probable Constru 1. Mobilization (10%) LS 2 _ Demolition LS ------ 3. ------- --- --------- - 70" Gravity Sewer Main LS ------- 4. ----------- -- ------------ Junction Boxes — LS GRAVITY SEWER MAIN REALIGNMENT (Pump Station Remains) $265,000 $750,000 $1,100,000 $800,000 SUBTOTAL $2,915,000 Contingency (20%) $583,000 SUBTOTAL $3,498,000 Design, Testing, CEI 20%) $699,600 Administration (5%) $174,900 GRAND TOTAL $4,372,500 SEOPW/CRA DlScvgi� March 8, 200f Civii-CA00 Engineering, Inc. it MARLIN91BALL PARK STUDY: F DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of M/ami Community Rede velopment Agency COST ESTIMATES FOR THE NE 9T" STREET SITE r Preliminary Statements of Probable Construction Costs were prepared for the modifications of the NE 91h Street Site. Costs are summarized below with detailed cost descriptions shown on R the following pages. 1. NE 2N" AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION $4,286,700.00 2. NE 97H STREET SITE UTILITY RELOCATION $2,838,000.00 IF GRAND TOTAL $ 7,124,700.00 IF IF F IF E 1a .3 ! u 5 S €n March 8, 200/ Civi/--CA, D Engineering, /nc. MARL-11 BALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES ` City of Miami Community Rede veiopn7ent Agency NE 2ND AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION Preliminary Statement of Prnhahla Cnnctrieetinn r_.,e+ DESCRIPTION PRICE QUANTITY 1. ----------- Mobilization (10 /o) ---------------------------------- LS _ --------------- -- $389,000 2. ----------- Maintenance of Traffic --------------------------------------- LS ---------------- --------------- ---------------- ---- ---------------- -------------------- ------------------- $389,000 3. ----------- Demolition -------------------------- ------------------- LF ------ _ - --------------- ---------------------- $100,000 4. ---------- Earthwork ------------------------------------ ------ LF ____ -------------- ---------------- -- --- -------------------- $250,0 00 5. ---------- Pavement (base, surface) --------------------------------- SY --------------- $25.00 ----------------- -------------------- 30,000 -------------------- -------------------- $750,000 6. ---------------------------------------- Curb —---------------------------------------------------------- LF $15.00 12,000 ----------------------- $180,500 7. Drainage ---------- -------------------- LF ---------- $125.00 ----------------- 6,000 ----------------------- $750,000 8. ----------- Sidewalk -------------- —---- --------------- SF --------------- $3.00 ----------------- -------------------- 40,000 -------------------- ---------------------- $120,500 9. Signing & Marking --- _ -------------------------- LS ---------------- ----------------- 1 -------------------- ----------------------- $250,000 10. Signalized Intersection --------- ----- EA ---------------- $100.00 ---------------- 5 -------------- ---------------------- $750,000 11. Landscape & Irrigation LS — ---------- 1 ------------------ $250,000 SUBTOTAL $2,857,800 Contingency (20%) $571 560 SUBTOTAL $ 3,429,360 Design, Testing, CEI 20%) $ 685,872 Administration (5%) $ 171,468 GRAND TOTAL $ 4,286,700 �. SEOPW/CRA March 8, 200> Civii--CAOD Engineering, /nc. MARLINS BALL PARK STUDY: JIM DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES y City of Miami Community Redo veiopment Agency NE 9T" STREET SITE UTILITY RELOCATION r Drnli►ninnru Ctntcamant of Prnhnhlp Cnnctructinn Cnst A • A pw Is ITEM DESCRIPTIONUNIT PRICE ESTIMATED QUANTITY • 1. Mobilization (10%) LS $172,000 - ----------- 2. --------------------------------- Demolition -------------- LS ---------------- -------------- ---------------- ----- --- -- $250,000 --------- —-------- 3. --------------------------- Electrical Ductbank ---------------- LF $60.00 5,500 --- $330,000 ----------------------- ----------- 4. ----------------------------------- Telephone Ductbank --------------- LF ------------------------------- $60.00 5,500 ----------------- $330,000 ----------------- ----------- 5. -------------------------------------- 4" Gas Main --------------- LF ----------------- $60.00 ------------- 3,000 ------------------- $240,000 ------------------- --- --------------------- 6. --------------------- 6" Water Main —--------------- LF $35.00 3,000 -------------------- $105,500 ----------------------- ----------- 7. ---------- —----------- ------ -------- 12" Water Main —--- ---------- LF ----------------- $55.00 3,000 ----------------- $165,000 ----- ----------- 8. --------------------------------------- 18" Chilled Water Lines ---------------- LF ----------------- $120.00 2,500 $300,500 March 8, 2001 SUBTOTAL $1,892,800 Contingency (20%) $378,400 SUBTOTAL $ 2,270,400 Design, Testing, CEI 20%) $ 454,080 Administration (50/6) $ 113,520 GRAND TOTAL $ 2,838,000 4 SFOpw>m �►se.oss Civi/-CADD Engineering,' /nc, r� • MARLINSALL PARK STUDY: DOWNTOWN MIAMI ALTERNATE SITES City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency , mmFafflpww� BISCAYNE BOULEVARD WEST SCHEDULE S)BOPW/CRA ■ March 8, 200 f Civil-CAUDEngineering, Mc. • ID Name Task �a Finish Qtr 2. 001 Qtr 3, 2001 1 Qtr 4, 2001 1 2� Jul Au Se I Oct I Nov I Dec I Jan Feb :1 �M. 7: 1 Qtr 3. 2002 1 Qtr 4, 2002 of 2003 Qtr 2. 2003 r 2 2OL2 I Oct Mar May Jun I Jul I Aug I I Nov I Dec Feb M Se ...... 1 Qtr 3, 2003 1 Qtr 4, Qtr 1, 21 2.04 �v I Dec I Jan Sep I oc Feb Mar A,, may Jun A prr: 1 RELOCATE BISCAYNE BLVD 575 days Tue 5/1/01 Mon 7/14103 Design 35 wks Tue 5/11/01 Mon 12/31/01 Permitting (SFWMD, DERM, FDOT) 8 wks Tue 12/4/01 Mon 1/28/02 Bidding 6 wks Tue 1/11/02 Mon 2/11102 Construction ks 74 w Tue 2/12/02: Mon 7/14/03 UTILITY RELOCATIONS 284 days Tue 5129/01 Fri 6128102 Design 16 wks Tue 5/29/01 Mon 9/17/01 Permifting(DE'P,"H*RS, DERM, 6 wks Tueg/18/01 Mon'10/29/01 WASD) 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 —Water Mains 12 wks, Tue 10/30/01 Mon 1121102 Sewer Force Mains 12 wks 'Tue 10130101 Mon 1/21/02 72" GfaVltY Sewer 34.8 wks Tue 10/30/01 Fri 6/28102 FPL 20 wks: Tue 10/30/01 Mon 3/18102 - -- — ------- BellSouth 16 wks: Tue 10/30/01 Mon 2/18/02 PUMP STATION RELOCATION 825 days, Mon 4130/01 Fri 6125/04 Design 44 wks Mon 4/30/01 Fri 3/1/02 Permitting (DERM, WASD, DEP) 8 wks Mon 3/4/02. Fri 4/26/02 Construct New Pump Station 105 wks Mon 4/29/02 Fri 4130104 12 13 14 16 17 721, ......... 18 19 Demolish Old Pump Station 8 wks Mon 513/04: FTW�2104 METRO MOVER RjC&PjjT-fjLj6TION 330 days Tue 5115101 Mon 8119/02 Design 16 wks Tue 5/29101 Mon 9/17/01 21 22 23 24 Permitting (FDOT, FTA) 8 wks Tue g/18/01: Mon 11112101 Construct New Substructure 30wks Tue ll/13101: Mon6/10/02 Demolish old substructure 8 wks Tue 6/11/02 Mon 8/5/02 FILL SLIP No. 3 330 days Tue 5/15/01 Mon 8/19/02 Design 8 wks Tue 5/15101 Mon 7/9/01 Permitting (DERM,SFWMD, 52 wks. Tue 7/10/01 Mon 7/8102 DEP,USACE, US Coast Guard) Construction 6 wks Tue 7/9/02 Mon 8/19/02 25 6 27 28 29 30 31 S3B0pw/CRA Marlins Ballpark Biscayne Blvd West Date: Mon 3/12101 Task Split ............. Progress Milestone Summary Rolled Up Split ............. Rolled Up Task Rolled Up Milestone Q Rolled Up Progress I Project Summary External Tasks 9i WAS M6 Page 1 • .mod. "�+•�_ �*, NE 2"d Avenue ciirca 1907 Ridolph Collection Transit Greenway ,Appfications tO the iMarlins BaH Park and CRA Related UnIka ges t® the Adjacent Communities The economic impact of the Marlins Ball Park to the City of Miami and the Community Redevelopment Agency is directly related to the pedestrian linkages and parking strategies that are employed to minimize traffic congestion and improve the walking, shopping and business environment of the surrounding communities on game days. If parking is dispersed outwardly one to two miles from the event destination and pedestrian oriented street, utility, hardscape and landscape improvements are undertaken in conjunction with the construction of small retail, office and residential units, large scale pedestrian movements can be anticipated in the resulting wide park -like pedestrian corridors. Transit greenway strategies use available transportation trust funds to pay for such improvements and represent an additional funding source to complement the existing financial strategies to locate the Marlins Ball Park in the City of Miami. Transit greenway systems are horizontally arrayed intermodal facilities that look like community redevelopment but function as large scale transit access improvements and consist of the following elements: 1) Wide, pedestrian -oriented corridors that allow for significant movement • and massing of pedestrians, bicyclists and greenway transit vehicles-, SEOPW/CRA b�Scuste� 3/12/2001 Page 1 of 14 • 0 • 2) Design features that provide a desirable (useful, interesting and partially protected) and comfortable walking and bicycling experience that includes such features as a continuous building fagade, trees and foliage materials, street furniture and fixtures, underground utilities and protection from adverse weather conditions; 3) A mix of uses to accommodate the daily and weekly activities of a city's inhabitants, including commercial and residential facilities, public squares and gathering places; 4) Pedestrian -friendly (small, narrow, low floor and slow moving) greenway transit vehicles; 5) Dispersed, mixed -use structured parking facilities and strategically located, intermittent parallel parking opportunities; f) Intermodal and freight transfer facilities to enhance the movement of people and goods to commercial and residential centers; and 7) A plan of operation and revenue generation for a fiscally self-sufficient transit system. 1. Typical Transit Greenway Cross Sections and Pedestrian Orientation Design Strategies 3/12/2001 Thomas lucido & Associates .I 3 Slure U1�Y9d-UsW WiJ Wc,3de R , Mixed -Use Corridor With Continuous Building Face -IL W, pfscvssF Page 2of14 0 0 0 1�1 Archer/Abbate/U rba n(onn 'M I�; ---rat—r- ---•--- - I--.'l+- . _ :I Mixed -Use Corridor Design Elements Nlarrtfi%v Ciatige Rat I I rtmic Vchides I J Lz 11 t ing, [j)Ij4L;wIi Ile 7_L1l7r11IUrL- V�11 V-4 3/12/2001 Typical Construction Costs Edward D. Stone, Jr. & Associates Corridor Mixed -Use and Parking Components SEOpW/CRA Page 3 of 14 • • Pedestrian Oriented Roundabout Fort Pierce, Florida L PR Pubic Square with Water Feature, Food, Music, Entertainment and Places to Sit City Place, West Palm Beach, Florida 3/12/2001 T"' SEOPW / CRA D�SwiS�Q Page 4 of 14 • Wide Pedestrian Corridor at Mid -Block with Bulbout and Cafe Seating Hollywood, Florida Arcade Corridor to Mitigate Adverse Weather Conditions • Boca Raton, Florida SEOPW/CRA 3/12/2001 Page 5 of 14 ALU r r � r f '7NR IFIw b 4 7 r • • Rail Transit Vehicle within PedesMan Corridor Strausboug, France Narrow Gauge Rail installations in Park Settings Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Orlando, Florida Historic Trolley from Athens, Greece Charlotte, North Carolina 3/12/2001 Narrow Gauge Rail Installation Orlando, Florida rl Page 7 of 14 all II ' �1 r I I I• �I f 1ININ NJ SIR In i�l{,d • �u nsit Greenway Conidors Linking the MI Park with the Miami Community An Eastern Oriented Ball Park Location Between Miami Avenue and NE 2" d Avenue (between NE 9th Street and 1-395) adjacent to the 91h Street Pedestrian Corridor with Connections to Metro Rail and People Mover Stations. A slight rotation to the Southeast will bring the Freedom Tower into full view and increase parking on the Northwest quadrant of the Ball Park site. • 3/12/2001 Route A SEOPW/CRA i �9DP �SCuSsl�p Page 8 of 14 0 Im tit, -M Mo. —oll0000 1111111 SLOSS, go Route B SCiru-til NINE Mile ....... ..... • SEOPW/CRA Route C Q a4 0 r, F.--T - Discoss ero 3/12/2001 Page 9 OT 1T4 0 LI M. Selected Renderings and Photographic Survey of the Area • SEOPw/cRA rT = bl's"Ssm 3/12/2001 Page 10 of 14 • • 0 Looking West from NE 2"d Street along 9't'M Street Pedestrian Corridor i FT rf '111»IIIJ i�� E,,r�P. fir. `�� Ir � �f �<. A S�• `g 13, tl _ 1 i l F, -1 .•tom - Archer/Abbate 3/12/2001 Page 11 of 14 • • Looking North from 13th Street along NW 3rd Avenue - - i-��. Archer/Abbate SEOPW/CRA. I - ' I D, s wssc� 3/12/2001 Page 13 of 14 t 6 E MARLINS BALL PARK - 4 CiVi1mCADD Engineering, Inc. �1 ' Ives Dairy Road, Suite 107 N111ami, Florida 33179 Tel: 1305) 690-9797 • Fax: (305) 690-9796 In Association With: H. J. Associates, Inc. Bermello, Ajamil & Partners, Inc. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc. ATC Group Services, Inc. ROPW/CRA D, s c usSfa